TomAiello

Why is that the biggest one? Simply collecting that data is a massive abuse of our rights. There's also a huge potential for mis-use (what if someone's estranged spouse is part of the data sifting organization, for example?). I don't believe that the potential increase in "safety" us worth the abridgment of rights necessary to create it. I'll take my society more free and less "safe," thanks. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Oh, man. Why? You could have just written in Ron Paul. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

I vote Libertarian any time that; (a) my vote won't matter because the state I live in leans so heavily one way (California) or the other (Idaho), or; (b) the GOP candidate is from the "moral majority" segment of that party. I do vote for a fair number of Republicans. I've also (substantially less often) voted for some Democrats. But most of the time I end up voting for a Libertarian who has no chance of winning. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's not quite right. Even the most extreme libertarians are not anarchists. The dividing line between libertarianism and anarchism is the willingness to allow government to exercise force (anarchists say "no, not at all," libertarians say "only reactively."). That's a very fundamental, and fairly large, difference. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

There is an important difference between a Libertarian (i.e. member of the US Libertarian party) and a libertarian. Bob Barr is a complete tool. I lost a lot of faith in the LP when they nominated him. I am fairly interested in seeing what happens with them next time around, as there is now (mostly because of Barr) a fairly vocal "reform the LP" movement within the LP itself. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Hilariously, I've just discovered something I have in common with Kallend. I eat oatmeal every day for breakfast. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

The more time you have, and the more willingness to grow food and prepare it, the more you can cut those costs down. Generally, though, it's only old boring people who do that sort of thing. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

And that makes it all ok? That's like saying it's ok to invade Mexico, because our army is so busy in Iraq and Afghanistan that it won't do much damage in Mexico anyway. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yeah. They confused her with the other person who had applied to enroll their kid at that school, and whom it would have been totally reasonable to tail for three weeks. Sure. That's it. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Well, ok then, since they're incompetent, having them wantonly violate our rights is all okey-dokey, right? -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

So, if the smallest details of your personal life are recorded by the government, you're ok with that, because there's so much data that no one will actually give a shit? -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Holy Shit! Petco Park is the new government? I hadn't heard. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Why do we want people to be more involved in government? -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

You don't understand the difference between Libertarians and Anarchists, do you?

I'm pretty sure you were the one who brought up the idea of driving a car without paying for it. Regardless, what makes you equate people who are poor with people who get services for free? In this example, we're talking about people with household incomes of 50k/yr not paying federal income tax. What's your definition of "poor," anyway? -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Heck, since I've been both very poor and a criminal at different times in my life, I'm not sure how to take that. Where did I equate poor people and criminals? I'm not really seeing that in what I wrote. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Why? -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Good point. Tax and inheritance ramifications, maybe? There are also health insurance issues, under the (screwed up) employment-based system we currently use. In terms of inheritance, I think it's easy enough to just write a will, regardless of marital status. In terms of taxation, it would be easy enough to just eliminate joint returns (or, alternately, allow them for any two--or more, if you like--people who choose to file together). Of course, simply eliminating the income tax would be my preferred solution. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Utter nonsense. Really? Ever seen someone drive a rental car? ... Maybe you get them for free or steal them, but I have to pay for car rentals. In that case; Have you ever seen someone drive a stolen car? -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Mother nature has a lot of immoral things happen out there in the wild. But of course, people debate what of that is 'immoral'. The only thing I can see as truly immoral is forcing another adult to do something against their will. If they're doing it voluntarily, how can that be immoral? -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

As in, "unaffiliated with any party," or as in "member of the American Independent Party?" I'd actually be curious to hear what your score on the test is, now that you've categorized yourself for us. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm sure they wouldn't actually. But then, the courts (and the laws) condone all sorts of things I thing are totally immoral (income taxes, for example), and at the same time condemn all sorts of things I think are totally fine (recreational drug use, for example). So what's your point? We disregard the law? Man-made laws sure, but mother natures? What was it that Gandhi said about unjust laws? I don't believe that mother nature has laws we can break. Physical laws aside, what we perceive as "natural" law is pretty much just our perception. I'm pretty sure that nature will not be outraged if I go out and have sex with a horse or a monkey tonight. Nature certainly isn't going to be very concerned if I have sex with a man. Now my wife, she may have something to say about those things. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm sure they wouldn't actually. But then, the courts (and the laws) condone all sorts of things I thing are totally immoral (income taxes, for example), and at the same time condemn all sorts of things I think are totally fine (recreational drug use, for example). -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yup. And, as in this case, creating all kinds of unnecessary complications as a result. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's pretty ugly test. Just look on "Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more" - c'mon, gimme a break. I wonder why there is no "Everyone be happy and healthy" statement. Actually, I was very surprised when I started giving it to a bunch of people and learned that it seemed fairly accurate. I had originally thought it was slanted to give a bunch of "false libertarian" results--meaning that it encouraged people to answer in a libertarian way. In practice, it didn't work out that way. Lots of people were landing in other places, where you'd expect them to based on their self-identification and policy positions. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com