Podcast – Gen Y Libertarian Views on Culture from Matt Espenshade, Cinematographer

August 31, 2008

46 minutes with Matt, and hope is restored that maybe some young smart folks will carry the flag of freedom…

Listen to the podcast (right click to download)

A vote for Obama is a vote against freedom

August 28, 2008

posted on ajc.com in response to comments on Barr’s appearance on the Colbert Report.

 

No one can vote for Obama and call themselves a libertarian without ridicule.  And the Republicans have lost all credibility on protection of domestic freedom.

Obama wants bigger government in the form of more taxes, regulations, bans, and legal liability for private business.

All of that reduces choice directly by definition, and indirectly by slowing or reversing economic growth.

All the world’s economies are unnecessarily hampered by lack of freedom, with the exception of a few reformed states like Estonia and Ireland, whose growth and innovative capability is increasing at an excellent rate.

Bob Barr is the only credible candidate who could be counted on to promote policies which increase freedom and prosperity.

Mandated Livestock Exercise? What’s Next, Unlimited Death Row Appeals to the Governator?

August 27, 2008

My take on Prop 2, posted on orangejuiceblog about animal exercise reg.

 

I’m for animal exercise for a totally utilitarian reason, but I’m not for prop 2 if it requires animal exercise.

A better muscled, leaner animal will have a higher quality meat than a sedentary one, and whenever I could afford exercised livestock meat products, I would buy them.

So it’s a win-win, if you can say that the animal has a higher quality life through exercise before it is slaughtered.

But I don’t support mandating exercise, because if a livestock company wants to try for a price/quality point that is lower quality-lower price, they should be able to go for it.  Mandating exercise will drive the price up for all animals that are affected by the regulation.

The sabre-cats never let our ancestors run around for a while before catching us for the evening feast, so now that we’re on top of the food chain, we (individually) should get to make the choice of what food we hunt and gather and how we prepare it.

Luddhunter Refutes Loser-licking, State-sucking Broadband Monopoly Argument

August 27, 2008

This is a reprint of my comment 105 on NYTimes computing future article refuting Josh Hill’s comment 95.

 

Josh Hill,

I disagree with your monopoly argument.

1. A few years ago, cable modems and DSL service were the only decent speed connections, and they were competitive on price.  Why aren’t cable and DSL still competitive?  Last time I checked, they were.

2. In all cities with cell service, decent-speed web access is available thru wireless cards that receive a cell signal. I have this service, and am happy with it because I can receive pretty much anywhere.

3. Direct-TV offers web access at good speeds.

4. Even power companies are offering data services thru the electical outlets in some cities.

Therefore, metered service is a competitive decision that has nothing to do with Net Neutrality as long as the metering is the same for all types of data transfer.  Any proposal to fix the price of unlimited web service is a dipshit egalitarian idea that has been shown, every time it is tried, to create shortages (in this case, network slowdowns). Egalitarians who try to equalize outcomes like net access are whiny altruists, loser-lickers who would rather punish the successful than reward them…they don’t recognize that the rising tide created by the successful having the best tools lifts all boats, and ultimately makes all technologies more accessible to the “downtrodden”.  Conversely, loser-licker regulations like NN price fixing drag everybody down into the pigdung…”if not all can win, then I’ll make sure nobody wins!” May the altruists’ genitals rot in the pigdung they live in, so as not to breed more loser-lickers.

 And Buildout requirements are totally socialistic in the context of true competition, which I believe we have.  I suspect anyone who is arguing there is a web access monopoly in any mid-size city or larger is either deluded, or a propagandistic state-sucker with a sticky nude centerfold of Karl Marx under his or her pillow.  May the state-suckers’ nuts be punched off by the Invisible Hand of capitalism, and their bloodlines die as their retarded collectivist whining is shunned by potential mates, who innately want to breed with someone who can stand on his/her own legs on the field of competition.

For more tuff love of my anti-competitive technophobic friends, the Ludds, see my blog at luddhunter.wordpress.com, and my podcasts on joeypanto.com.

What’s scarier – supersmart computers or the super-think-they’re-smart Ludds who want to stifle computing advances?

August 26, 2008

Here’s a post I made against Tim Niles’ comment about the downside of technology, in a NY Times article on the future of computing.

 

Tim Niles,
Whenever I read “with ability comes responsibility”,  I have learned not to accept it at face value.  The reason is that the people who repeat it tend to not trust that people will exercise this responsibility, and that existing laws do not protect lesser-able citizens from overly-abled technologists, and these people support some kind of legislation that limits the technologist from using the new technology freely EVEN THOUGH he has not violated anyone’s health or property rights.

We see this is two areas today regarding computing:

1) Buildout.  This is government witholding broadband construction on the principle that, “if everyone can’t have it, no one should have it.”  This of course, is egalitarian loser-licking, luddislators punishing the successful to make their low-revenue area constituents feel better about being low-revenue area residents.  Technology is sacrificed for political appeasement of economic failure in less productive communities (in aggregate).

2) Net Neutrality (NN).  The basic libertarian principle of NN is good (I should get to download whatever I want without gatekeeping), but the network management freedom is being abridged arbitrarily by legislation that threatens to prevent providers from charging more money for excessive download.  No real libertarian would oppose managing network traffic by price or aggregate traffic limitation, just as power companies do.  There’s a good article about these net price controls (in NN drag) on techliberationfront.com.  (explicit link is http://techliberation.com/2008/07/30/network-neutrality-is-not-about-price/).

Bottom line: In the name of “fairness”, Ludds stop technology from being offered and they try and fix the price, both of which hurt growth and, ultimately human survival. 

I say to the potential mates of Ludds:  do not mate with them or at least use birth control.  Their ideas are detrimental to long term survival of our species, and must not be passed down to Ludd offspring.  Ludds are parasites macro-economically, and they probably will be with you, too…does he/she borrow money unashamedly?  It could be a sign.  Find a Nerd.  We will make the species prosperous.  And we’re sexy, in an independence lusting, tech-perv, competitoid maniac sort of way.

Good doggie, Michael Dell, you may make it into the oligarchy if you keep up the obedience

August 26, 2008

Here’s my response to a post on The EcoInnovator about Dell’s green genuflection to the Green Altar by achieve “carbon neutrality”:

 

What a waste of time.  Parker, you must have flunked anything that addes value other than pure PR for consumption by the green shirt extorters in your local legislature and acitivist NGO’s. 

Ah, but someone has to wave the green flag for Dell, because to flap your buttcheeks at the eco-freaks and tell them they’re full of shit is to let your competitors get in tight with the legislators and their NGO Rasputins and gain a compliance advantage.  Carbon Neutrality is just one Ludd constraint which regulators threaten to make law, or de-facto law.  So Dell rolls over and plays fetch for them and hand them the very important example of arbitrary power over industry that they intend to wield like the threat of a Gestapo raid.

The Great Green Shakedown is part of a concerted strategy by the green NGO’s and Democratic (and sometimes Republican) legislators to form new and lasting quid pro quo relationships with big companies that involve negotiating compliance to ever-more complex regulations on so-called harmful emissions.  These relationships and regulatory green briar patches are growing into monopolistic industrial fortresses which small or medium-sized businesses will find ever more difficult to compete with.

If major regulatory legislation goes through, such as a massive carbon-trading scheme, not only will economic growth slow and perhaps reverse, the end result will be industrial consolidation to a few large, government entwined/controlled behemoths which will set prices and kick back to legislators and NGO executives in the form of recognition at high profile propaganda events and fetes of all types.  The elite will consolidate power in Politburo-Industrial Mafia style, and competition as we know it today will disappear.

The only Eco-innovation in this scheme is a massive oligarchy in green drag.

These comments are posted on luddhunter.wordpress.com.  If they are spiked on this blog, the libertarian community who watches for green propaganda excretions will put this blog on their list.  If they are posted, we appreciate your airing our opinions.

Dr. Chicken Little John Holdren Fried for Alarmist Clucking

August 21, 2008

Check out the Luddhunter’s poultry pummeling of Holdren’s sanctimonious “Stages of Climate Denial”.  My comment is #231.  There are many good refutations above mine, and many fervent defenses by the Doomwagon Faithful.  Excellent example of the dogmatic nature of AGW advocacy.

Chairman Mao makes an appearance in the NBC Olympic Opening Ceremony Montage

August 8, 2008

Replay your TiVo, the worst genocide perpetrator in Asian history gets many flashes (5 by my count) in the intro montage.  I think I speak for many when I say that Mao represents the opposite of meritorious competition.  He was a piece of shit dictator that needs condemnation, not a promo by NBC. Fuck you Mao and fuck NBC for showing your image.

Luna’s questions addressed on scienceblogs…and brilliantly, I might add

July 25, 2008

Latest joust

Goebbels comment retracted – scienceblogs moderator had good explanation, comments were eventually posted

July 25, 2008

My bad, should’ve considered the moderator may not have been working 24-7.

The thread in question