Where are the libertarians on this?

[RGacky3]

They MUST be outraged by this (http://www.examiner.com/blogosphere-buzz-in-national/u-s-government-seizes-music-sharing-and-search-sites-massive-crackdown), I can't wait for Rand Paul to hear about this he will blow his lid.

Oh wait, let me guess, it does'nt help big buisiness so they are silent.

Hypocrites.

2R4XU2FNTSc

[MMIKEYJ]

I think all the libertarians are against this action.

[RGacky3]

I wanna see them yelling on TV, like they do against social security.

[Havet]

I wanna see them yelling on TV, like they do against social security.

So I presume that you are for corporations forcing us to buy music we could otherwise share between us for free?

[MMIKEYJ]

I wanna see them yelling on TV, like they do against social security.
theres so many different issues people could be screaming against all day... youd wind up having the effect diluted.


all the libertarians I know (primarily Ron Paul people) know what the main problem and focus their energy on that - the federal reserve.

If we can get rid of that we stop everything bad IMO

[IcarusAngel]

"Where are the libertarians?"

Right here, fightin' the good fight:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ClimateOfFox.jpg

[RGacky3]

So I presume that you are for corporations forcing us to buy music we could otherwise share between us for free?

What? No, I'm saying is that the libertarians should be screaming against the government seizing domain names.


all the libertarians I know (primarily Ron Paul people) know what the main problem and focus their energy on that - the federal reserve.

If we can get rid of that we stop everything bad IMO

Libertarians always focus on ANY sort of "entitlement" program, anything that benefits the poor, you hear them yelling about it on TV all the time, yet when something happens that helps corporations ... not a peep.

[Havet]

What? No, I'm saying is that the libertarians should be screaming against the government seizing domain names.

Most libertarians are anti-IP (with a few notable exceptions), so they would be screaming against this from an user level, not a corporation one. You know, the whole self-ownership and non-aggression part.

BTW, you should have named your thread: "Where are right-libertarians on this", otherwise you are just legitimizing their use of the word "libertarian", which initially held a much more leftist meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History)

[MMIKEYJ]

What? No, I'm saying is that the libertarians should be screaming against the government seizing domain names.



Libertarians always focus on ANY sort of "entitlement" program, anything that benefits the poor, you hear them yelling about it on TV all the time, yet when something happens that helps corporations ... not a peep.

I dont know what tea party people or libertarians you speak of... If youre talking about the brain dead sara palin tea party types - they are not libertarians.

Libertarians want liberty.... they want govt out of personal and business life. thats pretty simple..

a govt seizing private individual or company domain names will be abhored by libertarians...

[Struggle]

I assume that in theory Libertarians will be against the motion of the US seizing websites. But from a strategic point of view, I do not believe Libertarians will start criticising a society which they believe to be helping the cause of Libertarianism, against the threat of what many Libertarians see as China being much worse than the United States, in terms of helping the cause of Libertarianism.

That is not to say that what libertarians are doing is not hypocrisy. On the contrary, it is hypocrisy. However, if one desires to advance the cause of what they deem is correct, the most effective method to advance that said cause is by outmanoeuvring ones opponents through the use of strategy.

No doubt there will be some Libertarians that come out to attack such an action. But there are also Communists who carry Stalin banners whilst wanting to advance the Socialist cause, even though the majority of people in advanced Capitalist countries declare Stalin a mass-murdering dictator. My point being; it is not a strategic or intelligent method to bring about the advancement of ones said cause.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you must sacrifice the truth to advance your cause, you sacrifice your cause right along with it. :thumbup1:

[Struggle]

If you must sacrifice the truth to advance your cause, you sacrifice your cause right along with it. :thumbup1:

I do not believe it is as simple as that.
Whatever decision one makes, they risk the potential of sacrificing ones cause, as to every advantage there exists a disadvantage. The point however, is to look at the advantages and disadvantages together and balance the two to realise which moreover acts in ones favour.

Let us look at the context of guerrilla warfare for example.
A small group of combatants can move through rural areas extremely quickly with a small chance of being spotted, which is to the groups advantage. However, there also exists a disadvantage. The disadvantage being; the fact the group is small means that they can be wiped out in a matter of minutes.
Therefore, although the fact the group remains small and can quickly mobilise itself to other areas, it also means that because the group is small it can be destroyed quickly and often more easily. In saying that, there is both an advantage and a disadvantage.

[#FF0000]

I dont know what tea party people or libertarians you speak of... If youre talking about the brain dead sara palin tea party types - they are not libertarians.

Libertarians want liberty.... they want govt out of personal and business life. thats pretty simple..

a govt seizing private individual or company domain names will be abhored by libertarians...

Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but I think that Gacky's making a fair critique here. When libertarians get very vocally up in arms over something, it usually has something to do with government programs that set out to try to help people. But whenever it comes to something like this, or something like when the Supreme Court ruled against a ban on corporations giving basically unlimited amounts of money towards political candidates, you don't hear much other than a sort of off-hand "oh yeah I disagree with that too".

And this isn't what I'm observing from Tea Partiers. This is what I notice from libertarians I know who go express their hatred for the Tea Party all the time.

[Revolution starts with U]

You may disagree struggle, but this is political reality; people's lives and livelihood. If you're willing to sacrifice the truth for political power you have already lost, because it's no longer reality.
And then it leads to Andrew Jackson, Hitler, and all our favority serial killers.

[Struggle]

You may disagree struggle, but this is political reality; people's lives and livelihood. If you're willing to sacrifice the truth for political power you have already lost, because it's no longer reality.
And then it leads to Andrew Jackson, Hitler, and all our favority serial killers.

I do disagree.
That is your mathmatics, but not mine.

If that is the case, start telling the people the truth on the streets about how British or US Soldiers are not heroes and are contributing to deaths of millions of innocent people through being agents of the Capitalist system. My point being; You won’t get very far, and you will not help the cause for the advancement of Socialism as a result of how your actions will discourage people suffering from false consciousness.

There are specific methods one should use to advance the cause of Socialism. To simply state ‘the truth’ is not going to generate mass support.
Education is a slow process. If you proceed by telling people what they do not want to hear, it is likely they will hold you in disregard.

When Marxists attend anti-cuts protests in an attempt to radicalise workers. They do not start by saying ‘I am here to make you revolutionary’. One proceeds in a tactical manner in order to more effectively plant 'seeds' gain their support.

[Revolution starts with U]

Giving the truth out in increments is still truth.

[Nolan]

Oh libertarians are criticizing it like mad, and a quick google search will show.

Problem is, any major voice that will have some impact in the libertarian movement is controlled by other interests. And those don't prioritize things like this. Instead, they're interested in more important things, like dismantling programs that make the lives of the poor a bit easier and destroying the last vestiges of organized labor in this country. This is all reflected in our current political discourse.

[Revolution starts with U]

On a related note; I find it funny that libertarians generally can see the arbitrary and destructive nature of private property over ideas, yet can't extend that to private property in general... :thumbup1:

[#FF0000]

Giving the truth out in increments is still truth.

And lying by omission is still lying.

[#FF0000]

Oh libertarians are criticizing it like mad, and a quick google search will show.

Problem is, any major voice that will have some impact in the libertarian movement is controlled by other interests. And those don't prioritize things like this. Instead, they're interested in more important things, like dismantling programs that make the lives of the poor a bit easier and destroying the last vestiges of organized labor in this country. This is all reflected in our current political discourse.

Yeah I don't doubt for a second that there are a lot of libertarians really, really up in arms over this.

But those are libertarians who are focused on this sort of thing and actually know who people like the EFF are. For them, libertarianism still means paying less taxes, but mostly means smoking pot, and being able to download an ungodly amount of anime without being hit with a cease and desist letter or lawsuit.

Not that all of these are terrible things.

[Pierre.Laporte]

As a former member of the libertarian right, I can say that a lot of them probably are fuming. Granted, it's the individualists and more dedicated libertarians, not the Tea Partiers or the Glenn Beck fans, who are in the minority of those who call themselves "libertarians" now-a-days.