Rest assured there's plenty of people who oppose automobile protectionism for the same reason they oppose Obamacare.

Corporatism sees no political party lines.

(And I hate to break it to you, but it's Senate Democrats who voted down the budget for two weeks.)

Aww, and here I was thinking that we had to have a perfect society. But no, I guess we have to throw in the towel and give up on even trying.

Not to start an argument, but that's just unfair. You can hardly say the Tea Party types have tried to "retard legislation" (as if that's a bad thing). It's Harry Reid who for two weeks flat out refused to engage in any sort of discussion.

And in general, if a bill is unconstitutional, you can't negotiate away that fact. It's like "You wanna kill two people, I believe in not killing, so let's settle for killing just one person." It's absurd, and it invites the other party to just double their initial offering.

Under the "cartel" of Standard Oil, the price of oil fell by more than half. You were saying?

In any event, monopolies don't last long by themselves, and especially not with things like patents, protectionism, barriers to entry, and other corporate welfare that they're opposed to.

There is no one "Tea Party platform". You'll find that Tea Party supporters prefer their organization to be like the form of government they campaign for: Decentralized.

Um, "general welfare" isn't a power of congress. You should go read the Tenth Amendment.

Economics makes no such claim that people act under "rational self interest" or that people are well informed. It's not even covered in an econ class one way or the other, you'll just never hear it. The laws of economics apply regardless.

What is covered is that they're making the best decision for themselves (decisions are subjective, so that goes by definition), and that there's no coercion. The side effects of coercion (including taxes) is a whole field of study.

Grandparent probably refers to Open Source Software, which is a formally defined term. It's not enough that you can merely read the source, you have to be able to redistribute it and any changes, too.

It's because she refused to stop handling food properly. Those are the same rules that are asked of EVERYONE.

If you want to make a point, stop posting as AC, flaming me, then proceeding to mod yourself up ("Flamebait" is -1, not +1, dumbass).

Says who?

You don't "gain" rights, rights pre-exist our humanity.

If you're harming someone else, that's infringing on their rights.

This isn't about vaccinations being good or bad. What they think the vaccination will do is irrelevant.

This is about your right to decide what goes into your own body, to keep the government away from it.

What's being developed is an encryption API. The W3C does a whole lot more than just deal with "browser display", they define databases, query languages, multimedia formats, encryption containers, and scripting APIs. EME happens to fall into the latter two categories. And no where does it actually discuss DRM, or require that a Web browser lock down content from developers or users.

The exact opposite is the case. If the W3C didn't make a home for implementers who want to agree on a standard, the implementers would find somewhere else.

And what's the issue, anyways? They're not publishing DRM, and they can't tell Web browsers to protect content. Read the EME spec that's so controversial, there's no reason why you couldn't write your own EME implementation.

Says who?

The WORST thing you can do to someone is silence dissent.

Also, the W3C is not publishing DRM. They are allowing a Working Group to consider a specification for encrypted media - it does not involve "content protection" in any way, shape, or form. It's no different than Encrypted XML for encrypting credit card numbers.