FWIW, since Libertarians tend to want to return to sound money and abolish the Fed and the legalized counterfeiting that is the fractional-reserve banking system, claiming that they want to deregulate banks isn't exactly accurate.

It's probably closer to the truth to say that they want to do away with the legislation that allowed the current fiscal crisis to occur. I think the current economic situation reflects the "negative externalities" and "systemic risks to economies" that a Libertarian approach would have completely prevented.

I think the Libertarian position is more closely aligned with the average American's ideals than any other party. Just because you disagree with some of the most extreme ideas, doesn't mean they don't deserve your vote. I would guess you disagree with the most extreme ideas of the Republicans and Democrats, too.

The Libertarian party is marginalized because most of America won't get off the couch and do their own research. They rely on the TV to tell them what to think, and the media doesn't want things to change.

Ever since the end of the cold war, the news has had to work very hard to maintain a fearful society that would need them. In times of war or scandal, the populace is glued to the television. A Libertarian government is a scandal-free (scandal-reduced, anyway), war-free government. They have no interest in that.

Those skeptical of the media blackout on freedom loving candidates should frankly do some research. The most undeniably obvious one in recent memory was in CNNs reporting of the PA republican primary, where they reported voting percentages for Huckabee, who had dropped out of the race several days earlier, but not Ron Paul, who was still in the race and had way more votes than Huckabee.

Until people get angry enough to look for alternatives, we are stuck with whatever the media is willing to feed us.

Well, I'm glad you agree with me, and you're probably right that the particular quote isn't tremendously meaningful for all kinds of reasons. Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say. The point is that an armed populace deters crime, and the effects of the crime that does happen is greatly reduced.

Google "mandatory gun ownership" for some very interesting information on what happens when towns enact mandatory gun ownership laws. The short answer is that crime rates plummet.

As a reminder it was box cutters and the threat of bombs. ;-)

Tomato can do it. It will give you several nice charts and graphs, including a list of GB/day and realtime bandwidth usage. I've been using it for about a month. I'm hooked.

Even if the answer to that question is yes, that would indicate no correlation between ease of obtaining guns and the murder rate, not the positive correlation some would like to believe, or the negative correlation that is more likely true.

As far as permits go, I found this page to have some interesting facts on the topic.

There will always be ways for bad people to do bad things. I seem to remember back in 2001 a handful of folks caused a lot of trouble using only boxcutters. You can't keep bad people from being bad, but you can make it so the good people can control the damage.

"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 U.S. murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" - Andrew Ford

Conversely, if we want to grant that a fetus at any particular point in development does have rights as a person, (which I do personally) then the line must necessarily occur at conception.

nzbmatrix.com

I do. I appreciate a play-by-play by a /.er. Beats the filtered stuff you get on TV. It's nice to have a nerdy perspective. I'd throw him some +1 informatives if I had them.

I have great kids. Amazing kids. Even so, as a parent, I know that (sometimes) my kids' behavior changes when they hear me coming up the stairs. They also know that I can monitor their internet use at any time. I rarely do.

Occasional use of VNC is great for two things:
1. Making sure when they say they're doing their homework, they are.
2. Getting insight into my kids.

I want to know what my kids are thinking about and how they are feeling. Even the most loved, appreciated, and well-adjusted kid won't always be forthcoming with questions and concerns that are outside what they perceive to be normal.

There have been a few occasions where the insight I've gained from monitoring my kids' use (VNC) has really helped me to help them.

Actually, the only times I use VNC are when I suspect my son isn't doing his homework, or when something is just not right with one of my kids--when they are really hurting, or struggling with something, and just don't want to talk about it.

The statistic I would like to see is "Profit $" per "song the consumer actually wants." I think you could make a pretty good case that while their profits may be down on a songs-we-used-to-be-able-to-force-you-to-take basis, their profits are way up on a song-I-actually-want basis.

Now that they can't force you to buy a bunch of songs you don't want to get the songs you do, consumers can now afford to buy more music that they do want. Today, your $10 buys you 10 songs you want, not 2 you want and 8 you don't.

It could have been great for both the industry and consumers, except that instead of embracing the future, the industry responded with DRM, lawsuits, and calling their consumers thieves. If their profitability took a hit they have only themselves to blame.

Now if someone could convince the cable company to sell me only the channels I want...

Considering that individual song downloads practically eliminate the physical media and distribution costs, I suspect that the RIAA isn't being completely honest regarding their profitability. Actually they don't mention profitability; they want you to assume they're hurting based on their sketchy statistics.