Opponents of libertarian economics often say two things: a) that the market has shown us that it will failed when unregulated; and that b) there has never in history been something that is a perfectly free market. But how can you have it both ways? Either we've tried it and it's failed (in which case you have to be open to criticism that what we tried wasn't really a free market), or we've never tried it and thus can't know what it would be like (in which case you have to be open to criticism that certain markets have approached complete freedom if not attained it, and they have succeeded).

Even Adam Smith knew...

And thank god physicists didn't believe everything Adam Smith said. The truth is that liberal economics did not begin with Adam Smith, nor did they end with him. Newer schools of thought like the Austrian school have refined liberalism and indeed do argue that all government intervention is wrong, and that there is no such thing as a neutral action in that case - even the "rules of the game" themselves are important and not able to be divined by even the most skilled of government technocrats.

There is the Libertarian Party in the US, but it's very small and most "libertarians" are not "Libertarians" - i.e., most people with libertarian views do not belong to the Libertarian Party.

There are the Republicans, which theoretically are the party of economic libertarianism, and they probably are marginally (though only very marginally) pro-market than the Democrats in terms of economics, but they're very unlibertarian when it comes to social policy (drugs, sex, and violent content) and foreign policy (duh - invading other countries is not libertarian).

Actually, alumni preferences take up way more slots than affirmative action. More likely some asshole from Long Island is taking your daughter's spot.

http://rationalitate.blogspot.com/2008/03/rigged-college-admissions.html

Weird that they don't include internet usage in here. And when they say "reading newspapers," does reading online count? And is it only newspapers? What about blogs? Aggregating internet use into one category would be kind of silly, considering there are many things you can do online (play games, watch Hulu/YouTube/pirated stuff, read newspapers and blogs, socialize, do chores and get practical information, etc.), but they should have at least tried.

Net neutrality would be an irrelevant issue if we'd just deregulate the spectrum, giving people access to a plethora of competitive wireless carriers (as opposed to now, where we auction off what in reality is infinitely divisible). As it is now people worry about what companies will do without net neutrality laws because our telecom regulation regime is such that it creates a few big heavyweights and doesn't allow much competition. But all you have to do is open the spectrum to use by anyone, and pretty soon Comcast and Verizon will lose their awesome market power.

just start some automated mass-whois-lookup's and drown out the real ones in the garbage..

that would solve the problem

*Webbrowsing in 1080p on your HD TV monitor and other desktop apps that you run in 1600x1200+ (higher than 1080p) on your PC

Widescreen 1080p is 1920*1080, which equals 2073600 pixels.
1600*1200 equals 1920000 pixels.

So, 1080p on a widescreen television is slightly higher of a "resolution", if you're counting pixels. Still though, any modern video card will easily push well beyond this, thus validating your point.

When it cost more to send it, than the income the spammer gets from it. Nothing anyone does to stop it / control it / make it illegal will create even a scratch in the surface.

Or in other words - we might as well give up.