Do you suppose they would also include a transparent HTTP proxy for people like me who run their own caching nameserver?

It remains that way because a much bigger segment has become completely oblivious. This is not mere ignorance. This is a self-protecting, oblivious, zombie-like sleep state. It includes an active hostility towards anyone who suggests that perhaps the increasingly centralized power and wealth of our society lends itself to being controlled by a small elite. You'll be called a tinfoil hatter no matter what evidence and reasoning you produce, not matter-of-factly either but often in an angry hostile fashion, because the zombies are deathly afraid of anything that might pierce a hole in their worldview of denial.

For the same reason that the FDA allows aspartame despite the mountains of scientific evidence that it's toxic: money.

You just haven't greased the correct palms. If you did, I'm sure you'd have their full support.

The point was, that's a political party with actual differences from the ruling factions. They don't disagree on how to implement the same philosophy like the Democrats and Republicans. They disagree about the fundamental philosophy itself.

Also, be aware that there is a serious effort to misinform people about what libertarianism is. The effort is to equate all libertarian thought with anarcho-capitalism. This is intentional. As I said in a post below, when political types cannot logically argue against something, they do their best to portray its supporters as evil and heartless. To give an example, only those who can afford their own armed guards would have police protection under anarcho-capitalism.

I am, for the most part, a libertarian. I want a government that collects taxes. I want that government to regulate industries and stock markets, with the goal of eliminating force and fraud. I want there to be tax-funded firefighters and police. I want there to be something like an FDA, but its sole purpose would be to make sure that no fraud takes place (if you buy a container claiming to have X drug, it actually does contain pharmaceutically pure X drug). I otherwise believe all drugs should be legal with only crimes (such as DUI) being punished. I want all activities confined to consenting adults to be legal, but I want it to be a crime the second anyone who is not an adult or does not consent is affected by the activity. I want almost all of a citizens' experience of government to come from state and local levels, with only issues like national defense and interstate roads handled by the feds.

This "utter train wreck" is, as a poster below pointed out, extremely close to classical liberalism. This same "utter train wreck" is what the USA had during its early history. If that's a train wreck, please derail me.

It's fashionable to portray all libertarians as anarcho-capitalists. Make no mistake, this is not an accident. When those with pulpits cannot rationally argue against a philosophy, they try their level best to demonize it and make its supporters look as evil as possible. It's a standard and ancient tactic.

They argue about teachers' salaried while the kids graduating from high school are dumbasses with no willingness or ability to think independently, since following instructions is what they know. They argue about unresolvable (thus to them, perfect) debates like abortion while the republic crumbles, they may as well play the fiddle too like Nero did. They quibble about how many scraps should hit the floor instead of taking a hard look into why everyone doesn't have their own floor.

The differences exist but they are minimal and designed to give only an illusion of choice. One day something like abortion is demonized and made more difficult, another day this is reversed. Over the course of years and decades the status quo does not change; it only becomes more so. That's what matters.

You may not want to believe that a single entity with two factions has completely usurped all political power in the nation and locked it down like what the guilds of old did to trade, but it's a fact. Consider what Microsoft did to the PC market. That's what the Demican/Republicrats did to politics. Compare either or both of them to say, the Libertarian party and you'll see what actual differences are.

The point was that the world is a great many shades of grey, and is therefore not suitably represented by our black-and-white two-party system.

Reading comprehension is gravely on the decline. It's been replaced by an insatiable need to be right at someone else's expense, even if you have to put words in their mouths to do it.

Being hypersensitive and too easily offended makes you look like the ranting lunatic. Specifically, it looks like you just don't like the guy and are clutching at straws for some way of taking a jab at him. Whether or not that's actually the case. It also makes you appear to promote this phoney decorum and perfect inoffensiveness that no living human being actually embodies in real life.

He referenced a very specific part of it in order to make a joke about how incredibly similar the Democrats and Republicans are on any truly important issue (such as state surveillance). Getting hysterical about that makes him look like a goddamned genius compared to you.

A very limited one with an established procedure, yes.

Yes, we call them politicians. In the past their own disagreements divided them, but they're all uniting under the monied banner of Big Brother.

We have a satisfying way that works for everyone involved. It's called getting a warrant. It begins when the police have reason to suspect that someone has committed a crime. Next, they convince a judge that these reasons are real and not bullshit fishing expeditions. Finally, the judge agrees to provide the warrant and it specifies the persons/places to be searched and the items or activities they are looking for.

The problem is, this system prevents massive surveillance and massive fishing expeditions. That's precisely why the politicians don't like it. But it's a solved problem and has been for hundreds of years now. Don't be fooled by the phoney debate and the appearance of legitimacy (of two coequal sides) it tries to create. All of this is a power grab, pure and simple. It's not necessary to protect anyone and it's not necessary to catch criminals.

Not coincidentally, I would assume the average New Zealander has much more genuine respect and admiration for the police than does the average American. Cops sincerely seem to wonder why they aren't respected and welcomed, why average people aren't glad to see them. I wouldn't be surprised if the law-abiding fear the police more than the criminals do.

That describes all cops without exception. A large number of cops are directly like this, while all the rest of the cops decide to indirectly be part of the problem by not doing anything about it, giving their own silent consent and approval. It happens so often that there is a term for it: the "blue wall of silence". The otherwise honest cops care about their crooked brethren more than they care about the civilians they're supposed to be protecting.

I forgot who said it, but a long time ago I read a post by another Slashdotter that summed it up. He said that in the minds of cops, there are three kinds of people: 1) Cops 2) Cops' families/friends 3) Suspects. The poster was not joking.

As a bystander who happened upon this thread, I say: bless you, sir!

It's gotten to the point where the moment I hear "racism", I immediately assume that whoever said it is completely full of shit until and unless proven otherwise. In years and years I have never once seen "racism" called when there was an actual instance wherein a person claimed that one race was inherently and genetically superior to another race. I have, however, seen many instances where it was a cheap, cowardly and dishonest manner of shutting down a debate that said person was losing.

I don't wish they would shoot the legislator (the non-dumbed-down version of "lawmaker" - the media deliberately aims at a 5th-grade reading level, this does not deserve to be emulated). But to say "that's a bullshit order" and refuse to follow it, yes I absolutely want that. The cop in question could then go to the media, or resign, or resign and go tell the media why. Then and only then would police officers EARN the respect they seem to want so badly.

Cops who are mindless myrmidons following any and all orders without question are definitely a big part of the problem. Perhaps they are the single biggest part of the problem. They're supposed to be peace officers who serve their community, not goons or hitmen or jack-booted thugs.

The other huge, glaring part of the problem is the insane idea that any activity confined to consenting adults should ever be considered a crime. The War on Drugs hasn't worked, isn't working, and isn't going to work if the goal is to reduce or eliminate drug use. It works fantastically well if the (unstated of course) goal is to create criminals, scare the public into voting for stricter laws that make no sense, and fill the coffers of the private prison industry, lobbyists, lawyers, and a whole chain of other parasites who profit from criminalizing victimless behavior.

I hate to say it but it's hard to name a body of people more stupid than the American public. Prohibition was the lesson here. In their mindlessness, the American public missed the principle and learned a lesson only about alcohol.

In your example there, true a previous robbery does not mean a person commited a murder. But it does demonstrate that this person has little or no regard for the law and has a history of committing serious crimes.

Actually the point was that we would have a stronger nation and a better world if there were more overlap and less distinction between illegal and unethical.

And you may wish to brush up on your own history there. The bankers have a long history of trying to control the nation's currency, beginning with Andrew Jackson (who was shot in a pointless duel), again with Abe Lincoln (who was assassinated after issuing interest-free greenbacks), and finally succeeded with the current Federal Reserve system. Incidentally, Kennedy wanted to revert back to government-issued currency.

Banks funded the politicians who put the system in place. You're an asshole to read my post in the most hostile he-must-be-a-total-idiot manner possible and then assume ignorance on my part because of your assumption. This kind of shit and the way it's become so fashionable lately is why intelligent adult discussion on this site is becoming such a rarity.

Yes, that's because "bipartisan" is usually code for "time for Republicans to acquiesce to the demands of the Democrats". Unlike most Republicans who just want to appeal to their base and do whatever is politically expedient to get re-elected, the Tea Partiers generally operate on a belief system. This is why lots of more mainstream Republicans don't like them, because they will say and do things perceived to hurt the Republican party's election odds.

For some reason people here just love to assume things that were never said, and read meanings into posts that are simply not there, so I'll reluctantly add: I don't like either major party one damned bit. I wish we had more of a parliamentary system where third, fourth, and fifth options were viable. But what I observed remains true. The Democrats have lots of support in the media and are effective at portraying their postions as mainstream and normal, with any dissenters branded as "racist" or otherwise bigoted, which many Republicans are afraid of and don't know how to stand up to.