131–140 of 246 posts
Am I missing something?
"So now I have to hire a lawyer to try to figure all this out." forgive my ignorance, but isn't Arrington a lawyer?. Question - Why does a lawyer need to hire another lawyer to represent him? Although, there are several branches of law specialization, Arrington could take it on himself to file the case against DHS? no? "I live a fairly simple life and that didn’t change much after I sold TechCrunch in 2010" - yeah we…
They didn't stole the boat, they seized it. Not wanting to sign an erroneous legal document is respectable, calling the DHS stealers is clearly not. Don't be surprize if they won't cooperate to solve the matter ASAP.
Hiring a lawyer will get your boat back. It will not fix the problem. The problem is too much government. Perhaps you should consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism We don't need to eliminate government, of course. Someone still has to throw parties for foreign dignitaries and say stupid shit on TV. We do need to trim it down to the bone and get it out of our daily lives. You just had a run-in with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a pretty big difference between government seizure and stealing. There is? Coulda fooled me. If an individual took your boat without your permission, it's stealing. How is it different just because a large group of individuals got together and did it? Just because they give themselves fancy names like "government" and "State" and "DHS" doesn't mean they actually have any authority to take your property. I'm r…
the mises institute is that way ---->
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you. I'm saying that if you're nice to someone who wants nothing more than an excuse to hurt you, and who has no compunction about doing so, then perhaps you won't get hurt. The end goal is not for them to be nice to you. The goal is for them to refrain from making your life a living hell.
I just think there's another way to look at this situation. Have you seen The Incredibles? The scene towards the beginning when Mr. Incredible helps the little old lady cheat the insurance system? I think most bureaucrats want to be that person. They want to give the good guy a break; they want to cut people who try hard a little bit of slack. It means more work for them, since they need to spend their own time to ma…
And never make excuses for them online in a hackers forum.
Hiring a lawyer will get your boat back. It will not fix the problem. The problem is too much government. Perhaps you should consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism We don't need to eliminate government, of course. Someone still has to throw parties for foreign dignitaries and say stupid shit on TV. We do need to trim it down to the bone and get it out of our daily lives. You just had a run-in with…
Hiring a lawyer will get your boat back. It will not fix the problem. The problem is too much government. Perhaps you should consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism We don't need to eliminate government, of course. Someone still has to throw parties for foreign dignitaries and say stupid shit on TV. We do need to trim it down to the bone and get it out of our daily lives. You just had a run-in with…
The problem isn't some vague platitude about how there is "too much government". This wasn't caused by Social Security or other defined benefit programs (which make up most of "government"), or by the Veterans Administration, or by the Postal Service, or by FDA.
It was caused by one specific agency, created by W, which should never have been created, is duplicative by its very nature, and which has run amok. Homeland Security.
And no, this isn't evidence that we are heading for a Gestapo society. No. The Gestapo was highly organized, disciplined, and effective. Homeland Security, by contrast, is a bunch of minimum-wage flunkies, unable to get a job anywhere else because of malfeasance, complete lack of job skills, illiteracy, or a combination of these, which fails to accomplish anything of note whatsoever.
Continuing the pablum, you feed us a line about how fishing licenses are evil. I'm sorry, but we've had dozens of large world fisheries be over-fished to extinction. Mark me down in the columns as being in favor of responsible management of wildlife; this is another example of an area in which we need government.
Off-topic comparisons to Argentina, similiarly, do not really convince one that the entire US government is inherently bad. I know libertarians seek any and all excuses to drone on about this, but spare us.
Just fix or abolish Homeland Security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery. That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you.
It's a subtly but critically different idea: unless you're nice to people, they will be distinctly not nice to you. This is a unfortunate fact in general: even if somebody is not particularly nice to you, you should still be nice in return. However, it is only a real problem if the distinctly not-nice person is in a position of power as in this example.
If they hold power over you, smile until you stab them in the back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I was pulled over while driving a few months ago. I was trying to keep up with a friend, I got behind and I made a really stupid, illegal and probably dangerous maneuver in trying to keep up. Happened to be a cop at that intersection who pulled me over. Officer comes to the car, and asks about what I just did. I pretty much immediately admit to doing it, and tell him that it was a terrible lapse of judgement on my…
Maybe, but it's also just as likely to have resulted in a ticket after confessing.