Wireless internet access as a basic right, that was in Article IV, right?

I think the "Bill of No Rights" spells it out best in Article I.

http://www.webcommentary.com/special/norights.htm

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

I think Wi-Fi access fits in there nicely.

Actually we do not own anything, we are force out of our homes by:

Eminent domain
Property Taxes
By the government during a disaster if we the people chooses to stay.

We do not even own our own life if we want the right to die, due to terminal painful illness.

The government takes away the mj from people suffering that may or may not help prolong life or minimize suffering.

They took research using the embyro to help Alzheimer.

So my final analysis is they want us to live a suffering life.

They say they are helping us, they are not, they are controdicting themselves.

Please with election comming up, keep the mj to a minimal due to the fact I mentioned it. I was looking at a big picture here and I like other people to look at the Libertarian party for a bigger picture towards Freedom.

Thank you.

You are correct. As a point of fact, we don't even own our own money. The amount of money that we DON'T pay in taxes is actually referred to as "tax expenditures", which the government was nice enough to give us back.

I disagree with even a cent of tax dollars being used to fund these free wireless networks, but in the case of san francisco, even the article states that the network will be funded by online advertising, which is private money. Their are already other services online that give you something free, but force ads on you in return. This google network will be no different. I don't see this as a bad thing because while it is free, it will always be better to pay for something that is reliable, secure, unintrusive, and junk-free. What it will do is lower prices for ad-free internet considerably, which is what I'm looking forward to.

Oh great, now jobless ghetto scum will spend all day online instead of looking for work.

What government pays for it can control. The beset was is for the privately-owned businesses to take care of it. Does everyone have the right to a DVD player, too?

Sorry, that should be "the best way" in the previous post. Please forgive my typos.

I am adamantly opposed to the government undercutting private companies to provide service. Government has zero business engaging in enterprise in competition with private industries. Every effort must be made by libertarians to put a stop to this immediately.

This isn't the worst internet news of the day.

The United Nations is now trying to sieze control of the internet.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5301963-117422,00.html

And of course under their Declaration of Human Rights is troublesome. They give free speech and such, but in Article 29 Paragraph 3 they state "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." So if they gain control of the internet, will they quell any who speak out against them?

In the case of Philadelphia though, the government is essentially just overseeing the Wi-Fi network. They aren't going to be the instrumental force behind it.

It's going to be created and paid for by EarthLink, and EarthLink will ultimately benefit a lot from it. (They're going to use the network for their own cellular communications service.) IMO, that's just fair competition, and they have every right to benefit from what they create.

So in this case, the city isn't interfereing too much, thus it'll probably work out quite well.

Given that local governments are going to spend anyway, I'd rather see a homeless shelter or and STD clinic rather than a municipal Wi-Fi network.

It's not the big city where government owned wireless might prove a desirable thing, it's out on the boonies. Here in West Virginia, the most rural cities are where having government owned high speed in areas where no private concern cares to invest might be a better thing than not. The internet encourages freedom, assuming the user can utilize it to their advantage. A big if in some places.

But Philli? There's plenty of private firms offering all kinds of access. The city is just looking for a new revenue stream. Government owned wireless there is just stupid. Government owned access in Buckeye, WV might be the only they ever get hi speed net access. If you waited for a DSl or cable provider to offer it there, you would be waiting forever.

2005 and 2006 seem to be great times to have a Libertarian run... I'll be supporting Donny Ferguson in my district.

The Republican right is spending more than the Dems ever did, and the Dems are as clueless as ever, unable to capitalize by changing their platform in any meaningful way.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any libertarians who are able to get the media's ear, save Ron Paul.

I'm sure you've seen these two sites (blogs)
http://www.instapundit.com
http://truthlaidbear.com/porkbusters.php

If ever there was a time for strong Libertarian leadership, it is now.

San Francisco's mayor's message is simple. You have a right to anything that doesn't belong to you, provided that you want it badly enough.

To bad we cannot put a Libertarian on the Supreme court.

Regards to if we want it bad enough, yea, we want something bad enough, if we do not end up getting arrested for it.

This is just laughable. How do you expect people who probally do not own computers "the poor" to benefit from free WIFI. This is just an excuss for governments to extract more money from citzens to support the wealthy.

I don't know if any of you have been paying attention but there is a major civil war brewing in the GOP. Rep Flake of Arizonia has called for new leadership in the House. This rep. got a higher libertarian voting percentage then Ron paul both in 2003 and 2004 according to the republican liberty cacus.The call for the removal of the house leaders was in response to the fact that the republican leadership attacked a study put together by a rep out of Indiana and rep Flake that stated massive cuts in spending was needed to off set spending for the hurrican in New Orleans and where to make them cuts.Rep Delay had the nerve to say that this budget is smaller and very efficient. Rep. Flake responded by saying that Delay must be looking at a different budget then he was. Think how much spending could be cut if we had Ron Paul as the Majority leader and Rep. Flake as the Speaker of the House.
Also on the Senate side Sen. John Sunni of New Hampshire ,also a person that has ranked very high with the republican liberty cacus on libertarian voting record, has drawn in John Mccain into his group called Econmic Front and stopped a late night raid into the treasury for 9 billion dollars for Medicaid introduced by Sen. Lott. The Senator from New Hampshire called for united front against the big spend republicans and wants to work with Rep. Flake's group in the House.
I see one of two things happening: 1) small L libertarians gaining more control in the republican party, 2)Libertarian party start running good candidates in efficiently ran campaigns and we can start to win elections with alot of disenfranchised fiscal conservative republican cross overs. The timing is perfect for the LP to get their shit together and start winning elections. I have read on many right wing blogs the anger with this runaway spending and massaive deficit spending.Even mainstream GOP talking heads from Rush Limbaugh to Robert Novak have started to attack this Congress and Administration. The timing is right we need to really get active and start putting together some good mainstream people with good resumes to run for winnable elections.

MATT I have seen some people trying to say the same thing, I really hope they are listening. YES NOW IS THE TIME, we need to get things together for election. IF WE DO NOT DO IT NOW, it will never happen.

I am in and I want to help, I do have some areas of experience. I was a secretary voted in office on a smaller scale. I do not want to discuss on here. But I am very aware of bylaws, the national elections, running an office and ideas for getting the word out.

I cannot stress how important it is to get the word out, by word of mouth, window stickers on cars, setting up booth. All it takes is some of our time and we have enough people who sit and write on the blog that can in allowable areas sit in front of the grocery stores, in malls, trade shows, home shows.

If we cannot always have party or social gathering to bring people into our homes or meet at restaurant, then WE NEED TO GO TO THEM.

How about a costume for Halloween, FREEDOM on one side, LIBERTARIAN LP.ORG on the other, and we carry a glow in the dark torch. OK.

I prefer private internet providers.

SBC works like a dream for me...16.95 a month for my DSL. Excellent for online gaming and just regular web surfing.

No point in "free", tax-funded wireless services when the market is already providing affordable services.

I am surprised that no one sees what is really going on here: Its another way for corrupt elected officials to award contracts for equipment and services to tech companies, which they know are tomorrows mega donors. Its also yet another form of corporate welfare.

And what of the poor who have no computers? Why, everyone should have a computer! Its a basic right! No citizen left behind! Expect your neighborhood welfare office to be distributing computer vouchers to everyone who doesn't want to work for a living along with the monthly welfare check.

Keith, there already is a program to give inner-city kids computers. Congress gave the FCC one billion dollars for this purpose, results, the money is gone and no kid has gotten a computer. This was reported by Howard Stern several weeks ago. Also Stern's people wondered why the media isn't reporting this.

Keith writes, "I am surprised that no one sees what is really going on here: Its another way for corrupt elected officials to award contracts for equipment and services to tech companies, which they know are tomorrows mega donors. Its also yet another form of corporate welfare."

Of course. And it is also another way for the government to maintain control over something very important -- namely, communications, and, more specifically, the web.

Aside from being welfare statism, which is evil enough, this is corporatism and despotism.

Taxpayers will decide what should be built in common. So how did cities get the first telephone, power, natural gas, and Cable TV networks? Private enterprize yes, but with enough incentives to make the investment risks.
WI-FI seems to be no different than the first city utilities.

By the way - what the heck is a right? Does that aalways mean a few pay for the many?

Well an obvious lie from the President.
He says he doesn't know Harriet view on abortion. It is not logical that he would not know in all these years as close as he is to her not to know this. To bad lieing is not just cause for impeachment.
Can the white house be used for eminent domain? I read that DC wants to eminent domain a lot of people out of their homes for a stupid ballpark for their enjoyment.

One response to this is the State of Colorado passing a bill SB05-152 (see URL) "concerning local government competition in the provision of specified telecommunications services" that requires a municipality to hold an election before providing telecommunications services. That way the local government can't just provide it in competition with private providers and spending the taxpayers' money--they have to get specific permission from the voters first. This is incremental but uses state government to restrict local government in what it can do.

I am registered as "Independent" and voted Browne & Badnarik in the last 3 elections. While I disagree with the fake left-right paradigm and feel a 'freedom vs tyranny' is a more appropriate distinction, fellow Libertarians must be careful not to vote against any and all govt. involvement in everything. It makes no difference if the Corporatocracy or the Govt. runs everything as both result in total tyranny. Projects involving infrastructure are often too big for citizens to deal with and if we took that approach toward road building, all roads would lead to Wally-Mart and nowhere else. If we leave certain infrastructure up to corporations, we'd all be driving toll roads. I don't hear too many Libertarians refusing to use the public roads out of revolt against govt. involvement. If corporations ran our schools, our kids would be subjected to Coca-Cola ads and other manipulation. Why else would a corporation be involved except to make a profit? Captive audiences yield strong profits. The down-side to a national connectivity network is the govt. gets to decide what you can or cannot say. The up-side is that the quality of life improves for citizens and business. As long as we can guarantee our freedom from govt. censorship, I'm all for diverting a few billion AWAY from the illegal war in Iraq and toward building infrastructure like Wi-Fi to improve the lives for all. Why should we pay $20/month PLUS pay for the illegal war in Iraq that resultes in less oil exports and no refineries in the last 30 years?
www.worstpresident.com

Not to rouse too much rabble or anything, but it's kind of unfortunate that the LP is too stubborn to compromise on the anarchocapitalist kookery to put forth a meaningful challenge people like Newsom. Both parties have approval ratings in the 40% range. Corruption, cronyism and special interests riddle both parties, and the public is fully aware of it. Both are growing government disproportionately. It's sad to me that I'm not more upset about Newsom's comments because they are so representative of the state of the government right now, and I see little hope in changing that unless the LP grows up and gets real.

Right NOW is the time when the LP has the chance to make a difference in a big way in both succeeding electorally and rolling back government. As long as we insist on shocking the public with unrealistic and unreasonable proposals for legal crack cocaine, ending all taxes and banning public schools, I see little hope in any chance of success.

We should not sell out our principles, but we must better prioritize the way we present them. Like I said, right now is the perfect time for the Libertarian Party to succeed, to become the party of honest, open, small government so people like Bush, Newsom or any of the other idiots in the various sectors of government don't run the show.

My point is we can sit here and bitch about how evil the statist politicians of entitlement are, but unless we are willing to look inwards at WHY we aren't succeeding and HOW we can succeed and bring about change, we are truly wasting out time. We are only fooling ourselves, pretending that we are the last bastions of principle in the world and growing more and more bitter as government continues to grow. It has ever since the LP was founded to try and stop it. WHY?

Nick Wilson's analysis shows that he doesn't understand how the political process really works. It's not "kookery" that makes the LP weak. It's the fact that we have never previously done the nuts-and-bolts of building a political party from the ground up.

The Voter Identification Project identified on the LP Survey Results blog page is one small step in the right direction. Haranguing on the platform just because there are elements of it you don't like is a 100 yard dash in the wrong direction.

Learn the difference.

Yeah, why?

It's not as simple as I sometimes make it on here. There's a lot of reasons, but I think the primary reason is that the american people dont want what we have been selling. We have a product, but we cant tell people how good it is or how much they need it in terms they will accept. They wont vote for what we are frontin'.

Other reasons: we fight and argue on all sides. When you make :principle: your only standard, it makes it impossible to practice political involvement - becuase the first thing one most often has to do to be effective in politics is to accept compromise on principle. Libertarians dont want to do that, and it is a prison of our own making. The other huge mistake is making the LP :the head: of the libertarian movement in America , instead of where it should be: :the tail:.

I do not think the Libertarian Party will ever become successful until libertarians agree on what the proper role of the libartarian PARTY is in relation to the broader libertarian movement. We also must establish consensus that the libertarian PARTY must practice the art of political engagement, that this is the only proper role of the party itself, and stop attacking other libertarians who seek to make this possible as unprincipled opportunists. OF COURSE we are oppurtunists. Unprincipled? When I or someone else calls for higher taxes, bigger government, or both, it might be time to to examine that.

It might also be good to establish realistic goals (like electing 1 (one) Congressperson in 2008. A goal that is not impossible, like electing a libertarian for President is currently. The LP is :NOT: a 50 state party - we only act like we are out of sheer vanity. It's a mirage. We would do far better to retrench into about 35 states where we are strongest and concentrate our very limited money and manpower into those states.

I really dont like to fight far more than I let on. The only reason I persue it is becuase I cant stand to see people represent the LP past as some type of glorious time period where everyone was somehow better in some way. The actual history of the LP simply does not bear this view out. For a significant time period the LP was simply a con game, run by con men and women. But others think they were somehow successful. Go figure.

I want to make TV spots for the LP in 2006 and 2008 that are good enough to air. I want to see the reform effort through to the point where we will get actual and significant change in the LP or figure out that libertarians dont want what we do and agree to go about our separate ways. I want to keep blogging about the LP becuase the LP is a fascinating subject to observe and write about.

I really enjoy all of this, even the infighting to a degree, becuase it forces us to examine ourselves, something we dont do enough of. But it does get tiresome. I wish there was a way to discuss it in a manner that would bring consensus.

Oh, and I'll define the word "we" as small l libertarians who accept government as a institution that ***in limited measure*** actually enhances freedom and liberty. I think that's the cornerstone of the differences. Many in the LP dont agree, tis true.

Walt,

You are correct. The LP has never done that, except in little fits and starts. And the ones who have attempted to do those things have always been attacked.

I would place any amount of money that for every present day activist in the LP, there have been 10 former activists that have at one time been members and activists who have left. If we could just get all those people back in the game and active, it would be a giant leap forward. Not only do we need a Voter ID Project, we need a "LP Homecoming" to those that have been in the LP at one time and left for whatever reason.

Maybe something can be done in this direction as well.

Last thing - D Walter. How about actually talking to me like a human this time? You might get more flies with honey than vinegar.

Signed, your EXPERT. :D

Tim,

The reason that we have a Libertarian Party is because the Democrats and Republicans are willing to compromise on principle to maintain their power...Forget the consequences.

Men and women of principle recognized that this sorry pragmatism was the foundation of tyranny. They formed a political party that was based upon uncompromised principle, based upon the notion that liberty needs to stand inviolate.

I am stunned that you would suggest that the LP adopt the same philosophical creed that has led this nation to this current state of madness. Have you studied any history? Have you checked your premises? Why would you want to add the LP to list of political parties dedicated to this failed notion of compromise? Are you fan of Neville Chamberlain?

Please tell me this; how does capitulation to an ancient and proven evil philosophy represent reform?

You want to get people back to the party? Why would these broken souls come back to a party willing to sell out on it's founding principles? Why not offer an LP firmly dedicated to the priciples of liberty that it was founded upon. Are you afraid?

It is hard work to live up to high standards. So what of value comes easy Tim?

You know the people who speak with good common sense such as Tim West, Adam Silverstein, Rob,
and Nick Wilson, these people need to be in areas of running this party.

Unless we have people with like mind to get this party in order, I cannot see it going anywhere. What is happening in America and how our freedom is going towards socialism is very serious.

This is not a game here. We do not really have time to waste with people who thinks on a smaller scale. I do not mean to offend anyone, but sometimes we need to put people in the positions that really needs to be there.

Seeing we do not even have elected candidate in our own party because we are overdue, something is very wrong here.

I think it is time people with like minds of these take the stand. The others should step down.

Bruce:

When I say that, I mean that politics is the exact art of compromising your principles. You want to do certain things, but you cant do those things becuase you have a organized opposition who can stop you. For now, it makes no difference who that opposition is. You can do one of two things:

#1: If you have the strength to do it, which is very rare, you can simply ramrod your agenda through the legislature. It normally requires a supermajority to take this route at the very least. You dont have to compromise anything if you can have enough strength this way.

#2: You can negotiate terms with the opposition, trying to get the best deal you can get. Normally, this is the route taken, becuase it's very rare to actually not try to get some of your opposition to vote against their own party. It happens ALL THE TIME! If you subscribe to the idea that doing this is selling out your principles, then you dont intend for this party to ever actually engage in politics. That's simply the way bills get passed the great majority of the time - you compromise on your principles with the opposition, and hopefully you compromise less and get more of what you want than they do. That's the reality of political involvement. Along the way, if you are successful, the government begins to do the things you want it to do.

Politics not only responds to compromises, it DEMANDS those compromises as part of the process, unless you have no opposition to speak of. So if we could get a 30% reduction in government spending only if we cut a deal to do so, or get nothing by refusing to cut a deal becuase we wont negotiate on principles, I'll take the deal as long as what I gave away to cut the deal is less for my cause than what they have to give up.

That's called politics. You have principles. Good. Now you have to judge if never being able to see those principles used inside the halls of politics is worth your moral stand. I submit I would rather see actual reduction in government in practice than moral stands that represent satisfaction personally for me.

I'll make those deals, if I know America is more free as a result, *personal* principles aside. There's a big difference between personal morality and government morality. As long as those deals dont represent more taxation or more government as a result, I think both types of morality can survive the political process.

I have watched politics in action and participated in the same dirty business. But I have seen, with my own eyes, the majesty of adherence to principle.

Certainly, Libertarian politicians must work with the pragmatist opposition. There are many motions in local government, where we have the most representation, that are mandated by local law or federal and state statute. Until we can change the law we must, unfortunately, obey the rule of such. Our best option is to express our objection. This is not a compromise of principle.

The best tactic that I have observed is the principled objection to a particular initiative. I recently had the pleasure of observing such and action by Andy LeCureaux in the City of Haxel Park, Michigan.

The Democrat or the Republican posits some notion to restrict this action or that, or mandate some whim upon the community. Libertarian office holders regularly stand on principle against these measures and often defeating them.

The point of this whole exercise in political change is to turn the direction of government away from the pragmatic approach that has brought us to this stunning level of statism.

We cannot lay claim to the moral high ground if we advocate compromise. The standard is the key.

Certainly our elected and appointed officials will hold, as strictly as they can, to the strictures of our platform. But in order for them to wade through those grim, ineveitable compromises, they can still hold an uncompromised standard as their foundation.

I have no expectation of Utopia through Libertarianism, but if we hold a Libertarian Utopia as the standard then we might just achieve the compromise of a free society.

Set your sights high.

Bruce A. Hoepner

I dont believe personal political pragmatism results in a loss of personal morality. On the contrary, I believe that making libertarian ideals a reality and not indulging in self-deception represents a greater standard of morality,

I think every person has principles that they wont trade, no matter what. I think it is foolish and unrealistic to insist that every libertarian principle, no matter what it may be, be considered above political engagement. Simply put, unless and until we actually a libertarian majority in the legislatures in this country, we dont have the luxury of such a unyielding stance.

We have to take the exact other tact. We have to consider what the principles are that we will not deal away at any price, and what we will deal on by forming coalitions with the R's and D's and getting the best deal for freedom everywhere we can, in every state house and every county council in the country. I think the only bedrock principles we cannot compromise on are these:

Libertarians will always be for greater personal and economic freedom for the individual person;

and Libertarians will always advocate smaller less expensive government over larger, more costly government.

These are the principles I would never deal.

Beyond these 2 things, EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING, is dealable to move us closer to the goal line. This means that a candidate who only seeks a 5% reduction in spending becuase he knows anything over that is a non-starter in a election campaign is not attacked by his own party for being un principled. The second he advocates a 5% increase in spending without getting greater than a 5% reduction in other spending in return, then the Beltway may have claimed another victim.

Ask your elected city councilman, ask any elected libertarian you want. This is simply how the game is played. You try to form coalitions to get your bills through so you can effect the laws to your beliefs and desires.

BTW, thanks for not attacking me out of hand. The demeanor in your response is noted and thanked for.

Nick,
I have no problem with Coke taking over my son's school as long as they provide a better education for him then the public school system currently does. I love the people that say our postion on these type of issues should be dropped but can never defeat the argument itself. Private schools are a vital part of succesful poilcy making. They have proven to provide a better product and at a cheaper price. I love the butt ass backward reasoning when dealing with this issue. "When it comes to the kids' education, it should be one issue that does not get privatized." Whwhwhat? Competition will make sure that the educators deliver on the product, education of the children. The public school system is lacking of that competition, they get the public's money rather they deliver on the promise to educate or not. I do believe that the public is not ready for out and out privatization. We should embrace a voucher system at the state level and end federal funding. Over a period of time we can replace the public money put into the vouchers program with private money.

And who will pay for the cost of these wireless routers, transmitters, the internet backbone required to support them, and all the maintenance, upgrades, and repairs required of each of these commodities?

The market will, of course; the otherwise free individuals who produce these items and gave birth to each of them in the first place, only to have them stolen and nationalized by the government.

When will Atlas finally shrug? When will the most productive, hardest working citizens have had enough?

Curry

Please don't make allusions to Ayn Rand; I agree with her points but her plots are saddeningly weak.

Anyways.

Is anybody else reminded of Thomas Menino walking around Boston finding the spots where the "Can you hear me now" guy won't be saying "Good"? Stuff like this is a sign that the government needs to concentrate its work in fewer people, ie, eliminate some bureaucrats.

Milwaukee will be putting in City Wide wireless at no cost to Milwaukee Tax Payers, in fact the firm doing it will likley have to lease space from the city.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/oct05/362598.asp

Now Bush wants to control our female stomach with Miers, to bad he wasn't aborted.
LIBERTARIANS CALLING ALL LIBERTARIANS, TIME TO TAKE OVER CONGRESS.

It was fun visiting here. Wishing you a great day! Discontent makes rich men poor: http://www.bartleby.com/100/ , although I am bringing a change of underwear , we elected them

You have some really cool stuff at your site. I'm sure gonna come back here. I do not believe in an afterlife: http://www.aphids.com/cgi-bin/quotes.pl?act=ShowListingsForSub , It's the other lousy two percent , Hacking OpenSUSE