Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Satan

2010-07-26T00:23:00Z

Tisane: /* Satan's origin */

[[/archive 1]]
{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== Satan reigning in Hell? ==

I realize this is a concept from Milton, but does anyone know if this is Biblical? The lake of fire was created for satan and his angels for his eternal punishment at the end of days. In Revelation he is thrown down from heaven and he is described as "the prince of this world" in the New Testament, but where does it state he reigns in hell?

Also, where is there a "divine council" of the angels where satan is present in the New Testament? If this is the case, then we should cite the place.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the Bible implies that Satan is a prisoner in Hell along with the rest of the damned. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:41, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought that the New Testament statement that was removed implied that he was referenced in the NT, not this divine council. But I didn't really read it so I may be wrong.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I will correct accordingly, to make this more clear. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Who tempted Jesus in the desert...? If Satan was indeed IMPRISONED in Hell, how did he tempt Jesus? "Get thee behind me!" Ring a bell? If you believe these things... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:09, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:That doesn't mean he reigns in hell, only that he still has freedom (although it may be limited). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::Enough freedom to render the the concept of imprisonment to be null and void. If he can come into our world and tempt The Christ, well, reallly, how does that fit imprisonment? Unless you wish to argue that it was in God's plan, but then, of course, you'd have to show me where that is written (I refer you to the Old Testament book of Job where The Lord makes plain that ot was His choice to let Satan test Job, so that I may set precedent). The point I was making is, Satan niether reigns over what we call "Hell" nor is he imprisoned in it. I could go furtherbut I'd be making this a philosophical and theological debate; one I would be severly chastised over at that...[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm afraid you may be confusing this issue. All we were discussing was whether or not he reigns in hell, not whether or not he is imprisoned. As the article had previously stated he reigned in hell, it was important to quickly discuss before removing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:01, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

As we all know, there are differing views of the book of Revelation, but most agree that Satan is finally put in hell forever. The idea of Satan ruling hell right now works if you're the cartoonist for the Far Side, but it's not really the biblical view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::(edit conflict) There are different interpretations depending upon which branch of hermeneutics and exegesis you support; the article appears to be in keeping with what might loosely be termed the majority opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Shoot, I think on this I'll go with Dante. At least his rendition is a little interesting. Lake of Ice > Lake of Fire.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 05:27, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yeah I'd have to agree with you there. Ice cold fits more with the absence of God's love than flame does. In my opinion. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Plus it is scarier if you think about it. Frozen in Lake of ice > Burning in lake of Fire. With Fire, there is just the pain, Ice has a whole psychological aspect heaped on top.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:29, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Was he an angel?==

The [[Unification faith]] identifies Satan as the archangel [[Lucifer]]. Is this a common Christian belief? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 13 January 2010 (EST)

== The origin of Satan's evil ==

Given that the universe did not originally contain any evil, and Satan was created by God, who, being all-knowing and all-powerful had the ability to create Satan in such a way that he would incapable of becoming evil, how did Satan become evil? Satan could not have had free will, given that he is part of a universe which is basically a machine proceeding from a beginning state to a predestined end state; however complicated the machine may be, its destiny is still known beforehand to an omniscient Being, and indeed is controlled beforehand by an omniscient and omnipotent Creator.

So, since everything that occurs, including Satan's fall, must be God's will, how then do we define evil? Satan's "evil" must be the same kind of "evil" that exists in, say, a computer game in which the creator has purposefully scripted evil doings and evil characters into the plot, and programmed them to occur under specific circumstances. As the program executes, the evil will inevitably transpire in accordance with the program; it cannot happen any other way. And there is no outside force that can act on the universe, other than God's, so there is no way God's will can be thwarted. And so we cannot define "evil" as being that which is against God's will. Unless of course, we presume the existence of a universe in which two contradictory things can be simultaneously true — i.e, that God's will can fulfilled at the same time as it isn't fulfilled. Contradictions are not impossible when one assumes the existence of a truly omnipotent being; in such a case, they become [[paradox]]es. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 20:22, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Satan

2010-07-26T00:22:44Z

Tisane: /* Satan's origin */ new section

[[/archive 1]]
{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== Satan reigning in Hell? ==

I realize this is a concept from Milton, but does anyone know if this is Biblical? The lake of fire was created for satan and his angels for his eternal punishment at the end of days. In Revelation he is thrown down from heaven and he is described as "the prince of this world" in the New Testament, but where does it state he reigns in hell?

Also, where is there a "divine council" of the angels where satan is present in the New Testament? If this is the case, then we should cite the place.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the Bible implies that Satan is a prisoner in Hell along with the rest of the damned. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:41, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought that the New Testament statement that was removed implied that he was referenced in the NT, not this divine council. But I didn't really read it so I may be wrong.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I will correct accordingly, to make this more clear. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Who tempted Jesus in the desert...? If Satan was indeed IMPRISONED in Hell, how did he tempt Jesus? "Get thee behind me!" Ring a bell? If you believe these things... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:09, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:That doesn't mean he reigns in hell, only that he still has freedom (although it may be limited). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::Enough freedom to render the the concept of imprisonment to be null and void. If he can come into our world and tempt The Christ, well, reallly, how does that fit imprisonment? Unless you wish to argue that it was in God's plan, but then, of course, you'd have to show me where that is written (I refer you to the Old Testament book of Job where The Lord makes plain that ot was His choice to let Satan test Job, so that I may set precedent). The point I was making is, Satan niether reigns over what we call "Hell" nor is he imprisoned in it. I could go furtherbut I'd be making this a philosophical and theological debate; one I would be severly chastised over at that...[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm afraid you may be confusing this issue. All we were discussing was whether or not he reigns in hell, not whether or not he is imprisoned. As the article had previously stated he reigned in hell, it was important to quickly discuss before removing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:01, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

As we all know, there are differing views of the book of Revelation, but most agree that Satan is finally put in hell forever. The idea of Satan ruling hell right now works if you're the cartoonist for the Far Side, but it's not really the biblical view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::(edit conflict) There are different interpretations depending upon which branch of hermeneutics and exegesis you support; the article appears to be in keeping with what might loosely be termed the majority opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Shoot, I think on this I'll go with Dante. At least his rendition is a little interesting. Lake of Ice > Lake of Fire.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 05:27, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yeah I'd have to agree with you there. Ice cold fits more with the absence of God's love than flame does. In my opinion. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Plus it is scarier if you think about it. Frozen in Lake of ice > Burning in lake of Fire. With Fire, there is just the pain, Ice has a whole psychological aspect heaped on top.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:29, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Was he an angel?==

The [[Unification faith]] identifies Satan as the archangel [[Lucifer]]. Is this a common Christian belief? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 13 January 2010 (EST)

== Satan's origin ==

Given that the universe did not originally contain any evil, and Satan was created by God, who, being all-knowing and all-powerful had the ability to create Satan in such a way that he would incapable of becoming evil, how did Satan become evil? Satan could not have had free will, given that he is part of a universe which is basically a machine proceeding from a beginning state to a predestined end state; however complicated the machine may be, its destiny is still known beforehand to an omniscient Being, and indeed is controlled beforehand by an omniscient and omnipotent Creator.

So, since everything that occurs, including Satan's fall, must be God's will, how then do we define evil? Satan's "evil" must be the same kind of "evil" that exists in, say, a computer game in which the creator has purposefully scripted evil doings and evil characters into the plot, and programmed them to occur under specific circumstances. As the program executes, the evil will inevitably transpire in accordance with the program; it cannot happen any other way. And there is no outside force that can act on the universe, other than God's, so there is no way God's will can be thwarted. And so we cannot define "evil" as being that which is against God's will. Unless of course, we presume the existence of a universe in which two contradictory things can be simultaneously true — i.e, that God's will can fulfilled at the same time as it isn't fulfilled. Contradictions are not impossible when one assumes the existence of a truly omnipotent being; in such a case, they become [[paradox]]es. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 20:22, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

Agricultural subsidy

2010-07-21T02:14:26Z

Tisane: Created page with 'A '''farm subsidy''' or '''agricultural subsidy''' is a subsidy that benefits the agricultural industry. Critics argue that agricultural subsidies go mostly t…'

A '''farm subsidy''' or '''agricultural subsidy''' is a [[subsidy]] that benefits the [[agriculture|agricultural]] industry. Critics argue that agricultural subsidies go mostly to the biggest farms who need subsidization the least. Research from Brian M. Riedl at the [[Heritage Foundation]] showed that nearly three quarters of subsidy money goes to the top 10% of recipients.<ref>Brian M. Riedl. Still at the Federal Trough: Farm subsidies for the rich and famous shattered records in 2002</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Agriculture]]

Talk:Lesbianism and obesity

2010-07-19T04:04:00Z

Tisane: /* I guess there aren't any public domain images of Andrea Dworkin available */ new section

Interesting. Causality, if it exists, could work in either direction. I wonder if there are studies on possible correlation between lesbianism and low self-image? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:48, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I hate to say it, but is this page necessary? It cites a useless figure, which is probably inaccurate, insinuating that being a lesbian means you're going to become fat, then reminds us that this probably isn't true. All in all, the page is merely a weak scare tactic. Try harder. [[User:Shortcat|Shortcat]]
:::Shortcat, what do you think of the abstract for the Psychiatria Polska journal article? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)
:I think this is only a statement of fact. It would be wrong if it says that being a lesbian will make you fat, but it does not say this. He is only giving a report on a study, and there is nothing wrong with that.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 16:11, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== I guess there aren't any public domain images of [[Andrea Dworkin]] available ==

[[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 00:04, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:The Unborn Child

2010-07-18T04:00:46Z

Tisane: re

Another possibility is creating a [[Portal:The Unborn Child]] that uses a random number generator to provide different content each time it is visited. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 16:47, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting suggestion. Please explain further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
::Well, for instance each time you hit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Medicine&action=purge this link], you'll usually get new selections. An unborn child portal could work the same way. However, I sense that you want a more sequential (rather than random) system, which is logical, considering that the development of an unborn child proceeds in a sequential, rather than random manner. There is probably a way to create a portal template that, when you click on "Next," will go in a sequence through [[Portal:The Unborn Child/Week/1]], [[Portal:The Unborn Child/Week/2]], etc. and perhaps even loop around at the end, or perhaps take the user to a page that says something to the effect of "Now that you know the facts, time to take action." Ideally, you want to avoid hard-coding the next page/previous page links and their targets into each subpage, but rather minimize code duplication by putting the control logic in the top-level portal page. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 17:50, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

::: Very interesting suggestion. A portal that enabled a user to click through each week of development would terrific for visitors and students! Can you do that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
::::I wouldn't be surprised if something like that already exists somewhere, and just needs to be wikified. A lot of stuff is copyrighted, but you might be able to secure permission for educational use. Plus I'm sure the federal government has a lot of non-copyrighted works along these lines. Or maybe there is an intern at one of these [[right to life]] organizations who would like to collaborate on this? The possibilities are endless. Here are some diagrams of unborn children in various stages of development, by the way: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Foetuses Those are available for us to use freely, of course. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 23:21, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: Wikipedia's images seem awfully inadequate ... perhaps intentionally so! Hopefully we can find better ones for educational use ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::: I would agree, they leave out much of the detail in a manner that could be considered dehumanizing if one wished to attribute it to malice, but might also simply be the result of a dearth of incentives to produce quality work, given that Wikipedia's contributors are unpaid. The truth is probably somewhere between the two. But as I say, I'm sure that the right to live movement has plenty of unborn child images, from all stages of development. If it's okay with you, I will get in touch with them, inform them of our project, and invite them to participate and contribute images. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 23:31, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

Wikiversity

2010-07-18T03:34:10Z

Tisane: Created page with ''''Wikiversity''' is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation that seeks to create entire courses and curricula for students, including self-taught pupils learning outside the a…'

'''Wikiversity''' is a project of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] that seeks to create entire courses and curricula for students, including self-taught pupils learning outside the aegis of any formal university.

==External link==
*http://en.wikiversity.org/

[[Category:Education]]

Conservapedia:Other Courses Fall 2010

2010-07-18T03:32:24Z

Tisane: /* The Unborn Child */ clarify

Comment here if you would like to participate in another course this fall, such as math
:What are some other courses? And what level of Mathmatics? --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 15:06, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::I've been neglecting my multivariable calculus (aka Calc 2-3/3) for too long, but I see no reason for it not to be ready for students by the fall. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 15:10, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::: I'd love to help with a course on multivariable calculus! I'll promote it on the Main Page. :: By the way, when I heard the scripture reading today about the multiplication of the loaves, I thought of the "paradox" resulting from the [[Axiom of Choice]]. Perhaps there is an undeveloped logical basis for duplication!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::My work so far can be found through the various lectures linked to through [[Template:MVCalc|my course template]]. As you can see, an enormous amount of material is good to go, it just needs to be re-organized, and maybe get some problems developed. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 19:04, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::I know something about multivariable calculus, if you need an extra man. [[User:PhillipA|PhillipA]] 23:55, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::We have a lot of the material up right now, Phillip. If you'd like to look at the lectures (see my user page), feel free to, but at this point I feel it would be best to email all your suggestions to me or post them on the talk pages, so as to avoid repetition and clutter.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:14, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Is social sciences a possibility? --[[User:MartinLXA|Martin Amrowski]] 19:23, 6 June 2010 (EDT) : Which one, specifically? I do teach a course on [[Economics]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:17, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
:I'm interested in reading the lectures, and other materials, for the multivariable calculus course, though I might not actually "take" the course in the sense of doing the homework and taking the tests. It depends on how much time I have. Thank you. [[User:HarryJP|HarryJP]] 23:11, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::I am kind of a programming geek, and I am wondering if I could take a class that has something to do with programming languages that don't require a compiler, just an interpreter (like JavaScript and the DOS command prompt for Windows) and other interpreted languages heavily supported, mostly through Windows, especially XP, Vista and Windows 7. Are there any such technology classes? [[User:Star651|Star651]] 15:52, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

:::I'm interested in the multivariable calculus class. Will this be applicable or helpful for any AP or CLEP exams? Will there be any kind of official certification I can get from taking this course? I'm planning to take the AP calc BC test next year. Will this be helpful for that? By the way, the formatting of this page looks screwed up compared to most other pages. [[User:BethB|BethB]] 23:33, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

::::Yes, Beth, sorry about the formatting - I'm so glad to hear you're interested in our multivariable calc course! The course is not accredited - however, if you're planning on taking the BC calc test next year, it will help. We will cover material which you will need to know for that test, and you will have access to a certified tutor and college instructor (me) for private consults via email and IM. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:45, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm interested in all 3 courses. The Calc 1 and Calc 2 courses cover material I supposedly covered this past year, though it would certainly do me some good to see them again. The mutivariable calc class is over my head at present, based on the partial lectures I've seen. But I would would probably find this material to be very interesting once it is finished. I never understood the parametric surface stuff. [[User:PaulH1|PaulH1]] 23:39, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: Welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== The Unborn Child ==

The possibility of teaching a course on the unborn child is being considered. Please add comments here if interested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:34, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
:Would the course focus on the theological issues surrounding him, or what exactly? I mean, I learned a fair amount about it in my religious studies, but are you thinking about also discussing the biological, legal, etc, stuff too? Either way, but especially the latter, I would certainly like to at least read over the lessons; I don't know if I could enroll in the course itself, especially since I'm still in college and one course load is all I can handle so far! :) I'd be happy to contribute in any way you think I could though, if only just with my obsessive copy editing. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:02, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

:: I think we'd spend one class on the biblical references, but probably not delve into the theology much more than that. With 12 classes overall, there is much ground to cover in addition to theology, although theological insights are always welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
:::Perhaps there can be cross-collaboration with [[Wikiversity]] on this, given that community's generally more impressively scholarly approach (relative to Wikipedia) in reference to subject matters such as those at hand. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 23:28, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

==Other Courses==
You know, as long as I'm on this page, is there any interest in maybe an economics course or two? If I can find the time before I start class again I could work out some good information based on my course notes for micro and macro. Maybe even some of my finance courses in later semesters after we build up a foundation (since finance can be off putting for some people, I think, so maybe econ first?) I'm no teacher, but I certainly have plenty of information that's accompanied me through earning my MBA. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:07, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

: We do have an economics course. I taught it last year, I think, and all the materials are posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:The Unborn Child

2010-07-18T03:31:13Z

Tisane: re

Another possibility is creating a [[Portal:The Unborn Child]] that uses a random number generator to provide different content each time it is visited. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 16:47, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting suggestion. Please explain further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
::Well, for instance each time you hit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Medicine&action=purge this link], you'll usually get new selections. An unborn child portal could work the same way. However, I sense that you want a more sequential (rather than random) system, which is logical, considering that the development of an unborn child proceeds in a sequential, rather than random manner. There is probably a way to create a portal template that, when you click on "Next," will go in a sequence through [[Portal:The Unborn Child/Week/1]], [[Portal:The Unborn Child/Week/2]], etc. and perhaps even loop around at the end, or perhaps take the user to a page that says something to the effect of "Now that you know the facts, time to take action." Ideally, you want to avoid hard-coding the next page/previous page links and their targets into each subpage, but rather minimize code duplication by putting the control logic in the top-level portal page. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 17:50, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

::: Very interesting suggestion. A portal that enabled a user to click through each week of development would terrific for visitors and students! Can you do that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
::::I wouldn't be surprised if something like that already exists somewhere, and just needs to be wikified. A lot of stuff is copyrighted, but you might be able to secure permission for educational use. Plus I'm sure the federal government has a lot of non-copyrighted works along these lines. Or maybe there is an intern at one of these [[right to life]] organizations who would like to collaborate on this? The possibilities are endless. Here are some diagrams of unborn children in various stages of development, by the way: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Foetuses Those are available for us to use freely, of course. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 23:21, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: Wikipedia's images seem awfully inadequate ... perhaps intentionally so! Hopefully we can find better ones for educational use ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::: I would agree, they leave out much of the detail in a manner that could be considered dehumanizing if one wished to attribute it to malice, but might also simply be the result of a dearth of incentives to produce quality work, given that Wikipedia's contributors are unpaid. But as I say, I'm sure that the right to live movement has plenty of unborn child images, from all stages of development. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 23:31, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Other Courses Fall 2010

2010-07-18T03:28:50Z

Tisane: /* The Unborn Child */ re

Comment here if you would like to participate in another course this fall, such as math
:What are some other courses? And what level of Mathmatics? --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 15:06, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::I've been neglecting my multivariable calculus (aka Calc 2-3/3) for too long, but I see no reason for it not to be ready for students by the fall. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 15:10, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::: I'd love to help with a course on multivariable calculus! I'll promote it on the Main Page. :: By the way, when I heard the scripture reading today about the multiplication of the loaves, I thought of the "paradox" resulting from the [[Axiom of Choice]]. Perhaps there is an undeveloped logical basis for duplication!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::My work so far can be found through the various lectures linked to through [[Template:MVCalc|my course template]]. As you can see, an enormous amount of material is good to go, it just needs to be re-organized, and maybe get some problems developed. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 19:04, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::I know something about multivariable calculus, if you need an extra man. [[User:PhillipA|PhillipA]] 23:55, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::We have a lot of the material up right now, Phillip. If you'd like to look at the lectures (see my user page), feel free to, but at this point I feel it would be best to email all your suggestions to me or post them on the talk pages, so as to avoid repetition and clutter.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:14, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Is social sciences a possibility? --[[User:MartinLXA|Martin Amrowski]] 19:23, 6 June 2010 (EDT) : Which one, specifically? I do teach a course on [[Economics]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:17, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
:I'm interested in reading the lectures, and other materials, for the multivariable calculus course, though I might not actually "take" the course in the sense of doing the homework and taking the tests. It depends on how much time I have. Thank you. [[User:HarryJP|HarryJP]] 23:11, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::I am kind of a programming geek, and I am wondering if I could take a class that has something to do with programming languages that don't require a compiler, just an interpreter (like JavaScript and the DOS command prompt for Windows) and other interpreted languages heavily supported, mostly through Windows, especially XP, Vista and Windows 7. Are there any such technology classes? [[User:Star651|Star651]] 15:52, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

:::I'm interested in the multivariable calculus class. Will this be applicable or helpful for any AP or CLEP exams? Will there be any kind of official certification I can get from taking this course? I'm planning to take the AP calc BC test next year. Will this be helpful for that? By the way, the formatting of this page looks screwed up compared to most other pages. [[User:BethB|BethB]] 23:33, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

::::Yes, Beth, sorry about the formatting - I'm so glad to hear you're interested in our multivariable calc course! The course is not accredited - however, if you're planning on taking the BC calc test next year, it will help. We will cover material which you will need to know for that test, and you will have access to a certified tutor and college instructor (me) for private consults via email and IM. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:45, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm interested in all 3 courses. The Calc 1 and Calc 2 courses cover material I supposedly covered this past year, though it would certainly do me some good to see them again. The mutivariable calc class is over my head at present, based on the partial lectures I've seen. But I would would probably find this material to be very interesting once it is finished. I never understood the parametric surface stuff. [[User:PaulH1|PaulH1]] 23:39, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: Welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== The Unborn Child ==

The possibility of teaching a course on the unborn child is being considered. Please add comments here if interested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:34, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
:Would the course focus on the theological issues surrounding him, or what exactly? I mean, I learned a fair amount about it in my religious studies, but are you thinking about also discussing the biological, legal, etc, stuff too? Either way, but especially the latter, I would certainly like to at least read over the lessons; I don't know if I could enroll in the course itself, especially since I'm still in college and one course load is all I can handle so far! :) I'd be happy to contribute in any way you think I could though, if only just with my obsessive copy editing. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:02, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

:: I think we'd spend one class on the biblical references, but probably not delve into the theology much more than that. With 12 classes overall, there is much ground to cover in addition to theology, although theological insights are always welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
:::Perhaps there can be cross-collaboration with [[Wikiversity]] on this, given that community's generally more impressively scholarly approach to subject matters such as those at hand. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 23:28, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

==Other Courses==
You know, as long as I'm on this page, is there any interest in maybe an economics course or two? If I can find the time before I start class again I could work out some good information based on my course notes for micro and macro. Maybe even some of my finance courses in later semesters after we build up a foundation (since finance can be off putting for some people, I think, so maybe econ first?) I'm no teacher, but I certainly have plenty of information that's accompanied me through earning my MBA. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:07, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

: We do have an economics course. I taught it last year, I think, and all the materials are posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:The Unborn Child

2010-07-18T03:21:38Z

Tisane: re

Conservapedia talk:The Unborn Child

2010-07-17T21:50:48Z

Tisane: re

Conservapedia talk:The Unborn Child

2010-07-17T20:47:40Z

Tisane: Created page with 'Another possibility is creating a Portal:The Unborn Child that uses a random number generator to provide different content each time it is visited. ~~~~'

File talk:Richard Dawkins fan club meeting.jpg

2010-07-17T02:50:27Z

Tisane: re

I don't get it. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 21:05, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
:Oh, I guess you're saying that his supporters are wusses? [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 22:50, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

File talk:Richard Dawkins fan club meeting.jpg

2010-07-17T01:05:25Z

Tisane: Created page with 'I don't get it. ~~~~'

I don't get it. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 21:05, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Civil disobedience

2010-07-17T00:30:14Z

Tisane: dab

'''Civil disobedience''' is refusal to obey the law deliberately and publicly.

The phrase and the concept were popularized by [[Henry David Thoreau|Thoreau]]'s famous essay, ''Civil disobedience.''

The concept of civil disobedience became a cornerstone of the American [[civil rights movement]] in the 1960's, as [[African American]]s openly but [[peace]]fully defied [[segregation]] laws.

While the [[Bible]] commands that rulers be obeyed in most circumstances (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:13), it also commands civil disobedience when obedience to the state would require disobedience to God. For instance, in Daniel 6, [[Daniel (prophet)|Daniel]] refuses to obey the king's order to worship only the king.

===Ideas of Henry Thoreau===

Thoreau emphasized non-conformity and rebelling against society. He wrote in ''Civil Disobedience'' that we cannot lie to ourselves. We must be whoever we are, regardless of ours flaws and personality. He said we shouldn't conform to society's standards, we are all individual.

The second message of Civil Disobedience is rebelling against the government. Thoreau argued against the usefulness and moral legitimacy of a standing government. He says that if a person's conscience and the law conflict, the person should obey his own conscience. You don't have to change the law yourself, just don't obey it. That's a revolution by itself. The pinnacle of Civil Disobedience is that if a law "requires you to be an agent of injustice, then I say, break the law."

==Ideas of [[Mahatma Gandhi]]==

*In [[South Africa]] Gandhi worked to improve living conditions for the [[India]]n minority. This work, which was especially directed against increasingly [[racist]] legislation, made him develop a strong Indian and religious commitment, and a will to [[self-sacrifice]]. With a great deal of success he introduced a method of [[non-violence]] in the Indian struggle for basic [[human rights]]. The method, satyagraha – "truth force" – was highly idealistic; without rejecting the [[rule of law]] as a principle, the Indians should break those laws which were unreasonable or suppressive. Each individual would have to accept punishment for having violated the law. However, he should, calmly, yet with determination, reject the legitimacy of the law in question. This would, hopefully, make the adversaries – first the South African authorities, later the [[British]] in India – recognize the unlawfulness of their legislation. <ref>[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html Nobel Prize.org]</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

[[category:philosophy]]

Civil disobedience

2010-07-17T00:29:49Z

Tisane: Bible's commands

'''Civil disobedience''' is refusal to obey the law deliberately and publicly.

The phrase and the concept were popularized by [[Henry David Thoreau|Thoreau]]'s famous essay, ''Civil disobedience.''

The concept of civil disobedience became a cornerstone of the American [[civil rights movement]] in the 1960's, as [[African American]]s openly but [[peace]]fully defied [[segregation]] laws.

While the [[Bible]] commands that rulers be obeyed in most circumstances (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:13), it also commands civil disobedience when obedience to the state would require disobedience to God. For instance, in Daniel 6, [[Daniel]] refuses to obey the king's order to worship only the king.

===Ideas of Henry Thoreau===

Thoreau emphasized non-conformity and rebelling against society. He wrote in ''Civil Disobedience'' that we cannot lie to ourselves. We must be whoever we are, regardless of ours flaws and personality. He said we shouldn't conform to society's standards, we are all individual.

The second message of Civil Disobedience is rebelling against the government. Thoreau argued against the usefulness and moral legitimacy of a standing government. He says that if a person's conscience and the law conflict, the person should obey his own conscience. You don't have to change the law yourself, just don't obey it. That's a revolution by itself. The pinnacle of Civil Disobedience is that if a law "requires you to be an agent of injustice, then I say, break the law."

==Ideas of [[Mahatma Gandhi]]==

*In [[South Africa]] Gandhi worked to improve living conditions for the [[India]]n minority. This work, which was especially directed against increasingly [[racist]] legislation, made him develop a strong Indian and religious commitment, and a will to [[self-sacrifice]]. With a great deal of success he introduced a method of [[non-violence]] in the Indian struggle for basic [[human rights]]. The method, satyagraha – "truth force" – was highly idealistic; without rejecting the [[rule of law]] as a principle, the Indians should break those laws which were unreasonable or suppressive. Each individual would have to accept punishment for having violated the law. However, he should, calmly, yet with determination, reject the legitimacy of the law in question. This would, hopefully, make the adversaries – first the South African authorities, later the [[British]] in India – recognize the unlawfulness of their legislation. <ref>[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html Nobel Prize.org]</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

[[category:philosophy]]

Consent of the governed

2010-07-16T19:03:37Z

Tisane:

'''Consent of the governed''' is held by the [[Declaration of Independence]] to be what governments derive their just powers from. A 2010 [[Rasmussen poll]] found that 23% of Americans believe that the U.S. Government has the consent of the governed, with most liberal voters (58%) thinking the federal government has the consent of the governed, and most moderates (57%) and most conservatives (84%) disagreeing.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/23_say_u_s_government_has_the_consent_of_the_governed 23% Say U.S. Government Has the Consent of the Governed], Rasmussen Reports</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Politics]]

Consent of the governed

2010-07-16T18:55:55Z

Tisane: Created page with ''''Consent of the governed''' is held by the Declaration of Independence to be what governments derive their just powers from. A 2010 Rasmussen poll found that 23% of Ame…'

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2010-07-16T16:38:19Z

Tisane: /* Notability */ new section

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
 


== Comments Section ==

Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments. I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed; I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning. Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"? You are right, though. It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation.

::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::My objection to Umlaut was with his attempt to interpret a statute, and even claim that Conservapedia is wrong, without actually reading the statute. As I explained, the statute is not long and does not use big words, so there is no excuse for Ulmaut's sermonizing about it without reading it first. A look at Umlaut's other edits here reveal a similar lack of substantive contributions.

::::Good faith discussion of the statute is welcome. It prohibits vandalizing a site and thereby harming it. When I get a chance, I'll pull some cases that use this statute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Umlaut, your statement that started this thread remains nonsensical, and you still haven't corrected it. "Playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think. Read the statute, study it, and correct your prior statement if you want to discuss further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Please check my post below your first one, as I feel that it responds adequately (and is posted there as it was a direct response). I in fact did read the law; I was merely stating that I had not thoroughly read absolutely every section, and might have missed a minor detail. While I personally don't find "legalese" hard to understand (it's like reading math), such an attempt would have been futile, as I don't have the kind of training or experience needed to actually catch every detail. I was merely expressing that the law didn't seem to apply here, and was asking if anyone with more knowledge could clarify. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Ed Poor: It's written in legalese which makes it hard for us non-lawyer types to follow.

But thanks to Andy for providing a link, so I've now reach much of it for myself. You could, Andy, also help our understanding by pointing out which parts are applicable here. This is what I found:

* Section (a) lists the offenses.
* Section (b) says that the punishments in section (c) will apply.
* Section (c) lists the punishments
* Section (d) refers to government investigative agencies' powers.
* Section (e) defines terms
* Section (f) allows legal investigations
* Section (g) says that civil actions can still apply.
* Section (h) says that investigations are to be reported to Congress.

So the relevant parts seem to be section (a), the offences, section (c) the punishments, and section (e) for defining terms.

Section (a) is broken up as follows:
* Subsection (1) applies to national defence and the like.
* Subsection (2) applies to financial institutions, government department, or "conduct involved in an interstate or foreign communication".
* Subsection (3) applies to government departments and agencies.
* Subsection (4) applies to knowing intent to defraud.
* Subsection (5) applies to protected computers where certain actions are carried out.
* Subsection (6) applies to trafficking of passwords and the like.
* Subsection (7) applies to extortion of money or other things of value.

Of these, only (4) and (5) seem like that might be applicable.

Subsection (4), however, doesn't apply if the person doesn't obtain anything of value, or the thing obtained is use of the computer and such use is not more than $5,000 worth in any one-year period. So this doesn't seem to apply in Conservapedia's case, at least not for any vandalism that has occurred so far or is likely to occur.

Subsection (5) is where it became less clear to me, at least initially. It is divided into two sub-sub-sections. The first (A) specifies what is done and the second (B) specifies what the result is.

Sub-sub-section (A), in three different ways, basically says that the law is applicable if someone knowingly/intentionally causes "damage" to a "protected" computer.

However, according to section (e), a "protected" computer is one used by or for a financial institution or the government or one that is used on interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

Because I can't see how Conservapedia can claim to be a "protected" computer according to section (e), subsection (5) appears to also be inapplicable, in which case, no section of this statute seems applicable.

Now, because of the legalese, perhaps I've missed something, in which case I invite Andy to point out what I've understood incorrectly or to point out which section(s), subsection(s), and sub-sub-section(s) are applicable.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Thank you for posing a more thorough analysis. What I found was the same- the law applies to "protected" computers, which a wiki isn't. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:*And a wiki isn't used in international communication? One would have to find the many amendments and definitions of the applicable laws. In any event, this is another [[liberal deceit]], a distraction from our purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia, NOT discussing if common vandals and cyber terrorists will be punished. Umlaut, you are in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] with your endless talk, talk, talk. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, or busy yourself elsewhere. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't). My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation. Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::*Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion (no matter how wrong it is), Umlaut. You will now have lots of time to argue that at some liberal site, as it is more than clear you are dedicated to talk, talk, talk, argue, argue argue, and have been for many months here contributing absolutely nothing. Thanks for stopping by, Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Almost ''any'' web site could be claimed to be "used in international communications", so no, I can't see that being applicable. How on Earth is this a "liberal deceit"? And are you saying that the commandment's reference to a law is a distraction? Perhaps you'd better point that out to Andy so that he can remove the distraction. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::: The whole of 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (2) reads:
:::: ''(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—''

::::''(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);''
::::''(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or''
::::''(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;''

:::: As can be seen the subsection in question wouldn't apply to any form of wiki. Subsection 2 applies only to those instances when somebody attempts to obtain information from a computer (or equivalent record) when they don't have permission to access that information. It's an objective test of both ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' (i.e. Is it a reasonable that the average person would know in any particular case that the information is a) protected and b) not to be accessed by those who do not have permission to access it, and, then knowing both those things then makes an attempt to obtain that information). This subsection obviously does not apply to any wiki as a) wiki's are designed to have publicly accessed information and b) that information is not protected from being obtained. The subsection also doesn't apply to vandalism as the subsection deals with the ''obtaining'' of information not the ''depositing'' or ''removal'' of information. The subsection would apply however, if somebody hacked or attempted to hack a wiki's site in an attempt to gain protected information (i.e. any information that it is reasonable to assume would be protected, such as a user's private details). Now that isn't to say that other parts of 18 § 1030 wouldn't apply to vandalism (basically because I haven't checked the rest of section (a) yet) but section (a) subsection (2) certainly wouldn't cover it.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::And what is the application here of outright harrassment of an individual(s), up to and including cyber-terrorism? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::Interesting question, by the looks of it 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (5) might cover harrasment of an individual(s), but only if such a harrasment caused physical damage and the harrasment didn't occur through authorized access. To be honest it looks like this is the wrong piece of legislation if you are looking to prosecute harrasment. It might be worth looking at legislation that covers harm to an individual. As to cyber-terrorism 18 § 1030 does cover it, but only in section (a) subsections (1), (3), & (5); at a federal level it seems that US Government only considers cyber-terrorism to be something that occurs against itself and its own interests. Attacks against private computers don't seem to be considered acts of cyber-terrorism, instead it seems to be considered to be attempts at theft, fraud or disruption of commerce, all of which cause monetary harm. Again I need to emphasize that is the point of view solely from 18 § 1030. It could be that other pieces of legislation are more appropriate.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::::::The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::Well, I've gone through the whole of section (a) of 18 § 1030 and this is what I've discovered:

::::'''''Subsection (1):''' having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations,…''— obviously doesn't apply in this case as wiki's shouldn't contain information that breaches this part of subsection (1) (and if they did the wiki itself would be in violation of this part of subsection (1))

::::'''''Subsection (1) cont.:'''…or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;''— Again this part of the subsection obviously doesn't apply to the vandalism of wikis, unless the purpose of the "vandalism" was in fact to transmit information that could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.

::::'''''Subsection (2)''''' See above post.

::::'''''Subsection (3):''' intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again doesn't apply to wikis, as they aren't nonpublic, or for either the exclusive use or non-exclusive use for the official business of the Government of the United States. Again the objective test applies here: is it reasonable that the average man would know that any particular computer is a)non-public or b) for the exclusive or non-eclusive use by the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (4):''' (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;''— Doesn't apply to Conservapedia on multiple grounds. The only way somebody can add or delete material to this site is with authorization. That authorization gives the user the right to add or delete material as he wishes. A user cannot be said to have exceeded his authorized access unless he acts or attempts to perform an act that is greater than his auhtorized access (i.e. a user that has only edit rights on Conservapedia would exceed authorized access if he deliberately made an attempt to access users IP addresses, or deliberately made a personal attempt to block other users. However, a user cannot be said to have exceeded authorised access by deleting or defacing an entire page of information, as the granting of editing rights to that person grants him the authorised access to be able to do these things {i.e. the ability to edit is granted in the authorized access, the user hasn't had to hack the site to gain the ability to delele or add information}). That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes. Vandalism of wikis also fails to fall under the protection of subsection (4) as the ''mens rea'' of subsection (4) is the intent to defraud. When used in such a manner the term defraud has a legal rather than a dictionary meaning, and the legal interpretation of fraud or defraud is applied to those acts which seek to obtain that which has monetary value and to do so in an manner deamed illegal. Vandalism isn't an attempt to defraud (i.e. the vandal isn't seeking to make monetary gain), rather it is an attempt to damage or cause harm.

::::'''''Subsection (5):''''' It is this subsection that probably comes closest to addressing the problem of vandalism.

::::'''''(A)'''''
::::''(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;''
::::''(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or''
::::''(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and…''

::::This would cover vandalism on Conservapedia except for two problems;
::::i) '…intentionally causes damage……recklessly causes damage……causes damage…'— Again it is a pecularity of the law that damage is that which is considered to have incurred harm, be it physical or mental, or monetary costs. Vandalism to Conservapedia wouldn't fall into this category because it doesn't incur damage involving monetary cost to a protected computer as any such vandalism can be repaired by a volunteer, thereby incurring no cost as the volunteer isn't charging to repair the vandalism. Nor does such vandalism add more to the running costs of the site compared to a user making a legitimate edit of the same length.
::::ii) '…without authorization…'— As discussed in subsection (4) the fact that a user has to apply to Conservapedia and be accepted as a member before he can gain editing rights means that his access to articles and his right to edit them in any way that he sees fit is authorized by the owner of the site. If the owner doesn't want a user having full editing rights there are many ways to ensure that a user doesn't have those rights, ranging from not granting those rights, restricting those rights (i.e. the user is not being able to delete or add material directly, but instead the user has to make submission for consideration for inclusion in Conservapedia), or removing those rights completely. The fact that the owner grants full editing rights means that authorization is given for the user to make full edits, whether they are helpful or unhelpful.

::::'''''…(B)''' by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—''
::::''(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''
::::''(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;''
::::''(iii) physical injury to any person;''
::::''(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or''
::::''(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; ''

::::And it is this part of the subsection that ensures that subsection (5) wouldn't apply to Conservapedia. Obviously subparagraphs (B/ii), (B/iii), (B/iv), and (B/v) wouldn't apply and that just leaves subsparagraph (B/i) (''loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''). Any vandalism to the site in terms of editing (as opposed to a (D)DOS attack) doesn't incur monetary costs as such vandalism is easily repaired by volunteers at no cost to the site (i.e. when a user repairs vandalism to the site that user doesn't invoice the owner of the site for monetary compensation for work done). Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.

::::'''''Subsection (6):''' knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—''
::::''(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or''
::::''(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again this is a section that doesn't apply to Conservapedia as a) vandalism on Conservapedia isn't attempting to defraud traffics, b) Conservapedia isn't involved in commerce through www.conservapedia.com and c) isn't a computer used by or for the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (7):''' with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;''— Again doesn't apply to vandalism on Conservapedia as the vandalism isn't an attempt to extort money or items or goods that have a monetary value.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Perhaps I'm talking through my hat not being a lawyer, but I would disagree with a couple of points there, although not enough to change your overall conclusion.
::::: "''That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes.''": No, granting full editing rights does ''not'' grant the user the ''authorisation'' (as opposed to ''ability'') to vandalise.
::::: "''Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.''": Perhaps not, but it ''does'' cost the site's owner, in that there is extra bandwidth involved and extra disk storage space (assuming both are being paid per quantity used). True, the cost would be nowhere near $5,000, so the law would still not apply, but because the cost is small, not because there is no cost.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::::After reading through this discussion again, it seems to me like various posters have made a strong case that [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] does not apply here. This discussion has been very worthwhile, and I, for one, have learned a lot. Some posters have raised valuable questions about certain language that ''might'' apply, which has spurred us on to examine the law more deeply, but upon further examination it seems like this is not the case. Unless someone else has points to consider, it seems like we're coming to the conclusion that the reference to [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] should be removed from the article. In addition, if any of the editors who brought this to our attention have been sanctioned because of their participation in this discussion (and I'm not sure if this has been the case or not), it may be wise, upon reflection, to review that decision. Thank you so much to everyone who has participated - your contributions have all been useful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::Aha, we're back. I've noticed that four questions have been raised. I think that in an edit summary somebody wanted to know whether I have any legal training. Yes, plus years of experience working in many specialties including US federal law (although not State level laws, too many States and not much call for that kind of specialty in the UK).
::::Karajou asked:''"The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both?"''. If it was up to me, given that I know only the basics of the case, I would look to prosecute under 18 § 1030 s(ection):(A), s(ub)s(ection):(5), s(ub)p(aragraph): (A/iii) & sp: (B/iii), and, by a quick look it appears that the state law of Missouri at the time didn't seem to cover this situation ([http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/02/06/news/local_state/154433.txt this] excellent article explains a bit more, as does [http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/683421.html this one] {tenth paragraph down}). I won't go into exacting detail why I would choose 18 § 1030 but the basic argument I would have used in a prosecution would have been '''''i)'''''The messages were sent and received through My Space, a site that fulfills the requirements to be a 'protected computer' through virtue of the fact that access to any relevant service that MySpace offers can only be enjoyed when a someone signs up for an account. If somebody doesn't sign up to an account then the services that MySpace offers can't be accessed. You will notice that a different system of operation applies to a wiki however. The main service of a wiki is to provide information, and access to that information is given freely to the public, thereby removing any argument that the site is a private or protected computer. '''''ii)'''''Acquiring an account at MySpace means signing up to a legally binding contract that specifically delineates the exact authorisation that a user has to access and use the services available, that would mean that behaviour such as harrassment of another individual would be considered a breach of the terms and conditions imposed by the contract. Breaching the terms of the contract means that the user is acting without authorization. Again this is different to the current setup of Conservapedia where a user creates an account to acquire the ability to edit it as this signing up procedure doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a contract (I won't go into details about why not, but to use legal jargon the procedure that the user goes through to become a volunteer at the site doesn't meet the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law consideration] test for a contract, plus it fails to meet the requirements to form a legally binding contract in other ways as well). Without a contract that sets out the exact level of authorisation that a user has in terms of editing it becomes a lot more difficult to say exactly where that authorisation begins and ends ''purely from a legal point of view''. '''''iii)'''''The last part of sp:(A/iii) reads ''"…causes damage"''. I think it is this part that causes the most problems if you wanted to bring a prosecution in the above case. If you read sp: (A/i) it clearly states ''"intentionally causes damage…to a protected computer"'', whereas sp: (A/ii) & (A/iii) just talk about causing damage, it doesn't specify what too. However A/i, A/ii and A/iii are all part of the same paragraph and therefore obviously linked, so that raises a quandrey within the courts about how that part of the statute should be read. The court could decide that given that A/i states that the damage must be done to a computer then the intent of the framers of the law was that the same applies to the rest of the subparagraph (i.e. any damage caused would have to be done to a computer). Or the court could decide to take a literal interpretation of the law (i.e. parts A/ii and A/iii don't state that the damage has to occur to a specific object). Again, if it was me arguing the case I would try and argue the latter, and that the damage caused in A/iii was the severe psychological trauma caused to the victim, but I wouldn't be confident of winning that argument. And finally '''''iv)''''' sp: (B/iii) requires that ''"physical injury to any person"'' occurs. In this particular case that, obviously, would be the suicide of the teenager.
::::And the last two questions were Philip J. Rayment's. On the first question, as I mentioned above, I see your point, it can be very difficult to see how a court would decide on the question of 'without authorization' when there is no legal binding contract to point out the exact extent of a user's authorisation. But the basis of US law is the same as the basis of English and Welsh law, Scottish law, Northern Ireland law and I'm guessing Australian law (given the shared heritage), in that the whole foundation of the law is that it is designed to define what is forbidden, and what isn't forbidden is allowed. That sounds obvious, but other legal systems (such as France's) often work on the principle that the law is there to define what you are allowed to do (i.e. what isn't allowed is forbidden). There is no specific US federal law that prohibits making unhelpful edits to Conservapedia, as long as those edits aren't furthering terrorism or in some way violate 18 U.S.C. § 2425, so without some way of saying that those edits are specifically illegal (i.e specifically violate laws preventing terrorism or those sections covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2425, or violated the terms and conditions laid out in a legally binding contract) it would, at best, be extremely difficult to argue that those edits were made without authorisation. As to the second question, that of cost, again it all comes down to how the law is argued in court. Obviously this specific law was never designed to cover wikis, but instead was designed to protect online businesses, businesses that rely on computers, or the US Government. Obviously, monetary damages to all of those are relatively easy to qunatify (how much did it cost to repair the damage, how much did it cost you to lose that information, how much did it cost you to make relevant changes to your security systems, how much did it cost you in lost business). Wikis on the other hand, it becomes very difficult to determine how much damage has been done monetarily when an unhelpful edit is made. Reverting that edit requires time, certainly, but that time is given freely by a volunteer, so no cost. Extra bandwidth and storage space? Well, if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and replaces it with 4 then the edit has actually reduced the cost of running Conservpedia, based on storage costs.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Thanks for the response to my points. On the first one, the authorisation issue, I accept your point about there being no law nor legally-binding contract regarding what is and what is not authorised.
::::: On the cost of the vandalism, I'd still argue that you are wrong (but still in the context that the cost would be very minor), as if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and adds four, to use your example, the storage requirement is ''increased'', as the database still stores those 2000 removed words, as well as the four new ones. This is obvious from the mere fact that you can view the history of the article and see those 2000 words in the history. And from the fact that any editor can revert back to those 2000 words, thereby creating yet another record in the database (although whether that new record duplicates those 2000 words or simply points to the older record I don't know). Even deleted pages and deleted ('oversighted') edits are still in the database taking up room unless specifically removed by someone with required rights.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:56, 5 March 2009 (EST)
::::::Ah, boss thinking there. Didn't think of it in terms of storage costs re retention of deleted material :-)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:33, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Seeing as the majority of users in this discussion support changing this, could it be changed? Or, could those who support keeping the current state of the page (notably Andy) provide their legal analysis? Sorry if it seems like I'm too new to suggests this- I've been using Conservapedia for a while, but didn't actually create an account till now.[[User:NSchneider|NSchneider]] 11:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

*No. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:27, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

==Please un-archive the current discussion==

I have been interested in following the recent discussion here, and would prefer that it not be archived for a little while. Many of the posters provided food for thought, including PJR. It can only benefit us to better understand our situation, and one way to do that is to dig into the text of the law and discuss it with others, who may see things differently. Listening to others' points of view can help us see our own blind spots, and/or can help strengthen our understanding as to why we are in fact right. ''Both'' of these are good outcomes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)
: Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Thanks. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Proper Citations ==

"This actually happened" is not in any way, shape, or form, an actual citation. Can we please, please stop this practice. -- 19:07, 11 March 2009 Deuce

*Could you offer a citation that will illustrate your point, Deuce? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:17, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Certainly!
Bad example: President Lincoln was born on the moon.(1]
(1] This is proven to be true.
Really? Proven? Where? Any ridiculous statement can be made to sound official when you add that "citation."
Good example: At least ten people were killed in a shooting spree in Alabama on Tuesday. (1]
(1]http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1036167920090311
Here I've linked a news article reporting on the event. A citation needs a source other than the author's own word. That's the entire point! {{unsigned|Deuce}} -- 05:28, 12 March 2009

:*''But you are not showing an example that caused you to make the post.'' And not all statements need a citation. If I were to make an edit saying '''"95% of all [[liberals]] practice [[deceit]]"''' it wouldn't need a citation or reference, because it is a ''truism'', so apparent to anyone with common sense and an open mind, that it is obvious. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 09:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

::I can't say I agree with your "truism." By adding a finite value, (95%) you're establishing a measurement. Something other than "common sense." Saying "liberals often practice deceit" seems closer to a truism. The finite value of 95% would need some sort of citation, like a study that came up with such a result. (not that anyone could really measure something like deceit. Imagine the inaccuracy of a survey that asks "Do you lie?") Of course, that's off-topic. I looked for the previous poor citations, but the strong examples that came to mind seem to have been edited already. Keep up the good work people!

::*In the future, just post to my talk page if anything strikes you that strongly. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:47, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

==Just a suggestion==

I'm noticing that several "trolls" have been banned after posting to an admin's talk page. Maybe it should be an official rule: ''Do not annoy the admins.'' Especially since I have not seen a lot of warning before banning. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 23:15, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Notability ==

Are there any rules with respect to notability requirements for article topics? [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 12:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Food for Life

2010-07-16T16:34:46Z

Tisane: Created page with ''''Food for Life''' is a company that produces several food products, such as its flagship product, Ezekiel 4:9 bread, that contain whole wheat, barley, beans, [[lent…'

'''Food for Life''' is a company that produces several food products, such as its flagship product, Ezekiel 4:9 bread, that contain [[whole wheat]], [[barley]], [[beans]], [[lentil]]s, [[millet]], and [[fitch]]es. [[Flour]] is not used as an [[ingredient]].<ref>[http://www.foodforlife.com/info-center-customer-service/faqs.cfm#HowcanFoodForLifemakebreadwithoutflour]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Companies]]

Conservapedia:College Guidance

2010-07-16T16:23:11Z

Tisane: /* Choice of major */

[[Image:College tuition graph.jpg|right|400px]]
''Conservapedia'' offers free college guidance, including how to obtain quality degrees for less cost.

Specifically, this entry will provide information on how to take free courses here that will enable students to excel on [[CLEP]], [[DANTES]], [[DSST]], [[TECEP]], or [[AP]] exams to obtain quality college credits to much lower cost than typical tuition charges.

Students have reportedly obtained entire college degrees for a total cost of less than $9000 by earning two full years of credit based on CLEP exams.

Completing college in three years can save 25% in tuition and expenses and [[opportunity costs]]. Some colleges facilitate early graduation and transfer credits, while others have policies making it difficult to accelerate the process.

[[Thomas Edison State College]], for example, provides a low-cost path to a college degree costing that utilizes online education, perhaps costing as little as $10,000 overall.<ref>http://www.tesc.edu/1673.php</ref>

There are numerous [[online colleges]]. There are also many online sites, such as "istudysmart.com", offer a three-step approach to obtaining college credits more cheaply than current tuition rates.<ref>http://www.istudysmart.com/content.asp?cid=227</ref>

Many four-year colleges and community colleges offer affordable college credit through [[distance learning]] programs, which enable students to juggle school with jobs. ''Conservapedia'' courses can help fill in the gaps in these courses at no additional cost to the students.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!College
!Cost-per-year
!CLEP or 3-year policy
|-
|[[Liberty University]]
|$24,360<ref>[https://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=6925 includes all expenses]</ref>
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

== Analysis ==

A good goal is to obtain 30 credit hours from CLEP and other sources, in order to exceed the 24 or so credit hours that are required to obtain a full year's worth of credit (requirements vary from school to school).

It helps immensely to identify several colleges early in the process, long before you pick which one you'll want to attend, and then check out their credit transfer policy. Many colleges refuse to transfer credits from community colleges for certain classes, and not all colleges accept CLEP credits either.

==Choice of major==
Not all degrees are created equal. With the rising cost of education, some degrees may simply not be worth the tuition and opportunity costs anymore. Edward H. Romney, in his book ''Living Well on Practically Nothing'', writes, "Only degrees in [[law]], [[medicine]], [[accounting]], [[engineering]], [[computer science]], and the [[physical science|physical]] and [[biology|biological science]]s are worthwhile these days. Liberal college counselors lure students into [[liberal arts]], [[education]], and the [[social science]]s. The kids prefer liberal courses to more substantial courses because they are easier and they get higher marks. They have to study less in these programs, but what they learn is mostly left-wing political indoctrination and [[secular humanism]]. It is a pity that parents pay for this kind of education and banks loan money against it. They will be sorry."

{{Conservapedia}}

<references/>

Conservapedia:College Guidance

2010-07-16T16:22:42Z

Tisane: choice of major

[[Image:College tuition graph.jpg|right|400px]]
''Conservapedia'' offers free college guidance, including how to obtain quality degrees for less cost.

Specifically, this entry will provide information on how to take free courses here that will enable students to excel on [[CLEP]], [[DANTES]], [[DSST]], [[TECEP]], or [[AP]] exams to obtain quality college credits to much lower cost than typical tuition charges.

Students have reportedly obtained entire college degrees for a total cost of less than $9000 by earning two full years of credit based on CLEP exams.

Completing college in three years can save 25% in tuition and expenses and [[opportunity costs]]. Some colleges facilitate early graduation and transfer credits, while others have policies making it difficult to accelerate the process.

[[Thomas Edison State College]], for example, provides a low-cost path to a college degree costing that utilizes online education, perhaps costing as little as $10,000 overall.<ref>http://www.tesc.edu/1673.php</ref>

There are numerous [[online colleges]]. There are also many online sites, such as "istudysmart.com", offer a three-step approach to obtaining college credits more cheaply than current tuition rates.<ref>http://www.istudysmart.com/content.asp?cid=227</ref>

Many four-year colleges and community colleges offer affordable college credit through [[distance learning]] programs, which enable students to juggle school with jobs. ''Conservapedia'' courses can help fill in the gaps in these courses at no additional cost to the students.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!College
!Cost-per-year
!CLEP or 3-year policy
|-
|[[Liberty University]]
|$24,360<ref>[https://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=6925 includes all expenses]</ref>
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

== Analysis ==

A good goal is to obtain 30 credit hours from CLEP and other sources, in order to exceed the 24 or so credit hours that are required to obtain a full year's worth of credit (requirements vary from school to school).

It helps immensely to identify several colleges early in the process, long before you pick which one you'll want to attend, and then check out their credit transfer policy. Many colleges refuse to transfer credits from community colleges for certain classes, and not all colleges accept CLEP credits either.

==Choice of major==
Not all degrees are created equal. With the rising cost of education, some degrees may simply not be worth the tuition and opportunity costs anymore. Edward H. Romney, in his book ''Living Well on Practically Nothing'', writes, "Only degrees in [[law]], [[medicine]], [[accounting]], [[engineering]], [[computer science]], and the [[physical science|physical]] and [[biological science]]s are worthwhile these days. Liberal college counselors lure students into [[liberal arts]], [[education]], and the [[social science]]s. The kids prefer liberal courses to more substantial courses because they are easier and they get higher marks. They have to study less in these programs, but what they learn is mostly left-wing political indoctrination and [[secular humanism]]. It is a pity that parents pay for this kind of education and banks loan money against it. They will be sorry."

{{Conservapedia}}

<references/>

User:Tisane

2010-07-16T16:07:06Z

Tisane:

My main account is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tisane at enwiki]. I will normally confine my mainspace edits here to dealing with issues of [[fiscal conservatism]], with occasional insightful remarks about [[Christianity]] gleaned from my training at [[Faith in Christ Community Church]], which was largely based on the [[MacArthur Study Bible]]. If you see me do something out of line, please bear in mind that I am new here and not accustomed to every nuance of the norms of this particular wiki, although I have read the guides for beginners. Thank you.

Talk:Debate: Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?

2010-07-16T16:03:13Z

Tisane: Created page with 'Isn't this usually the kind of thing that goes in the Debate: namespace? ~~~~'

Isn't this usually the kind of thing that goes in the Debate: namespace? [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 12:03, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Privatization

2010-07-16T11:33:08Z

Tisane: citations

'''Privatization''' is the act of opening up previously state-owned corporations, assets, service or economic sector to private enterprise, though it can also be used to refer to public private partnerships, such as operating concessions, or Build Operate Transfer schemes. Privatization has been encouraged by the [[IMF]] and [[World Bank]] in both wealthy and developing nations since the [[Second World War]], but particularly since the 1980's. It is mostly responsible for the transformation of poor quality public services delivered in a top-down authoritarian manner to customer-focused, flexible, innovative, more efficient and transparent services, as well as unlocking the potential of private sector profit-focused investment that have transformed services such as water and telecoms in the developing world.

As well as proving economic and quality of life benefits to citizens in developing countries, it is a major factor in improving [[rule of law]], [[accountability]], transparency, [[democracy]] and personal freedoms, by integrating the economies of developing countries with those of the west, thus leading to greater incentives to reconcile regulatory, legal and political standards, as well as encouraging the local population to accept [[responsibility]] for development of their country, through participating in an opening market and thus directly affecting the way these services are provided by exercising their consumer choice in service provision, and by making stock investments in publicly traded, rather than state monopolist utilities.

Not all privatization programs have been successful. For instance, the [[Dulles Greenway]] in Virginia has not turned a profit.<ref>Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, [http://www.nvta.org/content.asp?sl=459&contentid=1767 Dulles Greenway]</ref> The reason may be excessive government regulation, or the fact that there are so many competing free roadways operated by the State. Or it may have simply been mismanaged; failure sometimes occurs in the private sector just as it sometimes does in the public sector.

Some products, such as [[national defense]], are deemed to be [[public good]]s whose production cannot be feasibly privatized. However, this is controversial. Some economists, such as [[Murray Rothbard]], hold that all government services can and should be privatized, with citizens and businesses contracting directly with private firms for protection.<ref>Rothbard, Murray. [http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp For a New Liberty]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

== Outside Links ==
* [http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap12.htm US Info at state.gov]

[[Category: Economics]]

Intellectual honesty

2010-07-16T03:55:09Z

Tisane: Created page with ''''Intellectual honesty''' is willingness to advocate positions one knows are correct, even when those positions are unpopular, or when their expression would lead to negative co…'

'''Intellectual honesty''' is willingness to advocate positions one knows are correct, even when those positions are unpopular, or when their expression would lead to negative consequences for their proponent.

==See also==
*[[Intellectual dishonesty]]

Murray Rothbard

2010-07-16T02:00:03Z

Tisane: books

Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) was a [[libertarian]] economist who extended the [[Austrian School of Economics]] to broader opposition to government. For example, Rothbard defended large, private firms (unlike many economists, Rothbard rejected the idea of free market [[monopolies]] <ref>http://mises.org/rothbard/mespm.PDF</ref>) while most economists view them as harmful.<ref>http://www.mises.org/story/1800</ref>

Rothbard is praised by the [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]], which continues to promote his work. Three of Rothbard's most famous books are ''[[For a New Liberty]]'', ''[[Man, Economy and State]]'', and ''[[The Ethics of Liberty]]''.

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[Category:Economists|Rothbard, Murray]][[Category:Libertarianism]]

Privatization

2010-07-16T01:58:19Z

Tisane: more info

'''Privatization''' is the act of opening up previously state-owned corporations, assets, service or economic sector to private enterprise, though it can also be used to refer to public private partnerships, such as operating concessions, or Build Operate Transfer schemes. Privatization has been encouraged by the [[IMF]] and [[World Bank]] in both wealthy and developing nations since the [[Second World War]], but particularly since the 1980's. It is mostly responsible for the transformation of poor quality public services delivered in a top-down authoritarian manner to customer-focused, flexible, innovative, more efficient and transparent services, as well as unlocking the potential of private sector profit-focused investment that have transformed services such as water and telecoms in the developing world.

As well as proving economic and quality of life benefits to citizens in developing countries, it is a major factor in improving [[rule of law]], [[accountability]], transparency, [[democracy]] and personal freedoms, by integrating the economies of developing countries with those of the west, thus leading to greater incentives to reconcile regulatory, legal and political standards, as well as encouraging the local population to accept [[responsibility]] for development of their country, through participating in an opening market and thus directly affecting the way these services are provided by exercising their consumer choice in service provision, and by making stock investments in publicly traded, rather than state monopolist utilities.

Not all privatization programs have been successful. For instance, the [[Dulles Greenway]] in Virginia has not turned a profit. The reason may be excessive government regulation, or the fact that there are so many competing free roadways operated by the State. Or it may have simply been mismanaged; failure sometimes occurs in the private sector just as it sometimes does in the public sector.

Some products, such as [[national defense]], are deemed to be [[public good]]s whose production cannot be feasibly privatized. However, this is controversial. Some economists, such as [[Murray Rothbard]], hold that all government services can and should be privatized, with citizens and businesses contracting directly with private firms for protection.

== Outside Links ==
* [http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap12.htm US Info at state.gov]

[[Category: Economics]]

Austrian School of Economics

2010-07-16T01:50:02Z

Tisane: reflist

The '''Austrian school of economics''' is a school of economic thought which supports the [[libertarian]] [[philosophy]] by pointing out the inefficiency and ineffectualness of government intervention. However, Austrian economics is a positive, not a normative, school of thought and therefore has no inherent political leaning. It views all value as subjective, and that efficiency consists of maximizing value as sought by each individual. It avoids [[mathematics]] because it does not feel math can capture the complexities of the economic world and, more importantly, because it views social sciences to be properly based on rationalism and ''a priori'' reasoning. Austrian economists, like many other free market economists including Chicago School and neo-classical economists, believe free trade is key to prosperity. Austrians, unlike many of the same economists however, also believe the free market can function in areas such as infrastructure (roads<ref>http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf</ref>, electricity<ref>http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf</ref>, etc), defense (police<ref>http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp</ref>, military<ref>http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf</ref>), and dealing with "externalities" <ref>http://mises.org/pdf/asc/2003/asc9simpson.pdf</ref> (pollution<ref>http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Storfner.pdf</ref>, free riders<ref>http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf</ref>, etc).

The Austrian school of [[economics]] opposed the inflationary approach of [[Keynesian economics]], and thus is favored by many conservatives on that basis.

The founder of the Austrian school of economics was [[Carl Menger]], who published in German in 1871 its leading text, ''Principles of Economics''. In the 1920s through 1940s, [[Ludwig von Mises]] and [[Friedrich A. Hayek]] advanced the movement by declaring the impossibility for socialism to succeed and also explaining the nature of the business cycle. Mises' most important student, [[Murray Rothbard]], lead the Austrian School after Mises' death and made many contributions to Austrian monopoly and monetary theory, along with expanding the traditional analysis of government interventionism to areas such as defense, police, and courts, concluding that socialism in these areas works no better than in others.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.fee.org/ Foundation for Economic Education]
* [http://www.independent.org/ The Independent Institute]
* [http://www.mises.org/ Ludwig von Mises Institute]
* [http://www.econlib.org/library/enc/AustrianEconomics.html "Austrian Economics," by Deborah L. Walker]
* [http://it.stlawu.edu/sdae/ Society for the Development of Austrian Economics]

[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]

Ludwig von Mises Institute

2010-07-16T01:49:26Z

Tisane: Created page with 'The '''Ludwig von Mises Institute''' is an Auburn, Alabama-based organization promoting Austrian economics. Its leader is Lew Rockwell. ==External link== *http://mis…'

The '''Ludwig von Mises Institute''' is an [[Auburn, Alabama]]-based organization promoting [[Austrian economics]]. Its leader is [[Lew Rockwell]].

==External link==
*http://mises.org/

[[Category:Organizations]]

Privatization

2010-07-16T01:25:19Z

Tisane: caveat

'''Privatization''' is the act of opening up previously state-owned corporations, assets, service or economic sector to private enterprise, though it can also be used to refer to public private partnerships, such as operating concessions, or Build Operate Transfer schemes. Privatization has been encouraged by the [[IMF]] and [[World Bank]] in both wealthy and developing nations since the [[Second World War]], but particularly since the 1980's. It is mostly responsible for the transformation of poor quality public services delivered in a top-down authoritarian manner to customer-focused, flexible, innovative, more efficient and transparent services, as well as unlocking the potential of private sector profit-focused investment that have transformed services such as water and telecoms in the developing world.

As well as proving economic and quality of life benefits to citizens in developing countries, it is a major factor in improving [[rule of law]], [[accountability]], transparency, [[democracy]] and personal freedoms, by integrating the economies of developing countries with those of the west, thus leading to greater incentives to reconcile regulatory, legal and political standards, as well as encouraging the local population to accept [[responsibility]] for development of their country, through participating in an opening market and thus directly affecting the way these services are provided by exercising their consumer choice in service provision, and by making stock investments in publicly traded, rather than state monopolist utilities.

Not all privatization programs have been successful. For instance, the [[Dulles Greenway]] in Virginia has not turned a profit. The reason may be excessive government regulation, or the fact that there are so many competing free roadways operated by the State.

== Outside Links ==
* [http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap12.htm US Info at state.gov]

[[Category: Economics]]

Public good

2010-07-16T01:23:22Z

Tisane: more info

A '''public good''' is a [[good]] which is nonexcludable and nondepletable (or non-rivalrous). The first condition means that it is impossible to keep anyone from partaking in the good, and the second condition means that one consumer's consumption of the good does not prevent others from consuming it. It is therefore inefficient for private companies to produce public goods, since they cannot ensure that customers pay them for it. Therefore, the government produces most public goods so it can collect compensation through taxes.

Explained another way, a public good is available to all such that consumption by one person does not reduce its availability to others.

There is some controversy as to whether any public goods actually exist. For instance, [[lighthouse]]s were once deemed to be public goods, since anyone who sails by can use the lighthouse to avoid hitting reefs, without having to pay a fee. But in some cases, lighthouses have been funded by nearby harbors, without the need for government subsidies.<ref>[http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=757 The Lighthouse as a Private-Sector Collective Good]</ref> Likewise, radio broadcasts are non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that it is difficult to force listeners to pay a fee, but such broadcasts are usually funded through [[advertising]]. The proven economic viability of [[private security]] suggests that even some aspects of the core government function of [[crime control]], thought to be a public good, might be [[privatized]].

In some cases, a good may be somewhat nonexcludable and nonrivalrous, but nonetheless, the person who pays receives a greater benefit than the freeloaders. An example would be the Lo-Jack security system that can be used by police to triangulate the position of a stolen car. The existence of such devices deters car theft everywhere, since car thieves do not know which cars have it and which don't. But those who buy the device are more likely to be able to recover their vehicles in the event theft does occur.

==Examples==
* National defense. It protects every resident of the country, and one person's partaking of it does not diminish its benefits to others.
* Public parks.
* The Internet.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category: Economics]]

Privatized

2010-07-16T01:18:54Z

Tisane: Redirected page to Privatization

#redirect [[privatization]]

Talk:Public good

2010-07-16T01:14:27Z

Tisane: Created page with 'How are public parks public goods? We have seen that theme parks such as Six Flags have been able to operate without public funding, and without letting people in without…'

How are public parks public goods? We have seen that [[theme park]]s such as [[Six Flags]] have been able to operate without public funding, and without letting people in without paying. That could be done with other parks too.

What about the Internet? How is that a public good? The Internet can be as easily privatized as telephone service. If the backbone is put under the ownership of private companies, they can charge a fee for use of it. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 21:14, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Public good

2010-07-16T01:11:44Z

Tisane:

A '''public good''' is a [[good]] which is nonexcludable and nondepletable (or non-rivalrous). The first condition means that it is impossible to keep anyone from partaking in the good, and the second condition means that one consumer's consumption of the good does not prevent others from consuming it. It is therefore inefficient for private companies to produce public goods, since they cannot ensure that customers pay them for it. Therefore, the government produces most public goods so it can collect compensation through taxes.

Explained another way, a public good is available to all such that consumption by one person does not reduce its availability to others.

There is some controversy as to whether any public goods actually exist. For instance, [[lighthouse]]s were once deemed to be public goods, since anyone who sails by can use the lighthouse to avoid hitting reefs, without having to pay a fee. But in some cases, lighthouses have been funded by nearby harbors, without the need for government subsidies.<ref>[http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=757 The Lighthouse as a Private-Sector Collective Good]</ref> Likewise, radio broadcasts are non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that it is difficult to force listeners to pay a fee, but such broadcasts are usually funded through [[advertising]]. The proven economic viability of [[private security]], and the successful outsourcing of certain [[police]] services, such as bad check investigations, to private firms, suggests that even some aspects of the core government function of [[crime control]] might be [[privatized]].

==Examples==
* National defense. It protects every resident of the country, and one person's partaking of it does not diminish its benefits to others.
* Public parks.
* The Internet.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category: Economics]]

Public good

2010-07-16T01:11:21Z

Tisane: more info

A '''public good''' is a [[good]] which is nonexcludable and nondepletable (or non-rivalrous). The first condition means that it is impossible to keep anyone from partaking in the good, and the second condition means that one consumer's consumption of the good does not prevent others from consuming it. It is therefore inefficient for private companies to produce public goods, since they cannot ensure that customers pay them for it. Therefore, the government produces most public goods so it can collect compensation through taxes.

Explained another way, a public good is available to all such that consumption by one person does not reduce its availability to others.

There is some controversy as to whether any public goods actually exist. For instance, [[lighthouse]]s were once deemed to be public goods, since anyone who sails by can use the lighthouse to avoid hitting reefs, without having to pay a fee. But in some cases, lighthouses have been funded by nearby harbors, without the need for government subsidies.<ref>[http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=757 The Lighthouse as a Private-Sector Collective Good]</ref> Likewise, radio broadcasts are non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that it is difficult to force listeners to pay a fee, but such broadcasts are usually funded through [[advertising]]. The proven economic viability of [[private security]], and the successful outsourcing of certain [[police]] services, such as bad check investigations, to private firms, suggests that even some aspects of the core government function of [[crime control]] might be [[privatized]].

==Examples==
* National defense. It protects every resident of the country, and one person's partaking of it does not diminish its benefits to others.
* Public parks.
* The Internet.

[[Category: Economics]]

Intellectual dishonesty

2010-07-16T01:02:18Z

Tisane:

'''Intellectual dishonesty''' is lying about or concealing one's own beliefs. [[Liberals]], and those on the [[leftist|left]], are far more inclined to this form of [[deceit]] than conservatives.{{fact}}

[[Charles Murray]] provides an example of [[liberal]] intellectual dishonesty:
:In their heart of hearts, intellectual elites, especially [[liberal]] ones, have two nasty secrets regarding [[IQ]]. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already sure that the black - white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this is a calamity -- such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites' most desperately denied inner thoughts. <ref>http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html</ref>

Intellectual dishonesty often arises when incentives exist for people to advocate stances that they know to be wrong. For instance, handlers of political candidates may encourage them to adopt positions that will be popular with the people, regardless of what their personal opinions may be.

==References==

<References/>

{{liberalism}}

[[category:political Terms]]
[[Category:Liberal Deceit]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Intellectual dishonesty

2010-07-16T01:01:52Z

Tisane: causes

'''Intellectual dishonesty''' is lying about or concealing one's own beliefs. [[Liberals]], and those on the [[leftist|left]], are far more inclined to this form of [[deceit]] than conservatives.{{fact}}

[[Charles Murray]] provides an example of [[liberal]] intellectual dishonesty:
:In their heart of hearts, intellectual elites, especially [[liberal]] ones, have two nasty secrets regarding [[IQ]]. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already sure that the black - white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this is a calamity -- such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites' most desperately denied inner thoughts. <ref>http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html</ref>

Intellectual dishonesty often arises when incentives exist for people to advocate stances that they know to be wrong. For instance, handlers of political candidates may encourage them to adopt positions that will be popular with the people.

==References==

<References/>

{{liberalism}}

[[category:political Terms]]
[[Category:Liberal Deceit]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Sovereign consumer

2010-07-16T00:57:37Z

Tisane:

A '''sovereign consumer''' is a consumer who acts as a [[free agent]], able to exercise free [[consumer choice]] in a marketplace of [[competition|competing]] service providers. Because the inhabitants of a country are required to pay taxes, consumers are sovereign with respect to government services only to the extent that they can freely move among countries that compete with one another to provide the lowest price, best quality government services.

[[Category:Economics]]

Sovereign consumer

2010-07-16T00:56:58Z

Tisane: Created page with 'A '''sovereign consumer''' is a consumer who acts as a free agent, able to exercise free consumer choice in a marketplace of competing service providers. …'

Competition

2010-07-16T00:54:56Z

Tisane:

'''Competition''' is the effort of multiple independent parties working against one another to achieve a goal.

As an [[economic]] term, competition refers to the rivalry between firms to sell the [[goods]] or services they provide. Economists generally consider the level of competition in an industry to be intrinsically related to that industry's [[market structure]].

Competition provides incentives for firms to improve the quality of their products and/or find ways to cut costs and reduce prices. Firms compete both for [[investment capital]] and for [[customer]]s. Those firms that fail to attract enough customers to remain profitable eventually go [[bankrupt]], and their assets are acquired by others. For instance, in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the original stockholders, who failed to govern their firm in a profitable manner, are divested of their ownership in the firm, and the creditors take over ownership. In this way, competition tends to put society's productive resources in the hands of competent managers.

Individual members of society also compete for scarce resources. This is true whether an economy is structured along capitalist or socialist lines. Either way, wealth and power tend to be unequally distributed. The only difference is that in a capitalist system, people compete to serve customers, while in a socialist system, people compete to rise to political power. The qualities required to successfully compete in a capitalistic marketplace, such as creativity, innovation, sound business judgment, and a willingness to take well-advised risks, are in great contrast to those required to compete in a political marketplace, such as conformity, compliance, and an overly cautious approach that avoids trying anything that the person might be blamed for later. For this reason, capitalistic states tend to be more prosperous, and to have faster rates of technological advancements, than socialist states.

Some competition exists among governments, inasmuch as citizens can act as [[sovereign consumer]]s, moving themselves and their capital to whatever countries they feel have favorable laws. This gives freer nations an advantage in competitions that may arise for military and economic supremacy. [[Albert Einstein]] and others fled from [[Nazi Germany]] to the United States, greatly aiding the U.S. war effort during [[World War II]]. During the [[Cold War]], [[East Germany]] and other [[Soviet]]-bloc countries sought to seal their borders so as to prevent a [[brain drain]] of productive intellectuals fleeing to the West, where they would have more personal and economic freedom. Some countries have implemented [[tax harmonization]] as a means of preventing [[tax competition]] that would otherwise lead to governments competing to offer the lowest-tax business environment.

<blockquote>
Who is your competition? The question seems so simple, but a company that defines its competitive set too narrowly can miss disruptive attackers and high-potential growth opportunities.<ref>[http://blogs.hbr.org/anthony/2008/11/who_is_your_competition.html]</ref>
</blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Price war]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Catherine Crabill

2010-07-16T00:24:03Z

Tisane: Created page with ''''Catherine Crabill''' is a Republican Party member who has run for state delegate and U.S. Congress in Virginia. She is also a member of the Tea Party movement, and…'

'''Catherine Crabill''' is a [[Republican Party]] member who has run for state delegate and U.S. Congress in [[Virginia]]. She is also a member of the [[Tea Party movement]], and describes those officeholders who violate the [[U.S. Constitution]] as [[treason]]ous.

==External link==
*http://www.catherinecrabill.com/

Talk:Revolution

2010-07-15T21:36:02Z

Tisane:

Some people with ties to the Tea Party movement, such as [[Catherine Crabill]] and [[Sharron Angle]], have made comments that seem to support an armed revolution if the government becomes too tyrannical. In Angle's case, she [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/angle-retracts-comment-reid/ later said] that she supports change through democratic channels instead. So I put the question out there: Are there any conceivable situations in which armed revolution could be justifiable against a democratically-elected government, or is it only justifiable against a dictatorship? [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 17:35, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Revolution

2010-07-15T21:35:38Z

Tisane: typo

Some people with ties to the Tea Party movement, such as [[Catherine Crabill]] and [[Sharron Angle]], have made comments that seem to support an armed revolution if the government becomes too tyrannical. In Angle's case, she [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/angle-retracts-comment-reid/ later said] that she supports change through democratic channels instead. So I put the question out there for those who believe that a purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to defend against tyranny: Are there any conceivable situations in which armed revolution could be justifiable against a democratically-elected government, or is it only justifiable against a dictatorship? [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 17:35, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Revolution

2010-07-15T21:35:20Z

Tisane: Created page with 'Some people with ties to the Tea Party movement, such as Catherine Crabill and Sharron Angle, have made comments that seem to support an armed revolution if the governmen…'

Some people with ties to the Tea Party movement, such as [[Catherine Crabill]] and [[Sharron Angle]], have made comments that seem to support an armed revolution if the government becomes to tyrannical. In Angle's case, she [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/angle-retracts-comment-reid/ later said] that she supports change through democratic channels instead. So I put the question out there for those who believe that a purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to defend against tyranny: Are there any conceivable situations in which armed revolution could be justifiable against a democratically-elected government, or is it only justifiable against a dictatorship? [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 17:35, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Endangered Species Act

2010-07-15T17:05:01Z

Tisane: more info

The '''Endangered Species Act of 1973''' was enacted to provide federal protection for [[species]], such as the [[bald eagle]],<ref>In 2007, the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species but laws against possession of its feathers remained in place.[http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=8883]</ref> that were placed on the list of endangered species.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act divides the responsibilities for protecting endangered species between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce.

The act has been seen as an attempt by liberals to take legitimate concerns (the threat to the national bird) and turn it into environmental hysteria that interferes with legitimate business interests, individual rights, and states' rights.

The [[Property and Environment Research Center]] notes, "At most, only eight species can be described as recovered: the [[brown pelican]], three [[Palau Island]] birds, the [[American alligator]], the [[Rydberg milk-vetch]], the [[gray whale]], and the [[Arctic peregrine falcon]], although some others that remain listed are doing well." These recoveries are not necessarily the result of the ESA. For instance, the private [[World Center for Birds of Prey]] assisted the peregrine falcon's recovery.<ref>Richard L. Stroup (Apr. 1995) [http://www.perc.org/articles/article648.php The Endangered Species Act: Making Innocent Species the Enemy]</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295359,00.html ''The Endangered Species Act Out of Control'', [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]].

[[category:environment]]

Property and Environment Research Center

2010-07-15T17:00:14Z

Tisane: http://www.perc.org/

The '''Property and Environment Research Center''', or '''PERC''', is an organization devoted to researching how [[free market]]s can benefit the [[environment]]. This branch of study is known as [[free market environmentalism]].

==External link==
*http://www.perc.org/

[[Category:Environment]]

Free market environmentalism

2010-07-15T16:58:39Z

Tisane:

'''Free market environmentalism''' is the theory that free markets are more conducive to environmental preservation than government regulation and government ownership of resources. For example, free market environmentalists believe that the [[Endangered Species Act]] is counterproductive because, by placing restrictions on land populated by certain species, it encourages the landowners to destroy habitats before anyone notices those species are present. Likewise, it encourages nearby landowners to preemptively destroy potential habitats before those species have an opportunity to move there.

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Free market environmentalism

2010-07-15T16:58:27Z

Tisane: Created page with ''''Free market environmentalism''' is the theory that free markets are more conducive to environmental preservation than government regulation and government ownership of resourc…'

'''Free market environmentalism''' is the theory that free markets are more conducive to environmental preservation than government regulation and government ownership of resources. For example, free market environmentalists believe that the [[Endangered Species Act]] is counterproductive because, by placing restrictions on land populated by certain species, it encourages the landowners to destroy habitats before anyone notices those species are present. Likewise, it encourages nearby landlords to preemptively destroy potential habitats before those species have an opportunity to move there.

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Property and Environment Research Center

2010-07-15T16:55:50Z

Tisane: Created page with 'The '''Property and Environment Research Center''', or '''PERC''', is an organization devoted to researching how free markets can benefit the environment. This branch of …'