I like that Mona said she didn't like to lie. In making that remark, I didn't intend an endorsement of libertarianism.

I have heard Marxist, ararcho-syndicalist, anarcho-capitalist, corporate capitalist, socialist, libertarian, fascist and any number of other viewpoints since I've been reading here.

For my own part, I tend to think in terms of transactions. My background is in technology, but I have had the opportunity to learn quite a bit about global supply chain management. One of the key concepts in supply chain management is the idea of a transaction as a model for almost any domain: physical, economic and/or behavioral. In the real world of making and selling things, transactions are defined in so many ways and across so many domains that they are often best viewed as chains of transactions and even long-lived sagas of transactions, each with their respective subtransactions. The point at which you being a chain (set, saga) of transactions and end the chain may be determined by corporate boundaries, contractual boundaries, physical boundaries such as time and location -- any number of criteria in any combination.

The resources, costs and benefits associated with a transaction are not all necessarily contained within the transaction's context. By that I mean you can create products that have costs that you do not pay for and also create benefits that you do not receive. As a well-worn example, I can define all of the costs associated with a manufacturing process, but if my manufacturing plant dumps chemicals into a river, the people who live downstream may be assuming (perhaps without their knowledge or permission) some of the costs of my production. That cost may or may not be monetary. The fact that I don't include that cost in my calculations does not mean it is not there. All costs are not monetary. Neither are all benefits. Although I don't agree with everything he says, Ronald Coase has a lot to say on this subject.

When it's all said and done I like the idea that all human beings should be provided with a certain minimum level of resources such as food, water, shelter, healthcare and education. That's the socialist part of what I believe. I also believe that individuals should have the freedom and opportunity to pursue goals of their own choosing. That's the democratic/libertarian/capitalist part I guess. And while profit is the purpose of capitalism, there should be mechanisms to prevent an accumulation of resources, money and power that would remove or place at risk these other equally important benefits. That's the government law and regulatory part.

I'm definitely not a classical liberal or a neoliberal. If anything, I'm a new liberal or social liberal. I believe in private property, but I reject social darwinism and monopoly capitalism. I support anti-trust. I believe a government has the responsibility to actively promote liberty and individual freedom for every citizen. In fact, I think that should be the central goal and primary purpose of any government.

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08sun1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Given the looming acquisition of Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal by Rupert Murdoch, maybe the NYT is thinking more and more about abandoning their urban cowboy hats and taking a good look at the long-term benefits of a well-informed public.

RealName, Teh two rude Anonymouses (not the witty one), nebuchadnezzar (or whatever your name is) and Shooter(Heh) and the other commenters who make rude comments that have no entertainment value whatsoever:

I would much rather read a comment by The Major than all the rest of you put together, because you have no entertainment value whatsoever. You just come in here, cast aspersions, name call, say the most unoriginal and lifeless things, throw in a few false facts that it's obvious you just pulled out of your collective butt, and then sit back and wait for someone to give you the opposite of a cookie.

It's beside the point that your comments are truthless, toothless and lame beyond measure. What's more important is that people are going to come to this blog tomorrow morning, read Glenn's post, read the first couple of pages of comments, skim over the rest and then jump to the last page where all they're going to see are these talentless and completely unentertaining comments you just made.

Please, if you're determined to be insulting and add nothing to the discussion, at least try to use The Major as example.

Our trolls have been dreaming of this moment all night. Now here they are with their one liners, doing everything they can to divert attention away from the truth.

As usual.

You two must be on payroll.

Rupert Murdoch could very well end up becoming to print newspapers and daily print journalism what Clear Channel is to talk radio. The NYT's days as the paper of record may be numbered. The NYT's only continuing claim to fame besides readership is its "quality" journalism and reporting.

The corporatization of all forms of US media is nearly complete. Yesterday, I went to the movies and watched Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. There was more blatant product placement in that movie than I have seen in a long time. It was obvious who was running the ship at 20th Century Fox when one of the key scenes containing newspaper headlines showed a close-up of a News Corp. newspaper.

Why don't you just paste in the full text of Moby Dick or Ulysses next time? It would be shorter.