The Ethics Cloud Over Ballmer's $2 Billion B-Ball Buy

theodp (442580) writes '"It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," writes Rick Cohen, who argues that Donald Sterling and the NBA owners are being unjustly enriched by Sterling's racism, which led to the $2 billion sale of the L.A. Clippers to ex-Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, a record-high sum for an NBA team. "Indeed, the only losers in the Sterling affair are the players," adds the NY Times. "What held promise as a possible D-Day in the N.B.A., a day when N.B.A. owners stood up to be counted and voted Donald Sterling out of the league, instead turned into a great day for the status quo." Forbes contributor Robert Wood speculates that if he plays his cards right, Sterling's windfall could be tax-free.'

Comments

pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethics? Ethics in the corporate world is what gets you the most cash. The corporate assholes live in a scruple-free culture.

Re:pishaw

[B33rNinj4]

I don't know why you were down-voted, because this is pretty much 100% accurate.

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

If you make selfishness a virtue, anything's good as long as it gets you more of what you want (and the idea that each man's selfishness benefits everyone is just rationalising handwavery).

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

If you make selfishness a virtue, anything's good as long as it gets you more of what you want

Selfishness *is* a virtue. It's communism that's a vice.
--
roman_mir

Re:pishaw

[LWATCDR]

Ethics on Slashdot? No one questions that someone was banned for life and was forced to forfeit his property because of something he said in a private conversation that was recorded and published without his permission.

If you are not outraged by this then please do not bother ever complaining about privacy.

Remember racism is not illegal. Discrimination based on race in the workplace is.

BTW I do not like racism at all but this is just too weird for words.

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't live for yourself then you live for others. Living for others makes you a slave.

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Forfeit? Nope. He's getting paid for it. TFA and TFS even say so.

Re:pishaw

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

A private association had rules governing the association, and one of those members broke one of the rules*. Hence, he was kicked to the curb. No laws are alleged by any part to have been violated.

*He broke the rule that said he wouldn't do or say anything to harm the league financially. Its very broad rule for a reason. This reason.

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. And he's getting a record high price for it. If he had tried to sell the team a day before he uttered his words, he might not have been able to get this price. What he's being forced to give up is his connection to the team and the access to a certain celebrity that such connection provided. At his level of wealth, it's very possible that access is worth more than the money. Who knows? Personally, I don't give a rat's ass. The guy is a ass-hat and that's been an open secret for many, many years, apparently, and they're taking his toy away and giving him more power tools to play with.

Re:pishaw

[sribe]

No one questions that someone was banned for life and was forced to forfeit his property because of something he said in a private conversation that was recorded and published without his permission.

Which is a gross distortion. Had he kept quiet and let that storm pass, he might have gotten to keep the team. (Based on what other owners have said, not just my idle speculation.) But then he had to "defend" himself by having a racist rant on national TV.

Re:pishaw

[thoth]

No one questions that someone was banned for life and was forced to forfeit his property because of something he said in a private conversation that was recorded and published without his permission

So? Isn't this just a bigger private corporation/business interest (the NBA) enforcing their rights to include/exclude whoever they damn well please? And in this case they decided to boot him from their little club? What property did he "forfeit" by the way? He didn't lose anything - he SOLD his property on the market for $2.2 billion.

If he's got a problem with his private conversation being recorded, then he needs to sue whoever recorded and leaked it.

If there is any outrage, it should be targeted at the hypocrisy of free market/libertarians/corporate apologists with BS like the above. The only coercive party in this situation is the NBA, which is not the government, so there isn't any problem under your own world view. So take your outrage and shove it. This is EXACTLY the situation people like you should applaud: larger corporation screwing over smaller corporation/private individual, under contracts mutually agreed upon.

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

"kindness is no virtue... and cruelty is no vice" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what sort of cesspool of comments you've been reading, but you definitely didn't get that "down-voted" terminology from slashdot. We moderate here. The door is that way.

Re:pishaw

[gallen1234]

References, please? When my business students make an assertion like that it negatively impacts their grade. There's no denying that there have been multiple, high profile cases of corruption and greed in the news but a handful of cases can't be taken as an indictment of the entire system.

Re:pishaw

[Jiro]

You know nothing about libertarians.

Libertarians believe it should be legal to a lot of things that leftists don't like, including kicking someone out for bad reasons. However, this does not mean that doing so should not be subject to moral condemnation. Unless you have an example of libertarians saying that what the NBA did should be made illegal, you have no valid criticism.

What property did he "forfeit" by the way? He didn't lose anything - he SOLD his property on the market for $2.2 billion.

He lost the difference between what it was worth to him and what he got by selling it. If this was not a loss, then he would have sold it spontaneously, which he obviously didn't.

Re:pishaw

[SensitiveMale]

What property did he "forfeit" by the way? He didn't lose anything - he SOLD his property on the market for $2.2 billion.

Let's see you own something so rare that only 30 other people in the world own and be forced to sell it. See if you think that isn't losing property.

If he's got a problem with his private conversation being recorded, then he needs to sue whoever recorded and leaked it.

What good would that do? He can't get the team back and she can't compensate what he's lost.

Re:pishaw

[Stuarticus]

The either/or is a huge false dichotomy. Maybe you should consider what 100% "living for yourself" would actually entail?

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethics on Slashdot? No one questions that someone was banned for life and was forced to forfeit his property because of something he said in a private conversation that was recorded and published without his permission.

If you are not outraged by this then please do not bother ever complaining about privacy.

Remember racism is not illegal. Discrimination based on race in the workplace is.

BTW I do not like racism at all but this is just too weird for words.

Well said...

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Channelling Ayn Rand so much like that is unhealthy. You become feeble in mind and spirit, blinded by selfishness and greed, unable to see other ways of living.

You can live for others without being a slave. Serving others does not make you a slave.

You could also live for a greater cause than merely living for yourself or others. You could lead, guide, teach, serve others, all in service of a cause you believe in.

Some also kill for a cause. Fighting/dying for someone/something not yourself does not necessarily make you a slave.

You can also be a slave to your own desires. So you could still end up a slave even if you lived purely for yourself.

p.s. Don't follow that "selfishness is a virtue" bullshit. Selfishness is not a virtue and never will be. But if you're one of those serving others don't forget to take care of yourself - you might not be able to help so much if you die too fast or get crippled/impaired.

Re:pishaw

[LWATCDR]

And was the league harmed?
Also do you think that any owner can pass that rule if you looked at all their private conversations?

Re:pishaw

[LWATCDR]

Actually I am not a libertarian in any way shape of form. What I am saying is that for anyone to publish a private conversation like this or for any organisation to use it is unethical.
It had nothing to do with actual business of the game. It had nothing to do with any laws being broken. It was an old man telling his young ex? girlfriend that he did not like the kind of people that she was bringing to his games "using his tickets" I bet. Frankly I find her disturbing and him rather pathetic. My guess is most of what we are seeing are the effects of illness and old age but that is just my opinion.
This was a completely private matter and has zero impact on the public but it all in public was being used to make him sell his team and to ban him. People also need to understand the term forfeit. He has to give up his team. He was not required to forfeit without compensation. You act as if the only value in the team is the cash value.
I have no idea why you think I am a libertarian. I think most libertarians are clueless. Just as clueless as Tea Party members, or Democrats that are sure that they are smarter than all Republicans, or Republicans that are sure that they are morally superior to all Democrats.

My moral outrage is over everyone elses sense of entitlement to comment on, debate, publicize, and base punishment on what was a completely private matter that frankly was nobody's business.

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

My dear friend, you are confused, and dare I say remarkably antagonistic. I am not certain what hypocritical libertarians have hurt you, but please accept my apology for what must have been a terrible, hurtful experience for you.

Libertarians are not "corporate apologists". They simply know that using the coercive power of government to "correct" the free market leads to even worse results. At least a corporation is without the power to tax, or imprison you. The government can, and because of this it is used as a weapon by the unscrupulous. The currency and the economic playing field is manipulated by these people through government for their own gain to the detriment of all others. This is the result of a powerful government. If such power exists, someone at some point will always attempt to use it to their advantage.

Passing more laws will not fix it, just remember who will be drafting the legislation.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone, but I find it interesting how quickly and vehemently those who consider themselves members of the mainstream worldviews (left and right) will attack those with differing views. If opposing viewpoints elicits such anger and hatred in your heart, perhaps you should reconsider your worldview.

Re:pishaw

[kaatochacha]

Selfishness is a negative, by definition.
Self-interest, however...that's a whole different kettle of fish. Self-Interest is a universal law, like gravity.
As long as you understand it, you can moderate/use it.

Re:pishaw

[callmetheraven]

If you call the left's systemic brainwashing, racism, and thuggery "weird", then yes.

Re:pishaw

[luis_a_espinal]

Ethics? Ethics in the corporate world is what gets you the most cash. The corporate assholes live in a scruple-free culture.

Corporate ethics are different from country to country (compare how corps act in the US with corps in Japan or Germany.) Hell, even within this country, corporate ethics used to mean something not long ago.

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, with just the initial recording the owners had to consider the wiretapping aspect, and I think Cuban explicitly said he would have a problem voting to ban him (mainly because he did not want to be similarly judged by a private conversation). Once Sterling went on TV that was no longer an issue.

Re:pishaw

[rochrist]

I'm sure all of the players on the Clippers would have been happy to ignore it. Or maybe, they all would have been running for the exits before next season leaving the NBA with the embarrassing situation of having a team with no players to, you know, actually play the games. Once this became public, there was no way on earth the league could avoid taking action.

Re:pishaw

[LWATCDR]

Hummm.... So because someone says something in private that people do not like......
Yea just see how well that works out when you apply it everyone. You make a joke about any group in private and the people in your condo find out and tell you that you have to sell your condo right now and are banned for life.

That is just it. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE PUBLISHED THIS CALL! It is not anyone's business.

Re:pishaw

[rochrist]

But they did. THAT'S THE POINT. Once it became public, the league had to act. It doesn't matter HOW it became public, they still had to act.

Re:pishaw

[Triklyn]

we're all pretty much living comfortable, free and relatively affluent lives because of the consideration and self-sacrifice of others.

nobody alive today fought for the most important of the rights we hold sacred... well maybe the greatest generation, but that was more abstractly.

"i only regret, that i have only one life to lose for my country." -Hale

ayn rand was a fool and a hypocrite.

Re:pishaw

[LWATCDR]

No they could have said that this was a private conversation and is nobody's business. Just as Slashdot should not post stories about it.
The discussion should be on privacy IMHO. People get bent over someone wearing Google glass in a public bar but they are not jumping up and down over the broadcast and people making judgement and commentary on a private phone conversation?
Really?

Re:pishaw

[Tailhook]

but this is just too weird for words

There is nothing weird about any of this. You're just not sufficiently cynical. Alternately defending or opposing the same thing based on which part of the political spectrum to which it is attributed is entirely commonplace.

There is no daylight between the NSA and the CFPB in terms of privacy; they're both eradicating privacy on behalf of statists. But while there is a limitless font of fount and loathing for the former, the latter gets a pass because Obama says it protects the "little guy" from the ebil banksters.

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude went on television and inserted food directly into mouth. He didn't have to do that, but by doing so he made your argument moot.
Plus, it doesn't really matter. The league has arbitrary rules so that they can do whatever they feel like. He's benefited from that selective enforcement for decades, his racism was no secret, it just hadn't caught the eye of the public at large. This day was coming sooner or later.

Re: pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

The league is a pure democracy of a bunch of selfish, bitter old men... Pretty much it's "their ball" and they can take it away from one of their own whenever they want. They are super-rich people having a playground spat.

You do have a point... This is how they think they should be allowed to run a COUNTRY. it's certainly how they made their money and run their COMPANIES.

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Sterling OWNED the team (technically, he has a one-half share of the trust that owns the team). The only rules the NBA can set are those to franchise the team and make use of their brand, but you can't force someone to sell something they own, that's a contradiction of terms.

What if someone dug up you saying something sexist, and so Big Car Company forced you to sell your car? It's the exact same thing.

Re:pishaw

[rochrist]

I'm sure that would work just swell with advertisers leaving in droves, and players refusing to play. You're being foolish. He's a public figure, and he held a FRANCHISE. The very nature of a franchise is it can be taken away.

Re:pishaw

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

He owned a NBA franchise. When he did he signed a franchise agreement stipulating the terms of the relationship. Just like I can't buy a Mc Donalds franchise and then sub rent out part of the building to subway. Or make my Big Mac completely different than the national standard.

ownership of a franchise has a lot more strings attached than a non franchised ownership.

Re:pishaw

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yes, I think the league had a credible argument. There was a lot of talk about boycotts by the players and fans. Sponsors pulled their deals with the clippers. Money was being lost. Reputation was in the clinker. Pro sports has often been described as a modern day plantation by the players ( Super rich white owners with mostly black players whose contracts are bought, sold, and traded). Having an obvious racist as one of them would definitely hurt in the leagues next cba agreement.

Re:pishaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethics on Slashdot? No one questions that someone was banned for life and was forced to forfeit his property because of something he said in a private conversation that was recorded and published without his permission.

If you are not outraged by this then please do not bother ever complaining about privacy.

Remember racism is not illegal. Discrimination based on race in the workplace is.

BTW I do not like racism at all but this is just too weird for words.

He's not forfeiting anything, he gets $2B (to share with his wife I assume). What Sterling said was not illegal, the owners voting him out according to the rules of the NBA is not illegal, and him selling the team is not illegal since he is choosing to sell the team rather than try to deal with lawyers. See, the NBA would only ever have been able to *force* him to sell the team by legal means. Hence, the $2B payout, Sterling had a strong position.

Really

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the story would be about the pimp who organized the entire scam....Baseball team will have to do for now....

So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it that he's being paid a market price for his team? How could it have been otherwise?

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

He has an opinion that liberals don't like so they think that they should be able to take his property from him without providing compensation.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[LordKronos]

Exactly. I don't get all of the talk about how this is a reward. He could have sold the team at any time of his choosing. The price he got isn't because of his racist remarks. It's because there are so few teams available, they don't often come up for sale, and as teams go, the Clippers is actually a pretty highly ranked team. If anything, forcing him to sell actually is a punishment, even at $2 billion. He bought the team for $12.5m 33 years ago. Now it's worth $2b. That works out to an average annual return of almost 17%. It's virtually impossible to find an investment that gives those sort of returns over the long term. When you actually do have one, you'd want to hold onto it as long as possible (unless you have reason to believe its value is about to tank). Forcing him to sell such a fast growing asset is indeed punishment.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[MitchDev]

Hopefully the team's value will plummet after the sale is complete.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

> you'd want to hold onto it as long as possible (unless you have reason to believe its value is about to tank). Forcing him to sell such a fast growing asset is indeed punishment.

Donald Sterling is 80 years old. The NBA did him a favor by forcing him to cash out. He can't take that $2 billion with him when he kicks the bucket.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whereas if he had an opinion that conservatives don't like, they'd think he was a traitor to America and deserved to be held prisoner by the Taliban.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect it will. I think the only reason the price is $2B is because of all the hype. Lots of people see buying the team as a way to be a hero, "rescuing" the team from the clutches of a racist. When you've got the kind of money it takes to buy a team, it isn't about the money, it is all about the prestige. Before all this blew up, the value of the team was estimated at $1B.

Ironically, as soon as the team is sold, that extra $1B premium will disappear because there is no prestige in buying the team from a regular guy.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully the team's value will plummet after the sale is complete.

Well, Ballmer's got lots of experience selling a product that crashes.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't pay for the team he has a host of 'investors' that went in on the idea and forked out their money.

Leave it up to /. to peddle bullshit. This site has become worse then the rest of the press, at least certain media outlets pointed to the investors or co-owners, being the reason he even attempted to buy the team.

On a lighter note after seeing Ballmers bat shit psychotic episodes during MS's rallies, it should be interesting to see him at games acting bat shit crazy. Maybe he will appear on the court before or in between quarters trying to motivate the crowd.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny that to an ignorant conservative, being a horrible racist is "having an opinion that liberals don't like."

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty highly ranked now, but it's still the #2 basketball team in LA. They don't have their own arena, they're not even the #2 team at the arena, the Lakers, then the Kings have booking priority, and when they're done, then it's the Clippers.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Registered Coward v2]

Hopefully the team's value will plummet after the sale is complete.

I doubt it. There are many more people out there that want to buy a team than teams available for sale so prices tend not to drop; and given that many people probably own teams for reasons beyond investment their is a value to owning one, beyond the basic financials, that people are willing to pay a premium to own one.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The price he got isn't because of his racist remarks.

Actually it is.

Forbes magazine estimates that last year the Los Angeles Clippers generated $128 million in revenue and earned $15 million in profits. At a 5% rate of return, the Clippers would be valued at $300 million. But NBA teams are scarce commodities and their value goes up over time. Moreover, owners garner handsome indirect and non-pecuniary returns, so sports teams commonly sell at a multiple of their previous year’s revenues. The typical multiple in the NBA is 4. That would put the Clippers’ value at $512 million.

But the Clippers will be signing a new TV contract in a few years, and the team is playing better and is more popular than ever. One can anticipate that their revenues will experience robust growth going forward. What if revenues grew by $52 million, to $180 million? Using the revenue multiple of 4, that would put the team value at $720 million.

The only way to get an economic value of $2 billion would be to have projected revenues rise to $500 million. How could that happen? Well, the Lakers got a long-term TV deal with Time Warner for $200 million a year, and the Dodgers have a new one at $340 million annually for 25 years. If the Clippers could get a Lakers- or Dodgers-type contract, then the team’s revenue might begin to approach $500 million.

Perhaps this is what Ballmer and his financial advisers were thinking. They should think again. Time Warner is losing its shirt on the Dodgers deal. It projected it would be able to sell the Dodgers’ RSN (regional sports network) to all greater Los Angeles households for $5 per month. So far, only 30% of area households receive the Dodgers games — those are the households served by Time Warner cable. No other cable or satellite distributor is willing to pay the price that the Dodgers’ RSN demands. In fact, the price has recently been lowered to $4 and there are still no takers.

The only explanation for a price that is 2x-3x the value of the team is all the hoohaa about the current owner's racism. It is a a vanity purchase to save the team from a pernicious racist. But, unless Ballmer also turns out to be someone just as despicable, all that value will disappear overnight because anyone buying it from Ballmer won't be saving it from anyone.

Re: So what's the problem here?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Right, Ballmer is expected to make back his investment within a year, with new TV contracts expected to be a minimum of $3B, possibly reaching $7B, any of those far exceeding the operating costs. The competition is high in LA which is why he probably won't move the team to Seattle, at least until the upcoming contacts expire in several years.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

He has an opinion that 'liberals' don't like, hey? Does that in turn imply that he has an opinion 'conservatives' do like?

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Is it that he's being paid a market price for his team? How could it have been otherwise?

Well, technically you are correct, but the problem is that before this sale, only the Chicago Bulls ($1 billion) and the Los Angeles Lakers ($1.3 billion), were valued at even one billion US dollars among NBA teams. Basically what we have is a bunch of billionaires who for no good reason got into a bidding war on a team that has never even played for a championship, let alone won one, and the "winner" was the guy who was willing to badly overpay the most. Right now it's difficult to understand how this deal makes sense for Ballmer. And if he personally has the billions available to make this deal rather than just being a front man for an investment group, then he is maybe the most badly overpaid CEO in history. A few years ago an investment group shocked everybody by paying $2 billion US dollars for the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, but the deal began to make sense when you took into account that the team got a TV contract that was something like maybe $6 billion dollars. Nobody expected the Dodgers to sell for even a billion dollars, but a bidding war ensued and basically the winners were a group that could pay $2 billion up front and make it back on the TV contract. There's no evidence yet that Ballmer can get this money back and right now it just looks like a stupid decision where a jobless rich boy paid more than he should for the bragging rights of owning an NBA team. Maybe things will change in a few years and with new TV money he'll look like a genius, but right now it just looks like a bad deal.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[quantaman]

More to the point he's 80 (and possibly suffering from dementia).

It's not like he can take the $2 billion and buy another team with it, the money might not mean anything to him at this point.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[hey!]

Apparently you're under the delusion that just *liberals* don't like Sterling's opinions.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like teh Micro$$$$oft so I'm going to wet my diaper and moan like a wittle baby... *
 
HERP!!!!
 
* All over something that has nothing to do with your hate for a company but rather your irrationality as a human being.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Mr D from 63]

Correct. The assumption that the sale price of the team is inflated in any way due to the owner's racist comments is beyond ignorant. The owner benefited not from racism, but from owning a team that was a loser when purchased, and a championship contender when sold. Add that the opportunities to buy a franchise are extremely rare, and you have a hefty price tag. If the owner had never done anything offensive, the price would have been the same, or possibly higher since he would have less incentive to sell.

Sometimes I think there is subset of people who hate him more for his money than his comments. He's one of a shrinking of number people in his generation that was brought up in a racist environment and never adjusted. He does not represent anything more than that. He is irrelevant. Get over it.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is more and more starting to sound like a tax dodge. His buddies and family are taking care to make sure he gets every dime.

It is wildly odd. A guy owns this team for 20+ years and suddenly they kick him out when he is looking to get out anyway? This and getting to use a tax loophole they created for this very event?

I dont care. Good on him for manipulating everyone into thinking he is the bad guy and must be punished. Meanwhile he takes his punishment of nearly 600 million extra dollars that he gets to keep. Then in a year or two he can come out and apologize. Yet keeps his money. Mark my words the way he 'apologizes' is to setup a fund to help underprivileged youth out. All with people from his family running the show. This is a tax shelter being setup in public view in a very public way. In fact it hinges on the fact that everything is public.

This is a straight up tax dodge. And it is 100% legal. And the thought police get to feel indignant and that they did something for their cause.

awesome catchpa! setups

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that in turn imply that he has an opinion 'conservatives' do like?

No.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[gallen1234]

The summary makes the naive assumption that a financial accounting is the only way to evaluate the benefits of the transaction. If Sterling didn't want to sell the team and give up the profits and benefits of ownership then the sale could be a net loss for him even if he turns a profit on the sale. This position is particularly surprising given that the summary identifies the players as losers even though I don't believe they're going to suffer any financial loss form the transaction.

Re: So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

uhhh... those contracts won't be paid in the first year, and there will be expenses. So, no, he won't make his investment back within a year

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Guppy06]

The amount paid was well above the market price for his team. It's 16 times the price he bought it for.

The money isn't to buy the team, it's to make him shut up and go away, i.e. a reward for bad behavior.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[hey!]

"Limousine Liberals"? Really? That's the fantasy dystopia you're living in?

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Guppy06]

My bad, I lost track of the decimal point in my mental math: it's 160 times the price he bought it for.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[TheLink]

Maybe that's what Ballmer is counting on - people paying to watch him doing crazy stuff and not just the teams. ;)

Re:So what's the problem here?

[MitchDev]

I know, but that would be a GREAT punchline to end the story on :)

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

And by "property" I assume you mean his black slaves - I mean basketball players.

I'm kidding but I do agree with you in the sense that while what he said is ethically wrong, it wasn't illegal.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[dlt074]

there is nothing wrong or illegal about avoiding taxes. free people are not beholden to pay everything to the government. we are not required to go out of our way to pay more taxes. we can do far better with our money then any government agency can.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

He has an opinion that liberals don't like...

So are you saying that conservatives like his "opinion?"

Re:So what's the problem here?

[rochrist]

Yes, because at 83 he has so long to let it appreciate!

Re:So what's the problem here?

[rochrist]

What the fuck is inadequate about 2 BILLION dollars??

Re:So what's the problem here?

[rochrist]

And he wasn't charged with a crime. He lost a franchise because the corporation the franchise /belongs/ to felt he was harming their brand.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do conservatives and liberals have diametrically opposing opinions on every issue? Think really hard about this. I'm confident you can figure this out.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

He has an opinion that 'liberals' don't like, hey? Does that in turn imply that he has an opinion 'conservatives' do like?

Only if you are of the opinion that there is absolutely no overlap in ideas or beliefs between conservatives and liberals and believe they are direct opposites. It is that sort of opinion that has caused nothing to get done in Washington for some time now.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then he's stupid. How much of the general audience of a basketball game would even know who the fuck Steve Ballmer is?

Re:So what's the problem here?

[CaptainLard]

$2B for the clippers seems more like an impulse buy than "market price". Add in the fact that Balmer got rich in tech where everyone is used to just paying billions of dollars for stuff regardless of what they produce.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Triklyn]

it's 2 billion less taxes, or roughly 1.3 billion. if the actual value of the team is 2 billion market. then a private conversation cost him 600+million... that's what's inadequate.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[perpenso]

it's 2 billion less taxes, or roughly 1.3 billion. if the actual value of the team is 2 billion market. then a private conversation cost him 600+million... that's what's inadequate.

Except that if its a forced sale then he pays no taxes. Forcing him to sell is a $600M gift.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the NYT article, the reward seems to come from the tax benefits given to someone when they're forced to sell property vs when they choose to sell property. By virtue of this being forced on him, he can evade taxes and has more flexibility in re-investing the proceeds of the sale.

Re:So what's the problem here?

[JeffAtl]

How is this in any way a "tax dodge"?

Re:So what's the problem here?

[rochrist]

Your math is suspect, but in any case, all I have to say is, poor baby. Maybe you shouldn't own a public basketball team if you're going to be a racist fuck. My heart does not bleed for him.

Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's Slashdot cheering the thought police. The man was baited into saying something in a private phone call. Where are our privacy champions now? What a bunch of frauds. We cheer Snowden because the media tells us to, but then champion spying on someone because the media tells us to.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany, where the right for privacy is very strong, so called "people of public life" don't have this strong right for privacy. Here is a precedent.
This however doesn't extend to tapping phone calls.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[NotDrWho]

Yeah, but privacy and free speech and all that only applies if you're saying politically-correct stuff. The second you say "nigger" or even mildly criticize some protected group YOU MUST BE DESTROYED!!!!!

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Here's Slashdot cheering the thought police. The man was baited into saying something in a private phone call. Where are our privacy champions now?

It wasn't a phone call, it was in person. But, while the recording was what brought his bigotry to public attention, what really matters are all his other public actions, like refusing to rent apartments to blacks and hispanics. It was only a matter of time before all his shit caught up with him.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-sterling-racist-history-2014-4

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Triklyn]

not all of us... the most troubling aspects of the sterling case to me, has always been it's issues regarding "court of public opinion", confiscation of property, and privacy. I'm a damn liberal, but civil liberties are more important than that.

I say if sterling makes a windfall from this, it's karmic punishment for people thinking it's a good idea for him to be done so for why he was. Force him out for racism? only when he's caught DOING something racist. not just saying it at home.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Bigbutt]

or Feminists

[John]

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter what you think about it, it's against the law to discriminate with housing. Period. He shouldn't have been doing it.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to Sterling is the exact same thing as someone going into your house, reading your diary, and then getting offended at the content. And then trying to get you fired from your job over it.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't a phone call, it was in person. But, while the recording was what brought his bigotry to public attention, what really matters are all his other public actions, like refusing to rent apartments to blacks and hispanics. It was only a matter of time before all his shit caught up with him.

Why? Everyone involved knew what Sterling was all about. Everyone knew he did these things for thirty years. They didn't care. Nobody. Not the league. Not the players. Not the coaches. Not the self-righteous pundits who had nothing bad to say about Sterling until the tape came out, even though they knew what a racist he was. Not the civil rights industrial complex. Nobody.

The NAACP knew that sterling refused to rent to blacks. They gave him a lifetime achievement award anyway. They were about to give him another one until this tape came out. If you think LeBron James cares any more about other black people than David Duke does you are delusional.

Oh. Did you know that the head of the White Aryan Movement and the head of the New Black Panthers are actually good friends?

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but that is NOT why the team was sold, and in fact, had nothing at all to do with it. His ONLY crime was being recorded in a private conversation without his knowledge or consent. You're correct, it doesn't matter what you think about his personal opinions, but they are just that, his personal opinions which he was purposely baited into revealing.
If you're going to hold everyone to the same standard, which we should, have you ever said a negative thing about anyone to a close personal friend, in private, and had that friend secretly record you, where that view was not the popular view? If so, we should all be able to march into your life and take whatever we want without any compensation to you, because we don't agree with your view.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[blackraven14250]

The definition of "ownership" when it comes to sports franchises varies, but basically Sterling doesn't own anything. According to the NBA's constitution, he doesn't even really own so much as the name - if the NBA terminates his ownership, the NBA immediately takes over the team and all its' assets (and has to provide the market value from the sale or liquidation of those assets). The NBA is structured more like a club, where when you join, you get a name under which you can conduct business, and have to share a bit of the profit with the club, and have to follow an extremely detailed set of rules on how to conduct that business.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[omnichad]

Good Troll. Using an anti-racism quote to justify racism.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[omnichad]

Are the player contracts with his business or with the NBA directly? I'd say that the players' exclusive contracts probably have more value than the name.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[ATMAvatar]

Privacy and free speech apply to government entities, not to ex girlfriends and basketball associations.

Privacy means that what you do with another person should remain between you two, so long as both of you keep it as such

. All bets are off when one of the individuals involved in the private activity decide to disclose what happened. The moral here is to better choose who you decide to associate with in private.

Free speech doesn't mean that you can say anything you want without consequence - it means that the government cannot be the one to bring about those consequences. Public shaming and ostracization are perfectly OK. In this case, it also happens that the statements ran afoul of NBA policy, which Sterling agreed to when be purchased the team in the first place.

Sterling isn't serving any jail time, and he's getting a giant return on investment. I don't see why the right is to up in arms over the outcome. Sterling probably got more money for the sale of the team now (due to the expediency everyone else felt to buy the team out from under him) than he probably would have putting it up for sale on his own before the controversy.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[NotDrWho]

Privacy and free speech apply to government entities, not to ex girlfriends and basketball associations.

So I guess you'd be cool with it if the NBA choose to enact a "No Homosexual Players Allowed" policy? After all, they're a private organization and don't have to respect anyone's legal rights, right?

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We" don't cheer Snowden. Some of the dumber people on Slashdot do. Many of us can see that Snowden is a dupe and a traitor, conned into screwing over himself and his country by America hating grifter Glenn Greenwald.

He wasn't baited, he's a hateful nut.

Slashdot is seeming really wingnutty lately.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your fallacy is assuming perfect knowledge and that everyone has complete agency. Clearly not all the coaches were happy with it since at least one of them was fired because of it. The fact that it took a while for his shit to finally catch up with him does not excuse his shit.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are anti-housing discrimination laws unjust?

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then he got on Anderson Cooper and said more of it without being baited.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Triklyn]

he has conditional ownership of the clippers, in every sense of the word, all profits they make are at his discretion. movement is largely up to him, contract negotions for ads... etc. He must give up control of his franchise to the NBA commissioner if he is voted out... for an infraction as listed by the NBA constitution. The constitution is a contract between each individual owners and the other owners.

I'm fairly sure that the NBA has argued in the past that it was just a loose collection of individual owners... to dodge some other legal challenge. but yeah, the NBA doesn't own the clippers until such a time that sterling was found to have violated his agreement with the other owners and was voted to be stripped of control. at which point he still retains ownership, just not control.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering players joining the league would essentially be members joining a private organization, it would almost certainly be legal for them to ban homosexual players. They would of course have to face public comment for doing such a thing though.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[laie_techie]

So I guess you'd be cool with it if the NBA choose to enact a "No Homosexual Players Allowed" policy? After all, they're a private organization and don't have to respect anyone's legal rights, right?

Actually, as a private organization, it would be up to them to decide whether to disallow openly gay players and / or owners. Perspective owners and players would need to know of such a rule (and fans would want to know about it, too). Those who don't agree with such a stance would be free to not participate in nor support such an organization. No one's legal rights would be trampled.

As per homosexual players, I think their teammates should have the strongest word, considering that most locker rooms don't have private showers. Personally, I choose which teams to support based on performance on the field and moral conduct of its owners and players. I don't take into account sexual orientation, but will note if the owner cheats on a spouse.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[eepok]

Actually, yes. That would be acceptable. But again, there would be consequences.

As a result of such a policy, you'll see the NBA boycotted by a major portion of its fans and at least some of its players, coaches, and staff. The NBA's revenue will then sufficiently flounder so that such a policy would have to be revoked, and apology issues, probably some people fired, and likely even a symbolic donation of some amount to an organization fighting against such policies.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[guises]

This has nothing to do with Snowden or spying - the person who revealed this was the person to whom he, knowingly, said it - there is no third party here, no wiretap, no snooping. He also wasn't tricked into saying something racist, he made it very clear that he genuinely is racist.

You seem to be trying to take this even further than "the right to be forgotten," apparently you want a world where people have a right to suppress someone else from ever revealing anything negative at all. You are the thought police. You.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[SensitiveMale]

Yeah, but privacy and free speech and all that only applies if you're saying politically-correct stuff. The second you say "nigger" or even mildly criticize some protected group YOU MUST BE DESTROYED!!!!!

That's the odd thing. Sterling didn't even use a slur.From what I understood of the tape, he didn't even have a problem with minorities. He told his girlfriend that she could sleep with anyone she wanted. Again, no slurs. Just don't brag about her boyfriends on Instragram or bring them to the game in public.

He didn't tell his ticket sellers not to sell to minorities. He didn't use any slurs. He employed, from what I understand was a general consensus, the worst GM in the NBA for over 20 years who happened to be a minority. He hired a minority coach.

He was illegally recorded and punished for something he said in the privacy of his own home, not for something he did. Not to mention he was goaded. Listen to the tape. She knew what she wanted him to say and she kept at it until he said it.

This is very scary stuff because there isn't one person alive who wouldn't be ostracized, using this ruler, if a select one minute of their private speech was made public.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because liberal pretzel logic.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[beltsbear]

Actually, as a private organization, it would be up to them to decide whether to disallow openly gay players and / or owners. Perspective owners and players would need to know of such a rule (and fans would want to know about it, too). Those who don't agree with such a stance would be free to not participate in nor support such an organization. No one's legal rights would be trampled.

As per homosexual players, I think their teammates should have the strongest word, considering that most locker rooms don't have private showers. Personally, I choose which teams to support based on performance on the field and moral conduct of its owners and players. I don't take into account sexual orientation, but will note if the owner cheats on a spouse.

That is insane. If you could do that, you could do the same to people of religion (or lack of it).

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a very simple answer, I'm sure you heard it from your mother many times: two wrongs don't make a right. Just because he was wronged when he was spied on doesn't mean he can't or shouldn't be held accountable.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[cowwoc2001]

Agreed. It's one thing to be racist in your mind. It's another thing to act on that racism. The recording of the phone call was illegal according to California law (which requires both parties to agree to be recorded), it was a private conversation and there is no proof that his beliefs have in any way translated to negative actions.

I am in favor of slapping the book at anyone who abuses their official capacity to spread racism but in this case Sterling actually *didn't* want these messages being spread, and yet he's being punished for them. The media only seems to care about money, not morality or justice.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Enigma2175]

Actually, as a private organization, it would be up to them to decide whether to disallow openly gay players and / or owners. Perspective owners and players would need to know of such a rule (and fans would want to know about it, too). Those who don't agree with such a stance would be free to not participate in nor support such an organization. No one's legal rights would be trampled.

As per homosexual players, I think their teammates should have the strongest word, considering that most locker rooms don't have private showers. Personally, I choose which teams to support based on performance on the field and moral conduct of its owners and players. I don't take into account sexual orientation, but will note if the owner cheats on a spouse.

That is insane. If you could do that, you could do the same to people of religion (or lack of it).

It depends. IIRC, sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. Religion IS a federally protected class so anybody denied entrance into the league because of their religion would have grounds to sue. That being said, I believe sexual orientation is a state protected class in California so the Clippers could not participate in such discrimination without running afoul of the law.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Triklyn]

i'm a liberal and i don't like it. Nobody should be coerced into selling their property, even if it's at a profit.

and you may be comfortable living in a society where you have to watch what you say in all settings at all times everywhere for fear of muttering an unwelcome thought. But i'm very much against the idea of resurrecting the USSR or the hitler youth. everybody has a camera, everybody has a recorder and you never know who's listening.

think of this slight change to the scenario. someone with a grudge against sterling recorded his racist rant between he and his mistress. sent it to a tabloid anonymously in the hopes of hurting him as much as possible. would it still be ok? this reaction that we're having? an unambiguously illegal recording. What if it were a NSA wiretap, and one of the government operatives sold it to the tabloids for money? Private citizens doing what private citizens do.

The malicious party will almost always never be found, and the sad part is that nobody seems to want them found.

at no point in my life, have i wanted more government than i do now. Anything to put between me and the mob. I understand now why the founding fathers were weary of monarchy and democracy both. The mob is unfeeling, uncaring, unflinching, reactionary and fickle. God save us from ourselves.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[rochrist]

It wasn't a phone call.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[rochrist]

His property wasn't fucking confiscated.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can possibly be that stupid, can you? "he didn't even have a problem with minorities"?! Seriously?!

He said that he didn't want black people at his games or getting within one degree of separation from him. That's pretty obviously "having a problem with minorities".

Further, it's absolutely absurd to say that he's being unfairly characterized as racist due to "one minute of [his] private speech". Sterling has a decades' long history of blatant and overt racism, and not just in the form of speech or attitude. The man settled the largest housing discrimination lawsuit in US history for systematically trying to drive out minority tenants.

While he may not have used any slurs in that one particular recording, there are PLENTY of other examples: http://deadspin.com/your-complete-quotable-guide-to-decades-of-donald-sterl-1568047212

It's astonishing that you can be so misinformed in the age of the internet.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

in most places recording someones audio is illegal without their consent. So im still confuse4d on why he is not going after the bitch who recorded him

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Triklyn]

um, it wasn't yet. but the vote would have taken control of his property from him. forced sale. Maybe i used the wrong word, i don't know, but what i meant to reference was the forced sale of property.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[SensitiveMale]

Further, it's absolutely absurd to say that he's being unfairly characterized as racist due to "one minute of [his] private speech".

But I didn't say that.

Sure, he had a history or winning and losing such cases. I'm not saying he wasn't a racist. But that behavior was KNOWN by the NBA & NAACP and overlooked. This is about the tape.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[tbannist]

Force him out for racism? only when he's caught DOING something racist.

You misunderstand entirely. He has been caught doing racist things. Caught many, many times, actually. There have been numerous complaints from his players and others about his racism (I remember one saying he treated the players like they were field workers at a plantation). He wasn't forced out because he said something racist or did something racist. He was forced out because he made the entire league look bad. At this point it doesn't matter whether the tape should or should not have been released. It was released and the NBA either had to take a collective write-down on their expected profits to defend a senile old man's racism*, or kick him out of the club. It's really simple, he was forced to sell because he was a liability to the league and to the other owners. He sealed his fate when he attacked one of the most famous Basketball players even for being a poor role model when he was supposed to be apologising and pretending he didn't mean what he said.

* The senile part is important, because if they've got half a brain they know this wouldn't have been the last time "Stirling the Racist NBA Owner" made the news as his dementia advanced and he became less able to control his racist outbursts. They also know that it would cost each of them millions every time Stirling made the headlines unless they made a clean and clear break from him.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[tbannist]

The recording of the phone call was illegal according to California law (which requires both parties to agree to be recorded), it was a private conversation and there is no proof that his beliefs have in any way translated to negative actions.

It wasn't a phone call. He was just yelling at his girlfriend because she was seen in public with her non-white friends.

The media only seems to care about money, not morality or justice.

I don't understand why you included the words "seems to" in that sentence. Virtually all of the American media is owned by corporations, and the news (tv, radio, newspaper, and web) are mostly paid for by commercial advertisers. So the media very explicitly only cares about the money. Some of the reporters might care about morality or justice, but nobody above the level of editor does. They're paid not to.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion IS a federally protected class

Privacy is federally protected too.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[cowwoc2001]

The recording of the phone call was illegal according to California law (which requires both parties to agree to be recorded), it was a private conversation and there is no proof that his beliefs have in any way translated to negative actions.

It wasn't a phone call. He was just yelling at his girlfriend because she was seen in public with her non-white friends.

You're right, but it was illegal nonetheless. If this kind of thing went to court (e.g. police smash down your door, find drugs) the evidence would be inadmissible.

What is said was wrong, but I think it should be emphasized the recording *is* illegal and the man is due no less legal rights/protection than anyone else. For the NBA or anyone else to penalize him based on this thought crime and an illegal recording is wrong in its own right.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[tbannist]

What is said was wrong, but I think it should be emphasized the recording *is* illegal and the man is due no less legal rights/protection than anyone else. For the NBA or anyone else to penalize him based on this thought crime and an illegal recording is wrong in its own right.

I actually sort of agree, in principle, that a private conversation should not be grounds for forcing an owner out of the league. However, this case is more than that. The NBA isn't actually penalising him for his racist views, they're penalising him for being publicly caught and therefore costing them money (if they don't punish him). If they tolerated his racism, they'd possibly face a player and/or fan boycott of the team, and potentially a larger one against the league for tolerating him. To make matters worse he said he didn't want black people in his arena or seeing his team. I suspect if he hadn't said that, and then gone on National TV and attacked one of the most famous basketball players ever instead of apologising and making nice, he would have gotten away with some token sanctions.

But he did what he did, and now the other owners have to choose between their money and a senile old guy they probably never liked in the first place. Is it any surprise they chose public acclaim and money over the angry old senile man? Particularly, when keeping him around would virtually guarantee a repeat performance and more lost money?

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[cowwoc2001]

I actually sort of agree, in principle, that a private conversation should not be grounds for forcing an owner out of the league. However, this case is more than that. The NBA isn't actually penalising him for his racist views, they're penalising him for being publicly caught and therefore costing them money (if they don't punish him). If they tolerated his racism, they'd possibly face a player and/or fan boycott of the team, and potentially a larger one against the league for tolerating him. To make matters worse he said he didn't want black people in his arena or seeing his team. I suspect if he hadn't said that, and then gone on National TV and attacked one of the most famous basketball players ever instead of apologising and making nice, he would have gotten away with some token sanctions.

But he did what he did, and now the other owners have to choose between their money and a senile old guy they probably never liked in the first place. Is it any surprise they chose public acclaim and money over the angry old senile man? Particularly, when keeping him around would virtually guarantee a repeat performance and more lost money?

Right. So the NBA has the right to ask him to sell the company because regardless of due process the bad publicity will cost them money. What they do not have the right to do is fine him $2.5 million... because legally speaking he did nothing wrong.

Somewhere down the line, someone in the NBA thought they had the right to "fire" Sterling but in actually all they had the right to do is buy him out. That's not the same thing. The way they went about this is all wrong.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, so, er... you must be destroyed!!!!!

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy and free speech apply to government entities, not to ex girlfriends and basketball associations.

california's wiretapping law applies to everyone, not just government entities.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it is the "enforcement must be perfect or it doesn't count" rule. Of course that ignores the fact that the guy has serious power, that the only way the league could have taken action without bringing a ton of negative effects onto the league itself was for the general public to make up its mind first. Without that, they would just be picking on an old jewish guy of humble origins. Hell, there are still a dedicated group of fools still willing to stick up for the guy even now. That group would be a 1000x bigger if they had tried to kick him out just for the stuff that didn't become widely known until now.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Everyone did in fact know all about Sterling, and his racist views. Everyone WAS OK with it.

No coach was fired. Wrong again. You just made that up.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[rochrist]

It's a franchise.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

The right is up in arms because simple because some people found something offensive someone was forced to sell an asset they owns and banned from NBA games for life with no due process or right of appeal regardless they apologize, make amends or change their viewpoint. There is an idea in natural justice that the punishment should fit the crime. The principle of freedom of expression also holds that people have to right to their own thoughts and beliefs and shouldn't be punished for just for holding them.

Sure in this case it isn't a big deal because Sterling can take care of himself. But in many jurisdictions it is a violation of privacy laws for somebody to record a conversation without the parties knowledge or permission and then broadcast it. Depends whether one party or two party consent is required where the recording or broadcast was made.

But in this case it is the Left that is up in arms because despite Sterling having committed no crime, there having be no trial with due process and a finding beyond reasonable doubt Sterling hasn't been severely damaged. For an ordinary person the mob with flaming torches and pitchforks would have been able boycott them out of business or force their employer to fire them destroying their life. So the entire point of the piece is that its an outrage that Sterling can escape the pitchforks. Even the threat of this, and possible legal actions, will intimate most people from speaking in ways that the mob doesn't like.

So what exactly is you list of approved things that a mob is allowed silence or destroy you for disagreeing with them?
We have recently seen someone forced from a position because they advocated for a particular case in a public referendum.

Did anyone actually prove that Sterling's comments and all this publicity and record price for team actually caused any financial damage to NBA? Or can anyone just claim it might and that is enough?

And what value is a right if you can be forced to sign it away or be intimidated out of it just to survive?

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

he didn't even have a problem with minorities

She knew what she wanted him to say and she kept at it until he said it.

What did she get him to say then, if not something expressing his problem with minorities?

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[laie_techie]

Actually, as a private organization, it would be up to them to decide whether to disallow openly gay players and / or owners. Perspective owners and players would need to know of such a rule (and fans would want to know about it, too). Those who don't agree with such a stance would be free to not participate in nor support such an organization. No one's legal rights would be trampled.

As per homosexual players, I think their teammates should have the strongest word, considering that most locker rooms don't have private showers. Personally, I choose which teams to support based on performance on the field and moral conduct of its owners and players. I don't take into account sexual orientation, but will note if the owner cheats on a spouse.

That is insane. If you could do that, you could do the same to people of religion (or lack of it).

Look at the Boy Scouts of America. They are a private organization who up until recently denied both boys and leaders who were openly gay. Opening up their organization to openly gay boys (but still denying openly gay leaders) was their own decision and not the result of a lawsuit (or threat thereof). The biggest sponsor of the Boy Scouts of America is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Nearly every congregation of the LDS Church has a scout troop. The scout master of each of these congregation-based troops is LDS, but boys of all religious persuasions are welcome. The oath to be "morally clean" doesn't limit itself to any particular faith.

Now look to both presidential campaigns by Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney's family joined the LDS Church in the 1830s. His adversaries constantly called into question his Mormon faith. Huckabee even said that no true Christian could ever vote for a Mormon President. If people judge a candidate based on religion, why not judge corporations?

The main point I wanted to make is that individuals, and not the state, should be free to judge by whatever standard they want. Support organizations with values with which you agree while withholding support from those with which you disagree.

Re:Racism or Thought Police?

[laie_techie]

Privacy is federally protected too.

Only in some circumstances. Please read up on expectation of privacy and right to privacy. When in public, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy (except in places such as bathrooms). You cannot control who may overhear a conversation, take your picture, or film your actions. Not even your garbage is protected, once it hits the curb.

Wut??

[Anonymous Coward]

What an incredibly stupid thing to post on Slashdot. the ONLY link to technology is Ballmer's name.

Re:Wut??

[Bigbutt]

Meh. The site changed from the implied "news for nerds who got beat up in school" to "news for anyone who geeks out about something" a while ago. I don't know why we don't see news about Electric Motorcycles.

[John]

Re:Wut??

[Anonymous Coward]

News for Wil Wheaton and that girl that looks like a camel.

Re:Wut??

[Triklyn]

slashdot is pretty interested in privacy though, and the sterling case had pretty big implications for privacy and our new networked world.

Re:Wut??

[Richy_T]

"Slashdot: News for whoever we can get. Please, please view our site. C'mon, we're living off three-day-old-pizza here."

Re:Wut??

[Princeofcups]

What an incredibly stupid thing to post on Slashdot. the ONLY link to technology is Ballmer's name.

Maybe you understand now that this is NOT a tech site.

Re:Wut??

[drew870mitchell]

And it's dreadfully clear that Slashdot readership doesn't have any idea what the fuck it's talking about here either. This particular discussion is worse than Reddit.

It's just proof positive....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

that no matter what, ** SOMEONE ** is gonna bitch about ** SOMETHING ** no matter what happened. Can't please all the people all the time.

Re:It's just proof positive....

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA is not the proof, your post is the proof that someone is always going to bitch. TFA has a reasonable point, you on the other hand are just doing that passive aggressive thing of couching your disapproval of TFA's thesis with an argument that is really just a variation on the "when did you stop beating your wife" load question fallacy.

Re:It's just proof positive....

[NotDrWho]

In the age of the internet, bitching has become the number one export of western civilization.

Re:It's just proof positive....

[Anonymous Coward]

well, in this case, the it is highly likely that sterling pays zero or very close to it in federal taxes on the 2 billion dollar sale. and if he does things right he can get away with zero state income tax too. so ya, there's that to bitch about and its a pretty valid bitch.

___

the only real winner here in this entire fiasco is sterling's wife.. big huge payday and can now split without losing out on that.. so take your half, honey, then divorce the racist asshole and take half of his half and half of everything else.

Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[Anonymous Coward]

The NBA should cancel the team's franchise.
Cancel ALL the contracts of the players and put them into the draft pool.
The worst team could get Blake Griffin.
The Lakers would like to be the only team in town again.
Sterling gets NOTHING, the NBA would have to defend itself.
The other owners would not like the precedent of losing a franchise.
That would send a clear and harsh message.
Anything else is just decoration for the masses.

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[fredprado]

Sure. In your dystopic society where people can only think what you want them to think that is how things work. Fortunately in the real world things are not that bad, yet...

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[flappinbooger]

bear in mind this man is guilty of nothing more than saying something politically incorrect within the privacy of his own house.

What happened here? 1984 much?

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[Richard_at_work]

How big of a court case would you like to have on your hands?

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[MitchDev]

No, he should have never been forced to sell the team at all.

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[MalleusEBHC]

Let's not forget that Sterling has been a Grade A fuckwad for decades before this. He has been sued multiple times for his racist housing discrimination practices. He lost one case outright. The terms of the other were confidential, but he had to pay millions in attorney fees, so let's guess how that one ended.

http://www.latimes.com/local/l...

That's just the tip of his douchebag iceberg. He should have been run out long ago, but the league is a bunch of cowards. Fortunately, the players forced their hands by pretty much promising that no one would play for him again after this season.

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[flappinbooger]

thanks for the info.... def puts perspective on it. So it's sort of a straw / camel's back kind of thing, huh?

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[Triklyn]

i for one, would like to live in a country of laws... not public opinion. he settled matters in court without admitting guilt. just because everybody knows something, doesn't mean it's the truth nor does it mean we should act on it. laws are there to protect the minority from the majority, aka tyranny of the masses.

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[Rinikusu]

I say a lot of shit in the privacy of my own house, but I still manage to go without calling someone a nigger or a kike or a spic. If anything, it shows that the front we put on in public isn't necessarily "being ourselves" and frankly, many people are just shitty people.

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[Anonymous Coward]

right, and if i go to your home and read your diary and found something you said about someone . does that mean we can force you out of your home and kick you out to the Mojave? Is that REALLY what you want to see??

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[Anonymous Coward]

what happened to holding people accountable for their actions at the time, and not for something that happened years ago

Al sharpton still has a show on MSNBC eventhough hes been shown all over youtube calling people nigger and faggot. The double standard is rediculous

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[PeeAitchPee]

How racist could he really be? Sterling was about to be awarded his second Lifetime Achievement Award by the NAACP. You can't make this shit up.

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a sign of the times when the NAACP is so hard up they have to get their funding by white-washing racists. Sometimes you just gotta hold your nose and soldier on.

Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. In your dystopic society where people can only think what you want them to think that is how things work. Fortunately in the real world things are not that bad, yet...

You are just pissed that a punishment would deter such behavior. In your fantasy society, money is always right, and anything else is always wrong. Fortunately, in the real world, things are not that bad, yet...

You have not said one thing about what is wrong with the parent's idea, other than "it came from you, and you are not God" .

Intellectually dishonest, indeed. You have not mentioned:

- why it is a bad idea
- why it is against NBA policy
- how the current settlement is NOT just a show for the masses

Parent wins by default. A score of .50 is greater than your -200, I'm afraid.

You might be completely right, but if you cannot express yourself, and all you can muster is a strawman ad hominem, the victory goes to the parent.

nonsense

[JeffSh]

Sterling never did anything illegal, he was just an old biggoted man. There exists no punishment society can inflict on him beyond personal actions like boycotting or just not liking him... So what gives? Why do people think that he can be robbed of an asset for being a biggot?

He has first amendment protections to be as big of a douchebag as he wants. His privacy was violated by his mistress and he was doing nothing illegal. The NBA has no grounds to force him out or deny him profit from the sale of an asset he shouldn't be forced to sell.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

There exists no punishment society can inflict on him beyond personal actions like boycotting or just not liking him... Why do people think that he can be robbed of an asset for being a biggot?

Because they're statist scum bags that are too cowardly to make sacrifices to abide by their morals. Anything beyond venting their frustration on Facebook is completely beyond them, and boycotting something they enjoy is completely unimaginable.

These people deserve the totalitarian state they're pushing for.

Re:nonsense

[Threni]

Isn't `bring the game into disrepute` a reason? It's their rules...they can have any clause they like. He might not mind not caring what people think of his outdated mentality, but the sport suffers if people boycott it, or if it's embarrassing to have to admit you are involved with it, if for no other reason.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegality only applies to what the government can do to him.
What the NBA can do to him is a matter of contract law.

But what society can do to him is pretty much arbitrary. This is all about society's judgment of him and that's fair - the value of the team is 100% a function of public approval. You didn't hear him complaining when public approval resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of income for him so, live by the sword die by the sword.

Re:nonsense

[fredprado]

Sure they can, in the same way he can have his huge profit and end in the top of all this shit. Even though the thought police out there would want to have his head in a stake for thinking forbidden thoughts.

Progressivism is the current mainstream religion and we are getting closer and closer to the Holy Inquisition way of doing things.

Re:nonsense

[GameboyRMH]

This.Banning him and thus forcing him to sell the team removes his involvement and future ability to profit from the team, and therefore the incentive for a boycott. Problem solved, move along...

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Do you really believe that?!

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

He should not be robbed but his actions contravene a contract he willingly signed and he can be forced to sell the team. I don't care that he keeps the money I do care that he wanted to keep the team.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I've heard anyone say the NBA is now less reputable than it was before this blackmail attempt occurred. They would have a hard time proving that they were less reputable because of this. Did ticket sales or concessions decline because of it? Did they get less media contracts, or less for the media contracts because of it? I doubt that less people went to this teams games because of the dumbassed statements of the owner of the team. At the end of the day, the mob wants bread and entertainment. They care about nothing else.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The NBA has no grounds to force him out

Morality clause.

One of those documents, which Sterling signed when he first bought the Clippers in 1981, and signed various amended versions since, states that an owner will not take any position or action that will materially and adversely affect a team or the league. Owners also sign morals clauses, which state that they will be upheld to the highest standard of ethical and moral behavior.

The only question here is whether that should apply to what should be considered a private conversation. (well, and if morality clauses are even legal)

sale of an asset he shouldn't be forced to sell.

That's the thing, he doesn't really *own* an NBA team, he owns the license to play in the NBA. If the NBA revokes that license, he just ends up with a really expensive athletic organization.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The NBA has no grounds to force him out or deny him profit from the sale of an asset he shouldn't be forced to sell.

How did this silly garbage get modded up? It is patently untrue.

The NBA ~can~ force an owner to sell if the owners vote to make him sell. It's part of the NBA Constitution that he agreed to when he purchased an NBA team. Specifically, the rule he violated was:

"Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the Association or of a Member or its Team..."

Which means that:
"The Membership of a Member or the interest of any
Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:
(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association. [...]"

Re:nonsense

[Registered Coward v2]

Sterling never did anything illegal, he was just an old biggoted man. There exists no punishment society can inflict on him beyond personal actions like boycotting or just not liking him... So what gives? Why do people think that he can be robbed of an asset for being a biggot?

He has first amendment protections to be as big of a douchebag as he wants. His privacy was violated by his mistress and he was doing nothing illegal. The NBA has no grounds to force him out or deny him profit from the sale of an asset he shouldn't be forced to sell.

Actually, since the agreement between Sterling and the NBA is a private contractual one they are within their rights to do whatever is contractually permitted. How society views him and actions that take are separate from the agreement he has with the NBA.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a state thing. It's not the government that's doing anything. It's a private organization that sets it's own fucking rules, dipshit. Just like some country clubs still won't let Tiger Woods become a member or even play because he's not racially "appropriate", the NBA has it's rules and he ran afoul of them, so they are punishing him. Not the state. Not the government. The club. The collection of rich old white men that he belonged to decided he had gone too far, and it had gotten too public.

This isn't a place for your libertarian tirade, so can it.

Re:nonsense

[fredprado]

Not at all, my friend. You seem to live in another reality.

In our reality it is perfectly Ok to talk against Christians, rich people, whites males etc. To the extent that nothing happened to Sharon Osbourne when she said on TV that a cheating husband deserved to have his penis cut by his wife, just to give you an example.

Now try to talk against black people, gays, or suggest that a cheating woman deserved to be beaten by her husband on TV. Good luck!

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue here is that you, like many, have a child's understanding of bigotry. Bigotry on its own is nothing more than a character flaw. Serious problems only occur when bigotry is combined with power. The rule is very simple, when a member of a group with less power says something bigoted about a group with more power, no one cares because their lack of power means nothing will come of it.

So saying shit about the overwhelmingly dominant religious group, the most powerful members of society and the most powerful ethnic group may be ugly and simple-minded, but it doesn't oppress anyone. Your hurt feelings do not constitute a serious problem.

Re:nonsense

[drinkypoo]

In our reality it is perfectly Ok to talk against Christians,

Yeah, they're one of the greatest scourges on our planet, to the extent that we actually had to found an entire fucking nation to get out from under them.

rich people,

They own 85% of everything and pay less than 30% of the taxes and complain that it's too much. Fuck them right in their selfish, idiotic, undeserving ears.

whites males

Yeah, it always burns when it's aimed at you, huh? Well, I'm a predominantly white male (nobody knows I'm Mexican to look at me, although maybe I look a little Spanish) and I don't like it either, but statistically speaking the majority of oppressors throughout history and today have had pale skin and a penis.

To the extent that nothing happened to Sharon Osbourne when she said on TV that a cheating husband deserved to have his penis cut by his wife, just to give you an example.

What was supposed to happen to her? Did she cut off someone's penis?

Now try to talk against black people

You mean the ones that only recently were permitted to be human in this country?

gays

You mean the people that are still getting beaten up just for being who they are, usually by white males?

or suggest that a cheating woman deserved to be beaten by her husband on TV

It's not funny because it happens every day. Actually, more than every day. On average, three women are killed by a husband or boyfriend every day.

Good luck!

Why, will I ever need it to refute your ridiculous arguments?

Re:nonsense

[fredprado]

And here you just prove my point, my friend. Only what you believe is right should be able to be said or thought and anything that defies it should be punished. Your doctrine is not in any way different from any mainstream religion that dominated a society in History.

Re:nonsense

[quantaman]

The first amendment is irrelevant in this case as it's the NBA's rules he violated. You can argue it violates free speech on broader grounds but that's not synonymous with the first amendment.

I agree that the punishment exceeds the crime, but I also think there wasn't a lot of choice. You can't have someone who holds and repeatedly espouses racist views own a basketball team comprising largely of black people. Before he said anything it could be kept under the rug, but now his view are public everyone knows he's racist and he continues to re-affirm the fact.

For as long as he owned an NBA team there would be a narrative of a racist white owner owning a team of black people. That would definitely hurt the NBA, they didn't have much choice but to force him out.

Rich people get a lot of privileges we don't get, particularly the rich people who own sports teams. The tradeoff is they sometimes need to be more careful about what they say. If he didn't want to be held to account for his racist beliefs he shouldn't have bought an NBA team.

Re:nonsense

[laie_techie]

It's not a state thing. It's not the government that's doing anything. It's a private organization that sets it's own fucking rules, dipshit. Just like some country clubs still won't let Tiger Woods become a member or even play because he's not racially "appropriate", the NBA has it's rules and he ran afoul of them, so they are punishing him. Not the state. Not the government. The club. The collection of rich old white men that he belonged to decided he had gone too far, and it had gotten too public.

This isn't a place for your libertarian tirade, so can it.

If I owned a country club, I wouldn't let Tiger become a member because of his moral misconduct and the possible damage being associated with him could cause.

Re:nonsense

[fredprado]

Cute. Bigotry is trying to force other people to think like you do. Very serious problems happen when this is combined with power. Oh, and the most powerful members of society are progressivists that preach exactly the same you do and keep polarizing and inventing a fight of classes, genders or whatever to keep in power, using useful idiots like you.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, part of being an NBA owner is agreeing, in writing, to the NBA's ridiculous rules. You are a franchisee with no real individual power; you're ruled collectively by the masses (and you in turn, contribute to ruling all the other owners). The ownership agreement states that you agree to sell the franchise if 75% of the other owners vote for you to, so Sterling had no choice really.

For the record, I think it's a ridiculous setup and I think it's ridiculous that Sterling, as distasteful as he is, is being forced out because he said some un-PC things that were recorded without his knowledge. And he's long held a reputation as a racist, hence the Elgin Baylor lawsuit against him. The NBA never took action until something was spilled publicly.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Progressivism is the current mainstream religion and we are getting closer and closer to the Holy Inquisition way of doing things.

Uh what? The only kind of inquisition-like activity going on is on behalf of the other side, the conservative side. The progressives simply don't use those tactics, although sometimes conservatives use them while claiming to be progressive.

Brendan Eich, whose position on gay marriage at the time of Proposition 8 was more tolerant that Barack Obama's then-current views (but, interestingly enough, less tolerant than Dick Cheney's...), would probably disagree with you.

Re:nonsense

[drinkypoo]

And here you just prove my point, my friend. Only what you believe is right should be able to be said or thought and anything that defies it should be punished

Sorry, I can't help it if I have progressive views which are aimed at reducing inequity in our society.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

> Bigotry is trying to force other people to think like you do.

No, that's abuse of power.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, at least the guy embraces his love of inequity. Want to bet that he's poorer than either of us? Of course that doesn't make him stupid, it just makes us hypocrites. He's a more honorable man because he can control his envy.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama checked himself, corrected himself and issued a presidential mandate to all federal agencies to recognize gay marriage for employee benefits in all 50 states.

Meanwhile Eich was completely unapologetic for spending a thousand dollars of his own money to stop other people from marrying and refused to retract anything when given the opportunity in an interview.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The players had decided to walk out of the very next game if the NBA didn't take action.

Re: nonsense

[O('_')O_Bush]

"He has first amendment protections to be as big of a douchebag as he wants... he was doing nothing illegal. The NBA has no grounds to force him out..."

For fucks sake, if yoe going to be an apologist, please learn what the First Amendment means and what it applies to.

The NBA was well within their rights to force the sale of the Clippers and legality of remarks/the First Amendment has nothing to do with what the NBA has the right to do.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The NBA has no grounds to force him out or deny him profit from the sale of an asset he shouldn't be forced to sell.

Yes, it does. It is a franchise.

Not saying he doesn't have the right to be a bigot. Just saying that the NBA has the right to terminate the relationship. If it were otherwise, Sterling would have filed a lawsuit. Sterling isn't stupid, you know.

Re:nonsense

[idontgno]

And the Inquisition was torturing to improve society too. Funny how extremism looks exactly the same at nominally opposite ends of the spectrum.

Re:nonsense

[Solandri]

Isn't `bring the game into disrepute` a reason? It's their rules...they can have any clause they like.

If you're going to use a nebulous standard like "bringing the game into disrepute," I would argue their actions against Sterling brought more disrepute to the game. We've got two standards here:

• The right for people to be free from discrimination because of their race.
• The right of people to hold their own opinion regardless of what others think.

Obviously there are cases where these standards can come into conflict. The resolution society has come up with for when this happens is that you can hold a discriminatory opinion, but you cannot actually act on it. The anti-discriminatory laws I have to follow as an employer only cover how employees are treated. They say nothing about whether anyone is bigoted; their punishments only kick in when someone acts on that bigotry.

Sterling seems to have been following this resolution society has set when these two standards come into conflict. Was there systematic discrimination among the people hired or promoted within the Clippers organization? Were minorities given lower wages or excluded from bonuses or parties, or their decisions and directives given less weight in the organization's operations? As best as I can tell, Sterling was bigoted and disliked blacks, but he recognized that society has decided it was wrong for him to act on his dislike, so he did not actually do anything that negatively affected any blacks. The nearest he came was telling his presumed-mistress not to bring a black BF to his team's games. Hardly evidence of pervasive discrimination.

The NBA however... The standard is supposed to be, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Instead they've shifted the line from the act of discrimination being punishable, to the thought of discrimination being punishable. It is no longer safe to hold a minority opinion while abiding by the majority opinion in the NBA. Merely holding the minority opinion is now punishable. I think the world has become a much darker place and more disrepute brought to the game because of what the NBA did, than because of what Sterling did.

The way I see it, the difference between democracy and totalitarianism is tolerance. When there's a difference of opinion in the democracy, people in the democracy vote on it. The loser (minority) agrees to abide by the opinion of the winner (majority). But the majority also agrees not to punish the minority for holding that opinion, they are just prohibited from acting upon it. This is because what is currently a minority opinion may in the future become a majority opinion, and so merely holding that opinion needs to be allowed and protected. In a totalitarian state however, the minority rejects the majority opinion and resorts to physical violence to oppose it. And/or the majority seeks not only to prevent the minority from acting on their opinion, but also to root out and eliminate that minority opinion.

Re:nonsense

[drinkypoo]

And the Inquisition was torturing to improve society too.

BAHAHAHAHA, and also BAHAHAHA. You really believe that shit? The inquisition was always about acquisition. See: Grab, Land.

Re:nonsense

[Enigma2175]

Why are you ranting about a "totalitatian state" when the government has absolutely nothing to do with this? This is a contract dispute between the NBA and Sterling, You fucking partisan dickbags are all the same, no matter what the issue you have to make it political. If he didn't like the terms of the contract he signed, he didn't have to sign it. Nobody forced him to participate in the NBA.

Re:nonsense

[Threni]

No, you're just unable to refute his points. Doesn't mean no-one is allowed to, just that you're not up to the task. Go on, try it. Read what he wrote really slowly and see what you can come up with.

Re:nonsense

[ganjadude]

you actually believe that..

paula dean

this guy

kramer from seinfeld

I could go on and on with all the people on the left who want to silence those on the right. People on the right damn near ever ask for people to be fired from their jobs, they boycott, and they bitch and moan online, but they almost never demand people who say hurtful things towards people on the right (how many times did people on MSNBC call sarah palin and ann coulter a "right wing slut" (ed shultz~) and no one demanded he resign. Yet if someone on the right did, they would have been forced out by the liberal whiners

Posting annon to save mods on other threads

Ganjadude

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

by enforcing inequality on those who you felt treated others unequal is not reducing inequality.

If you want equality then make it equal for all, meaning if someone can insult a white male and its ok, then its ok to insult a black, gay, asian, woman etc. We cannot have "protected classes" and equality they are !=

Ganjadude

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

obama was still in a position of power at the time, yet at the time he had the same views as this man

this man never really talked about it publicly at all, his 1000$ donation was WAY Less harmful than obama who had voting power voting agaisnt gay rights

obama gets a pass because, well hes obama, I dont know why he gets away with all the shit he does

Ganjadude

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend of mine from Berkeley was visiting my area, and set up a dinner with people she knew. She introduced me as "my conservative friend". All her friends are self-proclaimed progressives, and all of them spent the entire time deriding my beliefs and telling me why I was wrong. When I tried to duck out of the more hostile lines of questioning and just eat my dinner, it usually went something like this:
Me: I guess we just disagree then.
Them: Disagreeing doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about everything.
It was two hours of hostility and holier-than-thou nonsense, capped by a Champion of the Poor driving off in a new Mercedes.

Meanwhile, a year ago I had her over for a dinner with some people I knew, mostly conservative. She was introduced as my friend from Berkeley-which hinted at her political beliefs. No badgering or arguments came up, just a nice dinner. She commented on how "they don't seem so conservative!"

Yes, some people may be jerks and others not, but this is my anecdotal experience.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time before opening your flap, have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Re:nonsense

[ganjadude]

apparently i accidentally didnt post anon haha - sorry to everyone i modded, but it looks like they are all in the right place still

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Sterling did illegally discriminate by refusing to rent apartments to blacks and hispanics. Very illegal, and the NBA should have done something about it then instead of gifting him black people for "basketball reasons"

Re:nonsense

[HornWumpus]

And yet, you can't see that 'progressive' politics are also a land grab.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see:

drinkypoo spoke his opinion.

fredprado didn't like someone's opinion

what are you bitching about fredprado?

I agree that progressivism is the current religion. Unfortunately, it is has been ushered in via religion (communism) and capitalism (corporate communism) and that technology will solve all our problems, so everyone should shut up and worship the almighty dollar and ignore the one-way welfare redistribution upwards.

The progressives are not to blame. The ones to blame, are the sellout "conservatives" (who worship nothing but money) and "liberals" (who worship nothing but money), who speak out of both sides of their mouth, and are willing to look the other way in any circumstance, as long as it is profitable.

It is like you are blaming the Jews for the holocaust. That was "progressive" in the minds of the Nazis. But the media will tell you the Nazis are right-wing extremists.

"Progressive" is a meaningless filler word, for "anyone I don't like" and it is just used to hide your bigotry.

You might as well blame the liberals and conservatives too.

If you hate gays, if you hate blacks, if you hate women, just come out and say it. I can respect an honest racist, an honest fundamentalist idiot, an honest sexist who might actually have personal, anecdotal reasons for their hatred.

Tell us how you worship an invisible pink unicorn, who says women belong in the kitchen. At least then, we know where you stand.

You, on the other hand, are only censoring yourself, complaining of boogeymen coming to lock you up. The floor is yours. Who do you hate? Why?

It seems you are embarrassed of your own mind, and your own thoughts. You have only yourself to blame.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The NBA has no grounds to force him out

The National Basketball Association has something called "freedom of association".

This probably shouldn't be news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...especially not on this site. Beyond the fact that mentioning "Steve Ballmer" sends certain IT industry people off the deep end, there's really nothing significant here. It just feels like a me-too article posted at the tail end of scandal...

Crusade against capitalism

[rodrigoandrade]

I'm pretty sick and tired of this crusade against capitalism all over the world, where anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.

Then you have folks like Thomas Picketty who preach to the socialist choir, and writes all the shit the lefties wanna read. Nevermind he's a millionaire himself.

We need more Ron Pauls.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[drinkypoo]

I'm pretty sick and tired of this crusade against capitalism all over the world, where anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.

And I'm sick of how statistically speaking, anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sick and tired of it's fair enough that they are against crony capitalism, but it's not the only possible kind - I would prefer it if the arguments were more nuanced.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Threni]

> I'm pretty sick and tired

Have a lie down. And then see a doctor. And try and think of a reason other than sympathy towards your sorry plight for others to be interested in your opinions.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm pretty sick and tired of this crusade against capitalism all over the world, where anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.

I totally agree, it is really fucked up all those people being evil, unethical and oppressive to their employees. Why do we keep rewarding them with a lot of money?

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind he's a millionaire himself.

And that's truly at the hart of the matter. A bunch of self-rightious hypocritical narcissistic assholes exemplifying the whole "Do as i say not as i do" idiom.

You see it every day around the world. A bunch of fucking wealthy elite that spew forth the same song and dance about wealth inequality, lack of education, healthcare, carbon footprint, and whatnot. Yet, these assholes are exempt from the very same policies they impose on others. There are two rules, one set for the elite, the other for everyone else. You're getting fucked! It's not about progressive or conservatism. It's about being a part of an exclusive wealthy club of power (forget money, it's about POWER). And as with most people in this world, you're not a part of it. So when a Republican fucks you in the ass, be sure to breath by pulling the Democratic cock out your mouth!

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Not any more than you are, my friend, but it is easier to see the bad side of others whilst ignoring your own. I am pretty sure you wouldn't be able to satisfy the standards you want to enforce to the people you envy.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Crony capitalism only exists when there is a big government to buy. Even more, the bigger and stronger the government is the "cronier" capitalism becomes. The only real way to fight crony capitalism is by decreasing government size and scope.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

> And that's truly at the hart of the matter. A bunch of self-rightious hypocritical narcissistic assholes exemplifying the whole "Do as i say not as i do" idiom.

That's total bullshit. If you are poor you don't have any voice at all. All social progress short of violent revolution comes when enough of the powerful finally recognize the injustice done to the powerless.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you are right, but it isn't about the measure of a person's soul, it is about measuring their impact on other people. Drinkypoo's ability to casually harm others is practically nil. Someone with employees can really screw them over without any consequences at all and because of that lack of consequences they often do. That's the nature of power.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist. He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.

On the other hand if you increase government powers, those same employees can be "screwed over" without any chance to defend themselves under the threat of force. And even worse this force can be bought by those rich guys.

So if you want to prevent damage from being done you should defend that governments should be as small as possible and that violence and coercion, which are the tools of any government, should be kept at a minimum.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[drinkypoo]

I am pretty sure you wouldn't be able to satisfy the standards you want to enforce to the people you envy.

I absolutely would, if a handful of greedy fucks hadn't made that impossible for their own profit.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[drinkypoo]

Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.

[citation needed]

On the other hand if you increase government powers

It's not the other hand. It's the same hand, because business runs government.

So if you want to prevent damage from being done you should defend that governments should be as small as possible

Corporations are running government, so your solution is less government, so that corporations can run everything without government.

My solution is less centralized government, so that people have control over their own destinies, but so that they still have control.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[drinkypoo]

Crony capitalism only exists when there is a big government to buy.

That is a staggeringly though not shockingly stupid thing [for you] to say. Collusion can exist in the absence of any government.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

The point is, corporations cannot run everything without government. there is no monopoly in existence that survived for any significant amount of time without government protection for example.

And if you want citations just check the countries at the top of economic freedom ranking of the heritage foundation and those at the bottom, then compare it to the standards of living of the average people in those same countries. The freer the economy the better the quality of life of the common person.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

But then you have to reduce the size and scope of the capitalists, so they can't endanger the public either. If they still have power, they're a danger.

Ergo, we must force everybody to live with ownership only of what they can carry on themselves.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Sure it can, but it cannot corner any market for long without the power of coercion government adds. I defy you to find monopolies that resisted for more than a few years without government protection, in the form of barriers, subsidies or regulations.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Capitalist don't "endager" the public, you would on the other hand if you could carry on with your ideas, because the only way to accomplish what you want is through force and coercion and the results are as shown time and again catastrophic.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Keep using excuses to justify your ugly ugly envy. You are likely much much richer than 99% of the people in this planet, and I sincerely doubt you are donating 99% of your income to the poor people in Africa.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[drinkypoo]

The point is, corporations cannot run everything without government.

By the time the corporations are running things, it's called governance.

Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.

[citation needed]

And if you want citations just check the countries at the top of economic freedom ranking of the heritage foundation and those at the bottom, then compare it to the standards of living of the average people in those same countries. The freer the economy the better the quality of life of the common person.

How is that a citation for the people at the top not harming anyone? Try, try, try to stay on topic. Or else we'll have to assume that you're just avoiding answering the question because you have no good answer.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[drinkypoo]

I defy you to find monopolies that resisted for more than a few years without government protection, in the form of barriers, subsidies or regulations.

Yes, that's how monopolies work. But if there were no governments, the megacorporations (or of old, the companies) would simply grow until they themselves were governments. Indeed, they did act as governments in their own areas of influence.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Triklyn]

i'm for bigger government. we've tried the smaller government thing, it's where we started. Then we moved beyond child labor, sweat-shops, company towns and robber-barons. Unfettered capitalism was the time of carnegie... it was not a good look on us.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

> On the other hand if you increase government powers, those same employees can be "screwed over" without any chance to defend themselves under the threat of force.

Baloney. Government gives people without money the opportunity to apply influence that they wouldn't have in a system where the only influence comes from money. You make the common error of black-and-white thinking, saying that because the people with money can use money to have a disproportionate influence on government then government is inherently bad. When the choice is between no influence and some influence, some wins everytime.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[drinkypoo]

Keep using excuses to justify your ugly ugly envy.

I don't envy people for being soulless pieces of shit who are completely detached from caring for their fellow humans because they got theirs.

You are likely much much richer than 99% of the people in this planet,

True.

and I sincerely doubt you are donating 99% of your income to the poor people in Africa.

Ah yes, I refer to this as the "Why doesn't Warren Buffet just pay more taxes, then?" argument. Admittedly, it's not a very wieldy name. However, it does underscore the limited amount of thinking you've put into this issue. No matter how much money I can spend to try to make the world a better place, some people with a lot more money than me a) could do a whole lot more without even noticing, but aren't and b) will do more to harm those people without even noticing than I can ever do throughout my life. So yeah, I could be doing more, but to suggest that my failure to give more is cause to be silent about those whose failure to limit their excess is just fucking stupid.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

That is an intellectually dishonest challenge because there is no country on earth where government is not involved with business regulation.

What is self-evident are all the monopolies that were broken through government action.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Oh but there are deregulated areas. And in those areas you won't find monopolies. At least not monopolies that last more than a few years.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

No they would not because they are competing with each other and with all the rest of the market. It is actually gets a lot harder to grow when you get larger. Companies get harder and harder to manage, get inefficient and eventually collapse. Look at GM, Banks or anywhere for reference. Governments are the only force that keeps protecting and sustaining corporations when they fail.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Again excuses. You do nothing and rationalize that it is because you don't make a difference in the larger picture, but you could do in a smaller picture and there are a LOT of people like you. You, my friend, by your own standards is an hypocrite and a soulless piece of shit who is completely detached from caring for your fellow humans.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

It is interesting how your arguments keep jumping around. Drinkypoo's been very consistent. You jump from accusing him of envy and not living up to his own ideals to blaming government for all the ills of the world. To me, that says you are just looking to rationalize a faith-based belief rather than having any sort of evidence-based conclusions.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Oh and nobody said anything about no governments. Governments have 3 very good motives to exist and should focus on those 3 things only:

- Provide physical security to people by preventing violence from being committed by people (police and criminal justice);
- Serve as arbitrator in disputes (civil justice)
- protect the country from external threats (military)

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

If you glance for just a minute through this fred guy's comment history, you can see a habit of fabricating statistics and topic dancing. He's more concerned with winning conversations than actually saying anything useful.. best not to let yourself be trolled by him.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

lol at your fauxrage

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[CrimsonAvenger]

Corporations are running government, so your solution is less government, so that corporations can run everything without government.

It should, perhaps, be noted that corporations are a creation of government.

Before government created corporations (properly Limited Liability Corporations), a stockholder in a business (you, for instance, if you have a 401K) would be legally liable for anything that business did, and could be assessed a fraction (proportional to your share of the ownership) of any legal ruling against the business.

The LLC (aka coroporation) was invented to remove that particular problem (among other things), which encouraged more people to invest in business....

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Rich people are not "harming" anybody.

They are. At any given instant in time, there is a finite amount of wealth in existence. Possession of said wealth necessarily prevents others from possessing it. For example, if there are $X in existence at this very moment, and I possess all $X, then it is necessarily the case that you have $0. Note that this has nothing to do with the fact that the amount of wealth in existence is not constant, nor with the fact that the economy is not a zero sum game, so please don't go off on those tangents.

Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Gee, thanks. Jobs. Just what we wanted. No, it's not money that we want, it's jobs. How generous.</sarcasm>
Really, it's self-evident that people don't want jobs, so providing them with jobs isn't the opposite of harming them. Once rich people start providing people with money, not jobs, you'll be correct to use this argument. Until then, it will remain the case that the rich continue to exploit the poor.

He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.

Yes, go elsewhere, to another rich person that will screw them over. Great idea. Unless you can show me a rich person that hires people and pays them what they're actually worth, not extracting any profit from the arrangement whatsoever, I don't think your suggestion is realistic. Being free to pick who assrapes you isn't my idea of freedom.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[drinkypoo]

Again excuses.

You'd tell a drowning man to pull himself up by his own bootstraps. You must be a libertarian.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[drinkypoo]

It should, perhaps, be noted that corporations are a creation of government.

Yes, that's what differentiates them from companies, which were actually made up of people.

The LLC (aka coroporation) was invented to remove that particular problem (among other things), which encouraged more people to invest in business....

Healthy inflation encourages people to invest in business. The LLC is there not to promote investment, but to avoid responsibility.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one. I'm confident that upon closer examination you'll find that "deregulated" actually means "less regulated."
And the fact that there are plenty of areas with average regulation where monopolies don't last either means the regulation isn't the determining factor.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

The barrier to entry is also extremely hard, if good luck if you want to start a company and go up against AT&T or Vodafone for example.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

All the monopolies that exist are in heavy regulated areas. Actually there are not heavy regulated areas where there is anything more competitive than oligopolies. See telecommunications for reference.

Now in areas where the regulation is minimum, lax, largely ignored or even non existent as in some countries, like for example cloth selling there are no monopolies and not even oligopolies and none can form.

As regulation increases in any area smaller business start to close and oligopolies and eventually monopolies start to form. The process is always the same.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Oh, but people do it all the time. There are several community managed broadband ISPs in Germany, for example. As an activity becomes more and more lucrative, which is what happens when a monopoly forms, there is plenty of incentive for competing and overcoming such barriers. Especially considering a large part of these barriers consist in costs directly and indirectly caused by government regulation.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

They are. At any given instant in time, there is a finite amount of wealth in existence.

And a very large portion of this wealth wouldn't exist if the system didn't allow for rich people to exist in the first place, and so your whole theory of zero sum game goes down the drain.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are the perfect example of a modern day American liberal. It's absolutely pathetic.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[NoImNotNineVolt]

And a very large portion of this wealth wouldn't exist if the system didn't allow for rich people to exist in the first place

Citation needed. If you believe that inequitable stratification of wealth helps expand an economy, that's fine. However, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. I have seen no evidence of such a claim, so I'm afraid I won't be accepting it at face value. Personally, I don't think that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Charles Koch, David Koch, Christy Walton, Jim Walton, Alice Walton, Sam Walton, and Michael Bloomberg were in any way instrumental in improving the economic situation in this country or growing the pie for all of us. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

and so your whole theory of zero sum game goes down the drain.

*sigh*
You just couldn't do it, could you?

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Oh it is easy to show you. Check any system where the government prevents people from getting rich, like for example USSR, China before the last decades when they opened to the free market, North Korea, Cuba, etc, and see the amount of wealth generated by these countries even with the incredible amount of resources some of them have.

Now compare that to the wealth generated by the countries at the top of the World Heritage Foundation list of economic freedom.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Indeed. The US has the largest GDP, while ranking 10th in economic freedom. China is second largest, while ranked 136th in economic freedom. Japan is third largest, while ranked 24th in economic freedom. I'd run the math to see if there's any correlation between GDP and economic freedom, but on first glance it really doesn't look likely.

But maybe I should be looking at GDP per capita, right? So let's see. Qatar has the highest GDP per capita, but ranks 27th in economic freedom. Luxembourg is second in GDP per capita, but ranks 15th in economic freedom. Singapore is third in GDP per capita, and ranks 2nd in economic freedom. So far, Singapore is the only data point we've seen that's consistent with your hypothesis. Again, glancing over the whole list, there's no obvious correlation between economic freedom and GDP per capita.

That being said, none of this has anything to do with what I said. I wasn't talking about economic freedom, I was talking about stratification of wealth. Those are two entirely orthogonal issues. Consequently, you still haven't demonstrated that uniform distribution of wealth is bad, or that inequitable stratification of wealth is good.

Citations:
Index of Economic Freedom
Countries by GDP
Countries by GDP per capita

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Princeofcups]

Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist. He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.

Except that riches come by taking from everyone else, including the poor. Rich is only relative and it is only when the disparity between the rich and poor is so absurdly large that it can only harm society in general. That is where we are now. The rich would need to donate 90% of their opulence to the public good in order to get the US back on its feet, and that ain't happening any time soon. Think of a spider sucking its prey dry.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[HeckRuler]

The Heritage Foundation? Duuuuuuuude. It's a conservative think tank funded by rich men like the Coors heir and the Koch brothers.

You are listening to rich men tell you why you should appreciate rich men.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[HeckRuler]

Rich people are not "harming" anybody.

If you take a broad view, sure, just being rich doesn't inherently harm anyone.

Just like poor people are not harming anyone just by being poor.

Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.

That's some classist warfare material right there. The sort of propaganda spread by the slave owners to get their slaves to lick their boots harder.
You could quite equally say that the job is going to exist with or without the leeches feeding off of other people doing actual work.

He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.

Right, as long as the employees have the ability to "go elsewhere". If you've never known a wage-slave with no better options then the dead-end job they're in, then you don't know what you're talking about. If you've never known someone who is going to work every day, not for the job or pay, but because without the medical benefits that are tied to the job they or a loved one are going to die, then you don't really know all the finer details that go into setting up and managing a "free society".

if you want to prevent damage from being done you should...

Place the power not with the government, megacorporations, or rich men, but rather with the people. The moment that power is removed from the masses, the masses get screwed over.

Vote with your wallets. If you don't like this sort of thing, STOP FUNDING IT.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Oh 27th is very good in a list of 178 countries. Therefore you proved yourself my point.

And one of the natural results of economic freedom is stratification of wealth. They are not orthogonal issues. The only way to prevent people from getting rich is by forcing them not to be, that is hardly freedom.

Oh and answering your previous comment, All those billionaires were actually instrumental in improving US economy and generating wealth. Microsoft alone that wouldn't exist if not for Gates generated hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth, and a good part of it was paid in salaries and shares to its employees which bought goods and service from many many other people.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[kaatochacha]

Bigger government was tried as well. it was called the Soviet Union. that's not ideal either.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Oh 27th is very good in a list of 178 countries. Therefore you proved yourself my point.

(1, 27), (2, 15), (3, 2) doesn't make for any sort of reasonable correlation, in the mathematical sense. Adding the rest of the countries to the list only makes the correlation worse.

And one of the natural results of economic freedom is stratification of wealth. They are not orthogonal issues. The only way to prevent people from getting rich is by forcing them not to be, that is hardly freedom. \

It really depends on what you mean by economic freedom. By allowing for extreme stratification of wealth, you're denying the masses an equitable share of wealth, thereby limiting the economic freedom of the majority. Somehow, I don't expect the Heritage Foundation to define economic freedom that way. However, they don't seem to explicitly define it at all, instead leaving it to the reader to try to figure out what exactly they're measuring. I would argue that a society like the US, where the majority of the population has to share a tiny minority of the wealth, hardly constitutes freedom.

Oh and answering your previous comment, All those billionaires were actually instrumental in improving US economy and generating wealth. Microsoft alone that wouldn't exist if not for Gates generated hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth, and a good part of it was paid in salaries and shares to its employees which bought goods and service from many many other people.

Indeed. Instead of Microsoft, we'd have a healthy ecosystem of competitors improving the US economy and generating wealth. To suggest that only Bill Gates' ruthless and unscrupulous business practices could have generated this wealth is absurd; if anything, his goal of a Microsoft monopoly has likely harmed the economy more than it has helped it. Additionally, it's not clear to what extend Microsoft's success was a result of Gates. Clearly he played an active and meaningful role in the company in its early years, but a vast majority of its revenues came long after that time. Additionally, your reference to wages paid, etc., is meaningless. Other companies pay wages too, and there's nothing that makes Microsoft's use of revenues to pay wages different than any other company's. You've failed to convince me why one Microsoft with one Bill Gates is any better than a thousand miniMicrosofts with a thousand reasonably wealthy CEOs.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[tbannist]

Oh and nobody said anything about no governments. Governments have 3 very good motives to exist and should focus on those 3 things only:

- Keep the slaves in line (police and criminal justice);
- Serve as arbitrator in disputes between the slave owners (civil justice)
- Protect the slave owners from foreign slave owners (military)

A cynic might point out that the only three things you think the government should do could be easily turned against you. The Coyote said "A libertarian is an anarchist who wants the government to police his slaves". I wonder if you understand what that means.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Oh, you expected to have a linear correlation between the positions in the graphiic and per capita GDP? Please that is silly.

The important fact is that you can't find countries that have populations with a good income and quality of life and are not near the top of that list. That is the undeniable truth.

By allowing for extreme stratification of wealth, you're denying the masses an equitable share of wealth

That is ridiculous and it becomes abundantly clear when you realize the truth of my last statement. The wealth you are "denying" the masses would even exist in the first place.

Indeed. Instead of Microsoft, we'd have a healthy ecosystem of competitors improving the US economy and generating wealth.

No we wouldn't, in exact the same way other countries do not. Things do not come from thin air. People need to create them. US economical strength comes from all the people that start small companies in the hope of getting rich or at least vastly improve their wealth, and many of them are successful.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[tbannist]

Actually there are not heavy regulated areas where there is anything more competitive than oligopolies.

So you would say that there is no real competition between restaurants in most cities? They are fairly heavily regulated to provide for the safety of their customers.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

No, my friend, I would tell him to accept the help anyone willingly decide to give him and would give my help. You, on the other hand, would be one of those that would turn your back on him, let him drown, and write a rant saying that we should force other people with bigger boats to help people drowning.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Oh, you expected to have a linear correlation between the positions in the graphiic and per capita GDP? Please that is silly.

Doesn't have to be linear. I'm fine with any positive correlation. However, there isn't one. I thought your claime was that GDP per capita and economic freedom were correlated. If you're agreeing that they're not, then I guess we're on the same page after all.

The important fact is that you can't find countries that have populations with a good income and quality of life and are not near the top of that list. That is the undeniable truth.

Look, you're the one that tried to divert this to a debate about the value of some kind of undefined "economic freedom". I wasn't talking about economic mobility, or economic opportunity. I was talking strictly about the stratification of wealth. The kind that you don't find in societies with highly progressive forms of taxation. Places like Norway, #4 in terms of GDP per capita. And Sweden, #13. Populations with good income and quality of life (better than here, in fact), that are nowhere near where we are in terms of wealth inequality. That these countries are #31 and #18 on your "economic freedom" list doesn't mean that they let the rich assrape everyone else. That's my point. Feel free to address it, or feel free to keep going off on some economic freedom tangent.

That is ridiculous and it becomes abundantly clear when you realize the truth of my last statement. The wealth you are "denying" the masses would even exist in the first place.

Even if that were the case (and I don't see a convincing argument for that), why would that be any worse? Since I'm not a billionaire, why should I care if billionaires exist? Does their existence help me somehow? Or are they using their extreme wealth to influence politics, shut out competition, and generally exert undue control over my world? If we were to wake up tomorrow with the world's billionaire's missing (along with their wealth), how would we be materially worse off?

No we wouldn't, in exact the same way other countries do not. Things do not come from thin air. People need to create them. US economical strength comes from all the people that start small companies in the hope of getting rich or at least vastly improve their wealth, and many of them are successful.

Successful, sure. Let's look at the great success of Bill Gates. What great contribution to society has he made that warrants his wealth? Was it when he was spreading FUD about the "viral" GPL? Was it the vendor lock-in that he guided Microsoft to pursue? Was it all the permatemp employees that he hired and retained for years without extending health benefits to? Are you suggesting these astounding feats of success couldn't have been performed by anyone else? Are you suggesting that Microsoft and Gates' success didn't come at the expense of the rest of society?

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

Since I'm not a billionaire, why should I care if billionaires exist?

You shouldn't care at all if they exist. You should care if the system that allows them to exist is the best system in existence to make you prosper though, which happens to be the case.

Successful, sure. Let's look at the great success of Bill Gates. What great contribution to society has he made that warrants his wealth? Was it when he was spreading FUD about the "viral" GPL? Was it the vendor lock-in that he guided Microsoft to pursue? Was it all the permatemp employees that he hired and retained for years without extending health benefits to? Are you suggesting these astounding feats of success couldn't have been performed by anyone else? Are you suggesting that Microsoft and Gates' success didn't come at the expense of the rest of society?

Even the permatemp employees are better off working for him in the conditions that they did than they would be otherwise and that is exactly why they worked for him. We still live in a free society. Nobody is forced to work for anybody else.

And no I am not suggesting anything. I am blatantly stating that MS success didn't come at the cost of US society. Much on the contrary it came to the benefit of US society and the astounding feats of success like this be maybe achieved by other people, but not many people, and those people would end equally rich. Having an idea and making it work is not as trivial as you think, otherwise you would be a billionaire at this point. ;)

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[fredprado]

The kind that you don't find in societies with highly progressive forms of taxation. Places like Norway

Oh and that is stupid. Sure you do. People that have high monthly income do pay a higher tax in Norway or Sweden. But neither in Norway nor in any other developed country we have taxes over property and assets. The end result is that really rich people pay far less taxes than poor people there. Because rich people have no income. They never realize profits.

It is the middle class that sustains the welfare state, not the rich. As it is always the case. In Norway it will go for a long time yet because they have oil money to keep going. In Sweden on the other hand taxes over higher income are being constantly lowered as the state struggles to keep its finances stable.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

> Just like poor people are not harming anyone just by being poor.

Speak for yourself, those fucking leeches are using up all my money that I earned from investment deals with father's country-club buddies!!!

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[cupnoodleboy]

Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist. He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.

The Rich may cause harm to people in the same way a corrupted government do. By abuse and mis-use of their power. The Rich are not interested at providing employee jobs. They are only interested at making profits, any jobs provided are a side effect. While in theory, employees can go to another company if their employer treat them badly, nowadays coporate merger and monopoly means there are only a very small number of companies in a given industry, making it difficult for employees to change company, unless they abandon their accumulated skills and swtich to work in a different industry. A "free" society cannot be really free if the Rich has vastly more power than the average people.

On the other hand if you increase government powers, those same employees can be "screwed over" without any chance to defend themselves under the threat of force. And even worse this force can be bought by those rich guys.

Without the laws and regulation imposed by a government, the Rich will have no problems finding ways to "screw over" employees. In this case, the Rich does not even have to buy any favour or power from the government, since the government will not be able to stop them when they use their financial power for corecion of the employees. Your own worry that some of the government power can be bought by the Rich, actually shows the danger of not having sufficient checks against the great financial power of the Rich.

So if you want to prevent damage from being done you should defend that governments should be as small as possible and that violence and coercion, which are the tools of any government, should be kept at a minimum.

It is best to keep a balance of power between the Rich and the government. If any one side become too powerful than the others, it would be bad news for the people. Actually, what is needed is a balance of power between the Rich and the average people, but the latter is not sufficient organized or powerful enough to face the Rich alone, so the use of the institution of government is necessary. While a corrupted government is certainly more harmful than the Rich, the democratic form of government is so far the best form of government to prevent corruption, as it allow the public to keep a check on the power of the government.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[cupnoodleboy]

A cynic might point out that the only three things you think the government should do could be easily turned against you. The Coyote said "A libertarian is an anarchist who wants the government to police his slaves". I wonder if you understand what that means.

Anything, if it is useful, can either be used for a good cause, or be used for an evil cause. For example, a knife can be used for you for cooking, or it can be used against you for causing bodily harm. The important thing to do is not to view knife as evil, but to make sure that knife are only used for good purpose as much as possible.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[cupnoodleboy]

Sure it can, but it cannot corner any market for long without the power of coercion government adds. I defy you to find monopolies that resisted for more than a few years without government protection, in the form of barriers, subsidies or regulations.

Since this is Slashdot, it is surprising that you does not seem to aware of the monopoly position held by Microsoft on PC operating system. Microsoft's monopoly is certainly not a result of government regulation or control. There are a number of causes of monopoly besides government interference, for example, high barrier to entry, network effect, predatory business practices, etc. Actually, good government regulation is supposed to suppress predatory business practices. A few years ago, an antitrust investigation against Intel (the CPU maker) revealed that, in the past they were giving a number of CPU to Dell effectively free of charge (price zero) if Dell would not buy CPU from AMD. Do you think anyone can stay in or enter the CPU business if such practices is not prohibited by the government?

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[cupnoodleboy]

I would like to add that this example was especially shady, as the number of CPU "sold" by Intel to Dell at price zero, was basically the same as the number of CPU Dell originally planned to buy from AMD.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist. He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.

Quite the opposite. A free society never voted "money rules all." Your free society is nothing more than slavery. When was this vote? Please point us to it.

On the other hand if you increase government powers, those same employees can be "screwed over" without any chance to defend themselves under the threat of force. And even worse this force can be bought by those rich guys.

Government and business are no different. To speak of them as opposites is disingenuous and dishonest. There is no legal business without government. By increasing corporate power, it increases government power. By increasing government power, it increases corporate power.

So if you want to prevent damage from being done you should defend that governments should be as small as possible and that violence and coercion, which are the tools of any government, should be kept at a minimum.

Agreed. This is why the corporate elites should not be allowed to grow beyond a set point, for they are one and the same.

It makes no difference to the starving person if:

1) the government won't hire him, so he cannot eat, and has no shelter
2) no business will hire him, because they do not want to put in the effort to train a poor person

By letting the corporations run free, you are just saying "voting does not matter, money is all that matters."

It is the same end game, the same result. They are one and the same, they are not opposites, despite your fantasy.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalist don't "endager" the public, you would on the other hand if you could carry on with your ideas, because the only way to accomplish what you want is through force and coercion and the results are as shown time and again catastrophic.

Ideology endangers the public. There is no capitalism without force and coercion, despite your fantasy.

The results are catastrophic anytime ideology is shoved into reality. It doesn't matter what make believe ideology it is. It is not reality. All your hand-waving and redefinitions do not change anything.

Also, capitalism benefits quite handsomely from other ideologies. Capitalism is about making money, that's it. If socialism makes money, it will be enacted under a capitalist banner. If fascism makes money, it will be enacted and enforced, under a capitalist banner. If theocracies make money, capitalism will erect them.

Capitalists LOVE doing business around the world, ESPECIALLY rigging things depending on the country.

Force and coercion is the name of the game, as long as that is what makes money. By definition, that is what capitalism is about. It is intellectually dishonest and woefully delusional to think that capitalism does not use force and coercion when it is profitable.

You can argue capitalism has no morals and no scruples, so at least the deception is bound to change when some new scam is discovered more profitable. I will not dispute that.

Show me a capitalist society without force and coercion. One.

Show me a capitalist society that does not seek to conquer the world and enslave the planet. You call this a "strength" and "proof of superiority" and claim that no other system works, yet you deny that capitalism uses force and coercion. Can't have it both ways, my friend.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep using excuses to justify your ugly ugly envy. You are likely much much richer than 99% of the people in this planet, and I sincerely doubt you are donating 99% of your income to the poor people in Africa.

At the end of the day, it looks like all your hatred of "progressivism" is nothing more than moral relativism and protection of the rich, disguised and marketed as "conservatism" when really values has nothing to do with anything, it is entirely about money. What a shocker!

Can't have it both ways. Either the rich are right because they are right (and not because others merely "envy" them), or there are no absolutes, and like you said, all the wrongs of the rich are just jealousy from the envious and to be ignored.

Which is it fredprado? You are just a lying sack of spineless shit. Noone envies the weak. Noone envies slaveholders. We pity you and your ilk.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to say that being rich is a not a crime, and the progressives have ruined your feudalist nightmare, you need a better argument than moral relativism. Can't have it both ways.

"Hypocrisy is ok, because I can afford it, and you can't" -- fredprado

"Stalin is not so bad, Satan is much worse. Quit your bitching, woman!" -- fredprado

"People who are starving and have nowhere to sleep care about make-believe ideologies and make-believe laws made by humans" -- fredprado

You are detached from reality, my friend. It is not envy, it is trying to slap some sanity into you. Do you need a bucket of water dumped on your head to sober you up from your wet dream?

Only $5.95, my treat. It would cost you your head and your children in other countries.

Not a bad deal, if I do say so myself.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist. He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.

On the contrary. Money from the poor is extracted from them and fed upwards. There is no "elsewhere" left to go.

It is the opposite of a free society, it is fascist-socialism, enforced by governments to bring about world-wide feudalism, under the illusion of internationalism and world trade.

On the other hand if you increase government powers, those same employees can be "screwed over" without any chance to defend themselves under the threat of force. And even worse this force can be bought by those rich guys.

Which has already happened. When the cartels have their own gun factories, your ban on guns is just depressingly naive. They don't need you. They never did. What part of that do you not understand?

So if you want to prevent damage from being done you should defend that governments should be as small as possible and that violence and coercion, which are the tools of any government, should be kept at a minimum.

Yes, which is why "capitalism" as it stands is nothing more than a sham, a fraud, a deception carried out on a global scale, in order to make governments larger.

How soon we forget. Where were the capitalists and bankers during Hitler? Were they:

a) selling ammunition and supplies to both sides, knowing that whoever won, they would win
b) opposed to war, because it is "wrong"; refusing to meddle on either side

I would love to see "capitalism" that wasn't government-enforced fascism. I have yet to see such a thing. The government always wants its cut. This is no accident. This is part and parcel of "capitalism" and "free markets."

You have been duped. The force has already been bought by "those rich guys." Violence and coercion are done with the blessing of capitalists, who profit off of the weaponry and government contracts.

Your nightmare has already come true.

You are like a lost little boy in hell who just murdered his parents, praying it won't happen again. And your Aunt and Uncle are suspicious of your prayers, rightfully so.

But gosh darn it, it was all your unborn niece's fault, the stupid little bitch! How DARE she!

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Now in areas where the regulation is minimum, lax, largely ignored or even non existent as in some countries, like for example cloth selling there are no monopolies and not even oligopolies and none can form

Holy crap, you are citing 3rd world sweat-shops like this and this as an example of good business practices. You are one messed up dude.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is not to say your unborn niece is the solution, merely that she is really not at fault here.

Maybe you will have a nephew, or there will not be any little fredprado's running around.

You are just blaming the boogeyman, oblivious to reality.

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Moral relativism strikes again. There would be more employees being employers if the employees had more income.

This is a non-sequitor.

"Money is good when it flows upwards, because only us masters know how to handle
your pesky serfs. But you cannot give the serfs anything, because then they might start their own businesses!" -- fredprado

What's good for the geese is good for the gander. That, or you are full of shit. Which is it, fredprado?

Obviously, we do not need any forced redistribution of wealth, because the rich are moral and full of love for their fellow human beings, therefore it seems the rich are left with no choice but to voluntarily relinquish control. Again, which is it?

Moral relativism (they can govern themselves), or they need an outside influence to prod them?

Here is your prodding. You blame the "progressives" for playing God, and refuse to hear their prayers, all because you want to be God yourself but without any of the responsibility. Oh, the irony!

Deliver us, or get out of the way. Put up, or shut up.

The rich already have all the wealth. Where is the utopia you promised? I don't see it. I see a false promise and a blitz of deception, masquerading as "conservatism" but nothing more than protection of the few at the expense of the many.

Can't have it both ways. Which will it be?

Re:Crusade against capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

I defy you to find monopolies that resisted for more than a few years without government protection, in the form of barriers, subsidies or regulations.

I defy you to find a "capitalist" who does not bribe the government for barriers, subsidies, and regulations.

You are confusing the symptoms with the disease. It is a cycle.

Capitalism inevitably leads to socialism. It is no lie that socialism does not work, because the people on top are just rigging things so they do not have to work. This is no accident. Capitalism is the same. It leads right to socialism, every time.

When you put greed on a pedestal, it is not uncommon for the results to be socialism. This is no accident, this is the inevitable result.

You can criticize the "government" for taking bribes all you want.

Inevitably, that is human nature. Which is precisely why capitalism does NOT work. Because human nature does not care about laws, or ideologies, or right and wrong. It is nothing but instinctive survival.

And when all that matters is who is the greediest, it is no surprise that everything else goes out the window.

It is no accident, it is the inevitable result.

It would be intellectually honest if you were however, to ask "why are the so-called "capitalists" so intent on bribing the government?"

You protect the mob, while demanding we crucify the crooked politicians. I will give you a C- for a half-hearted effort. It needs more work. Not completely incomplete, but depressingly naive.

Context please !

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like there is an interesting story, but I'm on the other side of the world and no nothing of basketball, what did he do/say ?

Re:Context please !

[Anonymous Coward]

On April 25, 2014, TMZ Sports released a recording of a conversation between Sterling and a female friend, V. Stiviano.[34][35] In the recording from September 2013, a man confirmed to be Sterling was irritated over a photo Stiviano had posted on Instagram, in which she posed with Basketball Hall of Fame player Magic Johnson.[34][36] Sterling told Stiviano: "It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people", and, "You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want", but "the little I ask you is ... not to bring them to my games."[37][38][39]

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what was he supposed to do? Give the team away? They kicked him out of the league. The only way to get him out of the league is to force him to sell the team. The team is, apparently, worth $2 billion. Thus...

I think he's a racist asshole as much as the next guy but, seriously, what did anyone expect? He wasn't going to give the team away, that's for damn sure.

Donald Sterling planned this

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Sterling planned this to find a way to avoid unecessary taxes. good on him.

The whole racist recording was a set up by him and his girlfriend, who also will gain from the sale.

Ads disabled?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, hi. I have "ads disabled" checked for excellent karma. Ads are _not_ disabled. They are very annoying and potentially malware laden. Please fix.

Re:Ads disabled?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this bug has existed for over two weeks now. It seems that the Slashdot administration is somewhat lazy...bugs are fixed slowly, and the article summaries sometimes contain glaring errors.

Re:Ads disabled?

[Anonymous Coward]

How quickly would you fix bugs that make you extra money?

Clippers get a new mascot

[Anonymous Coward]

A dancing sweaty clown

Took us 30 years to fire this no talent ass clown from our company, all because employees rarely voted with their (heavily diluted) share awards, now MSFT is going to break $50 and bust $60 per share (assuming they don't further dilute it for more lame stock awards).

So he should lose everything because he's racist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Are you saying if you say the wrong thing, horrible as it may be, you should lose all your assets? 2 billion dollars worth? I'm fine with him having to sell his franchise as there are franchise rules he had to abide by, but they can't just take his money from him because he said something mean.

Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this before

[just_a_monkey]

We ought to outlaw selfishness. Everyone should always work towards the common good.

Disable Advertising?

[ArcadeMan]

More like "Ignore my checkbox to Disable Advertising". I'm still seeing banners at the top of the content and at the top of the right column.

Re:Disable Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the world would you leave ad-blocking up to the website itself? I'm not sure what insult to use for that kind of thinking.

Re:Disable Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without Flash, most ads aren't annoying enough to even bother. But in this case, it's more about telling Slashdot that their website is broken.

Re:Disable Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Broken, yeah. They really don't mean to show you those ads; it's a bug!

Re:Disable Advertising?

[just_another_sean]

Weird. For me, I'm not seeing the actual ads but suddenly the space they should take up is back. Just a browser wide white space at the top and a nice square chunk of white above the Disable Ads spot.

At work so no ad block or add-ons in play, although I do have javascript off by default. I tried enabling it briefly yesterday for /. but nothing changed.

Re:Disable Advertising?

[antdude]

My checkbox got unchecked earlier today. This happens once in a while too. :(

Think harder Rick

[PsyMan]

'"It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," ... Well, lets think, you could run a child prostitution ring, child slavery, people trafficking, run a pharmacutical firm/country that denies poorer people medicine or be a banker. Not hard to imagine at all. (not sure what the rest of the summary was about as I did not read it.

Re:Think harder Rick

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I don't think he's "earning money than by benefiting from racism" (I realize that doesn't make grammatical sense). He's earning money off a basketball team which is comprised mostly (completely?) of black men while at the same time being a racist. He's actually making money because the majority of the operation isn't racist and has the best players it can get, who happen to be black. Making money from racism would be more akin to owning a golf course, and having a bunch of black caddies and paying them peanuts because they had no other options. Paying a bunch of people millions of dollars to play a sport and are treated as royal by their fans and the general public is hardly the worst thing somebody could do.

Re:Think harder Rick

[MitchDev]

No kidding.

Grow some spine and some thicker skin America, you're turning into the wimps of the "free" world...

Re:Think harder Rick

[koan]

With the last name "Cohen" hyperbole is expected.

Re:Think harder Rick

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, I think 'benefiting from racism' means that because of Sterling's racist statements the league is forcing him to sell his team and he will end up with a huge profit, so in some weird way his racism leads to a huge profit. Kind of like murdering someone leads to free room and board for life.

Re:Think harder Rick

[rogoshen1]

buh buh, if the team (and every other team in the entire NBA) is comprised almost entirely of black players, then the we need some kind of investigation on diversity, and how the NBA can make itself a more tolerant, and diverse organization.

We're sending a strong message to young white, asian, and hispanic children that they cannot be professional athletes, and in 2014 that's a travesty. I thought we were past this as a society.

If Jackson can do this to to Google, then perhaps in the interest of fairness the NBA could ask itself why they are so ... awfully monochromatic. (the majority/minority percentages are likely pretty close to identical)

Re:Think harder Rick

[Anonymous Coward]

buh buh, if the team (and every other team in the entire NBA) is comprised almost entirely of black players, then the we need some kind of investigation on diversity, and how the NBA can make itself a more tolerant, and diverse organization.

You think you are being clever, but you are absolutely right. The fact that the NBA is nearly 100% black (while the owners are nearly 100% white) is proof of racism. Just not in the way you think. The reason black people dominate the sport is because for the majority of black kids there are only two options to improve their lot in life - deal drugs or play the pro-sports lottery.

No other profession has that level of competition, it is just crazy intense. If you had ANY other legit options with less competition, you'd be a fool not to take them. Losing the lottery sucks, much better to take a path where you have a higher chance of success, even if it won't make you a multi-millionare. A good job is better than no job.

So that's why blacks dominate pro-sports, most of them don't have any other choice. Take a look at their backgrounds - practically all of them come from poor backgrounds. Even Richard Sherman, the NFL cornerback who got called a "thug" but actually attended Stanford came from Compton.

Sure there are poor whites, asians and hispanics too and their lives aren't easy. But they don't have the same levels of racism to overcome in order to a get a normal job.

Re:Think harder Rick

[Anonymous Coward]

Or...black kids are better at basketball and some other sports. And some genders are better at some tasks than others.
We're allowed to say one group is physically better at something and not be racists. Or at least we should be.

Re:Think harder Rick

[dl_sledding]

No kidding.

Grow some spine and some thicker skin America, you're turning into the wimps of the "free" world...

Amen. "Free Speech" and "Racism" (in speech!) seem to me to be a contradiction in terms. Americans seem to be losing the sense of value of free speech, trying to appease and prevent "hurt feelings".

I am in no way supporting someone being discriminated against (Rosa Parks style). We have come a VERY long way down that road, to the point where I believe that the pendulum has swung past the apex and is now getting to the point of opression of the "majority" (in many, many senses of the word: not just skin color). We are becoming a society that applauds mediocrity and diversity to the detriment of those who excel.

I think, though, that this is a natural path, and that there will be a correction in the future. How far into the future? I have absolutely no idea.

There are more acts that are vastly more heinous than "earning money ... by benefiting from racism" (as silly as that phrase sounds). Someone else has mentioned kiddie porn and sex slave trade, to name a couple, so I am not going any further here. This is not heinous. And the "powers that be" (ie: NAACP et al) had no problems with his attitude until this was illegally brought in to the public spotlight so radically and in such an out-of-context manner by the shock-and-awe seeking group we still call "journalists".

Re:Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this bef

[NotDrWho]

For the hundredth time, vulcan, we're not joining any goddamn federation of planets!

Troll Cloud over Samzenpus

[oldhack]

nt.

Look over here! I did something!

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't care less if he bought the Vatican.

Re:So he should lose everything because he's racis

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you can, if there are rules in place for penalizing you for being mean. And a person can agree to abide by those rules.

Absent those rules, you can also decline to enrich somebody, without taking everything from them, and Sterling's assets are not solely or entirely the LA Clippers, so that's a moot point. The NBA isn't concerning itself with those other assets.

"for the masses"?

[justthinkit]

"for the masses"?

Ah, no. Unless there is a plan to divy up $2B that I don't know about.

I said from the beginning...

[MitchDev]

...that Sterling would be laughing all the way to the bank on this one, I'm happy for him.

The First Amendment may not apply to corporations (when it should apply to all that do business within the US), too bad he didn't get even more than 2 billion for the team...

Re:I said from the beginning...

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. That is only about being free of consequences from the government for your speech. Nobody in the government has pursued action against the guy for his speech here. But he did sign contracts with the NBA which included morals and ethics clauses the restricted him from speaking and acting in ways that brought disrepute on the league.

Or are you one of those people who think its OK to break contracts you sign to because free speech?

Re:I said from the beginning...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see if I understand. He didn't bring shame and disrepute on the league, the person who recorded him did! If they didn't put that recording out there, there is no shame and disrepute! That is the outrage!

Re:I said from the beginning...

[Triklyn]

the ethical clause cites "willingly" and the way it's worded strongly implies that the meaning was that you could only be punished for voluntarily bringing outrage onto the league. now, that might not be how the lawyers eventually would have wrangled out of the ambiguity in that clause, but that's what a plain reading of the text seems to mean. contracts are contracts, and he didn't voluntarily expose himself to scrutiny by saying things in private.

also, your parent understood that it was not a first amendment case. he was suggesting that those same protections from should be extended to cover corporations too.

What, exactly, is expected here?

[drcagn]

Donald Sterling is a piece of shit but he owns the team. He's spent his money investing in the team (even if he's done a crappy job of it, since, well, forever), just because he's a racist bigot doesn't mean anyone should have the right to just take the team from him after he's put very large sums of money into it.

So, the NBA did the next best thing--they're going to force his hand to sell the team. And because he's being forced to sell the team, I see nothing wrong with him getting market value for it. Los Angeles has two teams, and Ballmer really wants to put a team in Seattle since douchebag deceiver Clayton Bennett moved the SuperSonics to Oklahoma City.

So,
1. The African American community can rejoice that a piece of shit racist is no longer there to profit from them, at least within the Clippers organization
2. The NBA avoids any further PR issues regarding Sterling and they can tout their commitment to diversity
3. Ballmer gets a team like he's wanted for quite some time now
4. The Seattle community will finally have a basketball team again
5. Sterling gets a good sum of money to stay the fuck away

I'm missing what exactly this guy wants to happen? What, is the NBA supposed to strip the team from him without compensation and give it to African Americans as a community-owned team or something? He was already suing for being forced to sell the team, yeah, I'm sure that'll go over well.

And if he is to be compensated, sure, the NBA could try to put a cap on the amount of money he gets paid (and this is also legally questionable), but if that's the case, how do we determine who gets the team if potential owners can't compete by being the highest bidder?

So what the fuck does this guy expect? This is the best possible legal outcome for all parties involved!

Re:What, exactly, is expected here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the fact that his girlfriend is of mixed race, a known gold digger, made racist comments herself, only released a snippet of an emotional recording after goading Sterling into a rage, and trying to profit from this whole affair, you seemed convinced that Donald Sterling is a piece of shit racist bigot.

It sounds like your more jealous of his success than actually knowing that he is a "piece of shit...bigoted racist". It is a shame it doesn't take much information for people like you to make up your mind.

Re:What, exactly, is expected here?

[koan]

People like you are dangerous, I know you can't see it, but you're far worse than Sterling.

Re:What, exactly, is expected here?

[drcagn]

Donald Sterling _is_ a piece of shit racist bigot. He has long had a history of being one prior to this whole situation. People who follow the NBA closely have known this for years. It's only now that this video has come out and gone viral that anyone feels like doing anything about it.

Jealous of his success? Where are you pulling this from? If I were jealous of his success wouldn't I be just as jealous of Ballmer? Or anyone else with money? And thus, wouldn't I agree with the article that seems to be on a crusade against people with money?

Re:What, exactly, is expected here?

[drcagn]

Would you care to explain yourself further? I'm an open minded person and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But you have to actually tell me why you disagree with me if you think I should see your perspective.

Re:What, exactly, is expected here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Seattle community will finally have a basketball team again - Nope

Plain and simple the team is worth 2 billion mostly because of the TV broadcast rights in LA. You will not see a TV contract that size in Seattle. Ballmer has even been talking about moving to LA. I see no way in hell the Clippers are moved from LA anywhere in the near future because of this

Re:What, exactly, is expected here?

[drcagn]

But they have to compete with the Lakers for eyeballs. The Clippers happen to be at a high point and the Lakers at a low point--that's the only reason why anyone in LA has been remotely interested in the Clippers lately. I honestly don't expect their value in LA to last that much longer once this era of the team is over. Maybe they'll wait until that time to move the team, but I expect it to happen sooner or later.

Re:What, exactly, is expected here?

[Widowwolf]

Doesnt matter- Right now its about the hot teams The other team in Los Angeles, the Lakers, recently signed a 20-year TV deal with Time Warner Cable reportedly worth $3 billion, making it the NBA’s richest local television deal in sports. So let’s say the Clippers get a new TV deal worth an extra $50 million per year in revenue and sell at the same EBITDA multiple the Milwaukee Bucks did earlier this year. That would put the valuation – without any factor for growth – at $997.6 million. How most places are getting a $2 billion dollar (or more) valuation for the Clippers: they could get an equity stake in the cable channel. That would allow them to generate a revenue stream on par with what the Lakers have owning the Staples Center and what Washington Wizards’ owner Ted Leonsis has with the Verizon Center. Just like: When it is based on one team it is typically a 50/50 split,” explains Lepore. “The Mets own about 65 percent of SNY, Time Warner owns 27 percent and Comcast 8 percent. The Yankees only own 20 percent of YES where 21st Century Fox owns 80 percent of that network.”

The injustice of it all...

[nam37]

Will someone please think of the poor millionaire ball players? It's just not fair!

Re:The injustice of it all...

[jbmartin6]

Yeah it is a little unclear how the players are the "losers" in this scenario. Somehow the market compelled this alleged racist owner to hire a bunch of athletes from the group he disliked and pay them millions upon millions. I haven't seen any claims that they were paid less than any athletes from other groups,

Lucky Ballmer , MSFT Quashed State Income Tax

[theodp]

Looks like spending $425k on lobbying to defeat the WA State income tax may have helped Ballmer save nearly $200 million on this $2B deal: Income Tax Quashed, Ballmer To Cash In Billions

Ballmer's been cheaped

[AgentSmith]

He spent 2.2 Billion just to have the opportunity to throw chairs in public again?

There are many things you can buy for 2.2 Billion. This is one of them.

Re:Ballmer's been cheaped

[Anonymous Coward]

He spent 2.2 Billion just to have the opportunity to throw chairs in public again?

There are many things you can buy for 2.2 Billion. This is one of them.

Ballmer's going to lure Bob Knight out of retirement and let him coach the team.

A demo video of the new mascot can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-e96m4730

Re:Ballmer's been cheaped

[mu51c10rd]

Except that instead of several thousand developers see him throw chairs, it will be replayed on ESPN every 15 minutes for the next 3 days afterwords. This should be amusing...

Re:Ballmer's been cheaped

[Anonymous Coward]

Lolololol chair jokes! By gum, those never get old! Do you have any blue screen of death jokes or perhaps novel ways to spell Microsoft that imply their corporate greed?

Re:Ballmer's been cheaped

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious what how much pizza you could get with 2.2 billion. I bet PizzaAnalogyGuy would know. If we say his name does that summon him?

Re:Ballmer's been cheaped

[Anonymous Coward]

They will switch the ball for a chair and call the new sport "Basketballmer".

Laugh

[koan]

It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," writes Rick Cohen

I find the whole thing hilarious, all the old man said was "I don't want to be around or associated with blacks" to a woman who is on video as saying
"Blacks are stupid and crazy"
http://nypost.com/2014/06/01/s...

Then the media circus is queued and he is "forced" to sell the team, winds up getting 2 billion tax free.

Racism never entered into it, if a person says "I don't want to be around those kinds of people" it isn't "racism" it's a personal preference.

My suggestion is that things went exactly the way Sterling wanted them to, and it's hilarious, the other option is that he was played to get the team out from under him.

Re:Laugh

[cyberchondriac]

Perhaps the next step then is to start labeling people as "culturephobes", and add that heinous thought-crime to the current popular bag along with homophobe, racist, bigot, and redneck.

Re:Laugh

[koan]

What exactly are you trying to say?

Re:Laugh

[Enigma2175]

Racism never entered into it, if a person says "I don't want to be around those kinds of people" it isn't "racism" it's a personal preference.

No that's EXACTLY what fucking racism is. If he said "I don't want to be around Michael Jordan" because he doesn't like the guy, that is personal preference. If he says "I don't want to be around any black people" that is a textbook definition of racism. Assuming that all black people are "those kinds of people" because of their race is racism. He didn't say "don't bring people who act like a fool" he said "don't bring black people". If you don't consider that racism, then what meets your criteria?

Good Reason

[Jaysyn]

The signatures on the letter reads like a who's who of ISP industry presidents and CEOs, including AT&T's Randall Stephenson, Cox Communications' Patrick Esser, NCTA president (and former FCC commissioner) Michael Powell, Verizon's Lowell McAdam, and Comcast's Brian Roberts.

Case closed, we all know they know what's best for us, right?

Re:Good Reason

[NoImNotNineVolt]

... what?

Re:Good Reason

[Areyoukiddingme]

... what?

It happens often enough that I think there's a bug in SlashCode. Somehow the way the comment submission box works causes it to occasionally fail and post a top level comment to the wrong article.

Re:Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this bef

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say is obviously communist.

The real way forward is that 99% of the people must work for the common good, of which the 1% gets more than everybody else. Because they deserve it.

Same old story

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to see anyone robbed of anything. But this just goes to show that not much has changed in this country. Sterling et al. believe they actually are superior to black people and black people are more like property than anything, no matter how much they get paid. $2 Billion goes a long way to confirming that belief. As do the comments to this story.
What surprised me is that people actually expected a different outcome. Did they forget where they were? The lesson here as usual: black people are simply not apart of the economic experience the same way white people are. It's going to take more than boycotting one owner and corrective attempts from one sports league to change that. Until that day comes, we're going to have this "welp, blacks shown their place once again".

Re:Same old story

[Anonymous Coward]

If black people feel like they're being duped, maybe black people should simply boycott the NBA then... If no black people played in the NBA and no black people watched the NBA games, they would quickly be out of business.

ugh

[Charliemopps]

I know slashdot loves to hate on the rich and all, but lets have some facts here.

This entire gripe seems to be based on the premise that he's filed as an "S Corporation" and therefor "It's not taxed! OMG!"

Well, that's not accurate.
From Wikipedia:

In general, S corporations do not pay any federal income taxes. Instead, the corporation's income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns.

He'll be paying taxes. It's just a matter of how and when.

Then there's the argument that he may win $1billion from the NBA during a lawsuit. Well good. This is the united states. He should be able to say what he wants no matter how stupid and offensive it is, then we should be able to boycott his business. The NBA may or may not have been right in what they did, I've no knowledge of the particulars of their contract. But that is exactly what this is, a contractual dispute.

The only losers are the players??

[johnlcallaway]

Wow .. I wish I could be a loser to the tune of a million or two a year.

What a great opportunity to take something said in private, blow it all out of proportion, just to make a social statement. I hope I never become rich and famous and have to worry about someone illegally taping a private conversation and making it public so everyone can throw a hissy-fit. As long as I'm just a regular person, my special friends won't have an opportunity to blackmail me for something so ridiculous.

It is NOT illegal to be a racist. It is NOT illegal to have private racist thoughts. It is illegal to discriminate.

One can attack actions, but it is Orwellian to attack private comments. Everyone on here that whines about privacy should be shouting at the treetops against this invasion of privacy.

Re:The only losers are the players??

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, the Clippers' players will benefit hugely from this. Sterling, whether he has Alzheimer's or not, was obviously distracted by other things, and did not have his head in the game. If Balmer throws a chair or two, so much the better. At least he won't be sitting on the sideline like some mushy old troll. He will reinvigorate that team, and will transform it into a world class organization. Buy your Clippers' tix now.

Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this before

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, you want us to be communists.

Communism is great so long as everyone involved are always equal and always are treated as such.

We all know that such a scenario is outside of human nature - even if we were to implement a perfect communist system today, 10 or 20 or even 50 years down the road there would be stratification between citizens in such a system and it would turn into a scenario similar to what communism has brought to China, or had brought to and eventually destroyed the USSR.

Because of human nature, communism will _never_ work.

the summary is a lie

[sribe]

I just RTFA. Even though some of the techniques the author speculates go beyond questionable into the realm of "no fucking way could he get away with that" (claiming a forced sale, claiming a loss), NONE of them actually eliminates taxes on his gain. They change the amount; they shuffle the timing around; but again NONE of them results in a "tax-free" windfall.

Re:the summary is a lie

[NewWorldDan]

With the long term capital gains tax rate at 15%, I'd just pay the tax. Odds are that rate is going back up at some point in the not too distant future.

Re:the summary is a lie

[Triklyn]

from what i understand, it's the dying part. one of the big things before the sale was announced was that if he owned the team at the time of his death his inheritors would inherit the team and instead of having to pay taxes on the gains from 12 million to 1 billion and then pay estate taxes, the value of the team at the time of inheritance would be reassessed to 1 billion. If they sold at that value, they would only be paying estate taxes, not taxes on the profit of the growth of the team from 12mill to 1 bill in market value.

similarly now, it seems if he can make the case that this is a forced sale, then he gets two full years to convert any revenue from the sale into "similar" investments. this could be anything from european sports teams, entertainment businesses... etc, depends on how wide you want to take similar. The article also says that the original 12 mill would then be used as the basis for the official book value of any assets acquired in this way.

if sterling sold them prior to his death, then he would then need to pay taxes on any difference between the basis value (fraction of the "12 million" that the asset originally cost to buy) and the sale price. If again, he dies without selling any of the assets from the "12 million," all his assets gets reassessed to market, and effectively his heirs get 1 billion - 12 million in untaxed income... before estate tax of course.

Re:the summary is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Already did.

"The 2013 tax law made the health law tax bill even higher. The long-term capital gains rate was raised to 20 percent for couples who earn more than $450,000. Add in the Medicare tax, and the capital gains rate is 23.8 percent for the rich."

Re:the summary is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

The taxes won't be on him personally, it will be on the trust. There will be no estate tax because you generally pay that on the time of transfer.

The guy's speculation on the tax situation doesn't seemingly know enough about finance or accounting to pass an intro accounting or finance course.

Re:the summary is a lie

[sribe]

The guy's speculation on the tax situation doesn't seemingly know enough about finance or accounting to pass an intro accounting or finance course.

Yeah. His speculation that a voluntary sale when there's a speculative threat of a possible future attempt to force Sterling to divest the asset could be treated as being forced to divest is ridiculous. The IRS would never allow that, the tax courts would back the IRS on their completely reasonable interpretation, and there's no way in hell the Supreme Court would certify such a ridiculous case.

He didn't profit from racism

[omnichad]

He merely liquidated assets he already owned that were worth that much.

Re:He didn't profit from racism

[Anonymous Coward]

But he's not worthy of that money. It should have been confiscated from him because his repugnant attitudes and words were exposed to the public!

Re:Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this bef

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference?

Planned move

[lagomorpha2]

"Section 1033 of the tax code allows you to defer taxes when your property is taken involuntarily, like eminent domain. Mr. Sterling can argue the Clippers sale was forced on him by the NBA."

So who wants to bet Donald Tokowitz and his accountants planned this from the start?

Re:Planned move

[sribe]

Section 1033 of the tax code allows you to defer taxes when your property is taken involuntarily, like eminent domain. Mr. Sterling can argue the Clippers sale was forced on him by the NBA.

But it would, with 100% certainly, be a losing argument. There is no way that beginning to prepare to take the actions necessary to force the sale would count as forcing the sale. He sold voluntarily, in a situation where he had multiple buyers competing, with multiple offers way higher than what the value of the team had been believed to be.

Re:Planned move

[guruevi]

The dude just got $2B richer, the tax code (or any other laws) don't apply to him. If you make >$1M in the US, you simply stop paying taxes because you can invest whatever amount necessary and deduct it to cover your liability.

Re:Planned move

[sribe]

If you make >$1M in the US, you simply stop paying taxes because you can invest whatever amount necessary and deduct it to cover your liability.

That's not just bullshit, it doesn't even make any fucking sense at all.

Re:So he should lose everything because he's racis

[geekster99]

Sure you can, if there are rules in place for penalizing you for being mean. And a person can agree to abide by those rules.

Dream on, anonymous coward. There is NO WAY IN HELL that any of the current or prospective franchise owners would ever agree under any circumstances to any clause like that. Do you think they would ever subject themselves to the possibility of losing their capital gains on the whim of public opinion's judgment of something they said in private? Besides, even if they did (which they wouldn't) that would be the mother of all court battles to determine if the contract term applied. And it would NEVER be invoked again.

Who in their right mind

[azav]

thought that Ballmer reeked of Ethics?

Moral Swamp

[JimSadler]

Obviously the old creep issued some really nasty remarks and the NBA really doesn't need owners that degrade the climate of the sport. Conversely we very well have an elderly man who is more or less in the throes of dementia. Questions such as how does the Americans With Disabilities Act pertain to unfortunate or ugly remarks by an afflicted person may be relevant. Beyond that is the glaring issue of forcing his wife to sell as well. After all, she is an individual, and deserves the full protection of the law just as we all do. The NBA took the position that she must sell due to the fact that she is married to the creep. And even above all of those issues is an even more troublesome issue of allowing any party other than the judiciary to assign punishments. Suppose you are running a business and discover that you have a racist as an employee although he is rather quiet about his beliefs. Can you fire him with impunity? Keep in mind that racism is sometimes perceived where it does not exist or the group in question may not be popular. For example if you employ someone from Palestine and fire him he will find a lot less recourse in the American justice system than if you fired a Jewish person. Also many businesses use false pretenses when discharging an employee. Can society afford to get involved in all of this sort of thing?

Re:Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this bef

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is great so long as everyone involved are always equal and always are treated as such.

Insert example from history (or the present here). Plenty to choose from.

Because of human nature, capitalism will _never_ work.

Here, fixed that for you, now you just need to throw in an example from history. Yeah, I could do it, but why should I do all the work?

Worse on mobile!

[swb]

Mobile Safari gets banners at the top and obnoxious floaters at the bottom. On iPhone the floater often goes off the side and doesn't zoom right, making the dumb "hide" button hard/impossible to get at.

It's better than Beta, but not much.

reminds me of Game of Thrones few wks ago

[Anonymous Coward]

the feminists were out w/torches & pitchforks b/c the show made a sex scene between Jamie & Cersei more "rapey" than same incident was in the book. someone wrote "there is NOTHING worse than rape!" to which I replied "the woman at the beginning of that episode who was hunted, shot in leg w/arrow, mauled by dogs & left to bleed out in woods might beg to differ..."

I'd say it swapping one rich dickhead for another.

[hey!]

But Sterling got rich as a personal injury lawyer, and then mega-rich as a slum lord. He's the one man in America *everybody* can despise. Ballmer has actually found a situation where he can step in and people will heave a sign of relief.

Well played, sir. Well played.

Stastically speaking...

[westlake]

And I'm sick of how statistically speaking, anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.

There are two kinds of statistics --- the kind you look up, and the kind you make up.

[Archie Goodwin, in Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe novel Death of a Doxy (1966), Statistics]

Re:Stastically speaking...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two kinds of statistics --- the kind you look up, and the kind you make up.

Statistics that you look up must already exist. In order to exist, someone else must have made them up, or themselves looked them up elsewhere.
Q.E.D. by induction, Mark Twain was right.

Bull...

[Anonymous Coward]

...funny how the NBA doesn't come down on players who call each other the n-word while on the court, etc....they just don't happen to be recorded or it doesn't happen to come up.

Funny how that works.

Got it backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism

Sure. But it's hard to imagine a sweeter and more praiseworthy way to earn money than at the expense of racism. Ballmer would have paid Sterling WAY more for the team if Sterling hadn't been outed as a scumbag.

Next you'll say all those Union (Civil War) or Allied (WWII) soldiers had a heinous way of earning money by killing racists.

Re:Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this bef

[wed128]

but why should I do all the work?

Not sure if this joke was intentional or not...

Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. A rich bastard gets even richer. Shocking news. (yawn).

Poor imagination

[Dishwasha]

'"It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," writes Rick Cohen

I guess Rick Cohen has never been to or heard of a donkey show.

Two-party recording laws

[Pollux]

If you prefer to live in a state that requires two-party consent to record, be my guest.

Just don't ever complain if a police officer ever takes away your camera as they're beating you senseless. (In other words, when an injustice is being committed, you cannot expect the unjust to permit their acts to be made public. One-party consent states doesn't have this issue.)

Re:Two-party recording laws

[LWATCDR]

It does not have to be A or B.
A police officer on the job in pubic has no expectation of privacy just as you do not have any expectation of privacy at a bar. "Outside of the restroom that is".
A person on a phone call does have an expectation of privacy.

What part of "private association" do you not get?

[voidstin]

The NBA is a private association with it's own governing charter. It's a billionaires club. If all of the other members of the club hate you because you have a LONG HISTORY of being a total racist, cheapskate, and litigious dick, it is within their right to throw you out. Additionally, his wife had him declared incompetent, so legality is even less of an issue. As for the "baiting", even if we ignore his long history of bad behavior, he insulted Magic Johnson - one of the greatest players of all time, and the guy who's statue he walks by every time he enters the Staples Center - IN HIS APOLOGY. Yes, he said he was a bad influence him for HAVING HIV. Yes he said he could be "doing more" for the community - the guy who opened hundreds of new businesses in black neighborhoods across LA. Oh, and that apology took him a week, and in the meantime, he said he should have just "paid her off". Also, BOTH teams (including his own) were going to refuse to play (in the playoffs) if the commissioner didn't act. NO ONE liked him, not even those who worked for him. If you want to talk about freedom, how about the freedom to not have to deal with this jerk? I believe they always had the legal authority to kick him out, but his history of litigious dickishness would have cost them billions in legal fees and bad PR. Carpe Diem. And Ballmer (not famous for his likability) will be a HUGE upgrade.

Re:Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this bef

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a better attack would be to explain the fallacy of the remarks on communism and how it actually does\doesn't work instead of your non-response.

Great Troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich are not harming anyone? Walmart comes in and now, due to their economies of scale, nobody else can compete. 50 jobs just became 10.

providing the employees jobs Yes, and they can demand frequent urinalysis to verify I'm drug free (and who knows what else). Or demand I sign a contract that gives them ownership of anything I do in my off-time. I've seen plumbers working part-time barred from fixing their own mother's sink due to those contracts. Employers do like to provide only part-time work insufficient to live off of. Or, for programming jobs, demand insane levels of overtime that nowadays can put you below minimum wage (thanks Seattle). Check out some of those warehouse web-package-fulfillment jobs sometime. The working conditions are brutal! Folks get permanently disabled or killed, all so the fat cat at the top can get rich.

The issue is what protects the rich from harming the working class for profit, and the answer is distressing little. We've seen this pattern through history. The french revolution triggered by the year without a summer. Germany in the 1930s... It always ends very badly for the rich.

Re:So he should lose everything because he's racis

[Enigma2175]

Upthread somebody mentioned that the league legally owns the team and the franchise owners are more like operators. That didn't sound right, so I did some research. This tidbit from a news article makes it sound like that is the case:

The ownership hearing had been scheduled for next Tuesday after the NBA charged Sterling with damaging the league with his racist comments that were recorded and released. A three-quarters vote of owners to support the charge would have terminated the Sterlings' ownership, and the league would have sold the team.

If the contract you signed allows the league to terminate your ownership you should not be whining about your $2 billion windfall. To stop the league from doing this, Sterling's wife (acting as a legal representative of the Sterling family trust) sold the team to Ballmer. The sale was entered into voluntarily, and even if it wasn't it sounds like the league has the ability to just confiscate the team.

Thoughtcrime

[Spy Handler]

Remember racism is not illegal. Discrimination based on race in the workplace is.

Thoughtcrime is currently not illegal, but they (the media + the powers that be) are trying their damned hardest to make it so.

Remember that guy, Harvard University President or something, he was caught saying "maybe we shouldn't be so obsessed with pushing more women into math/science, after all women on average show less aptitude in those fields". He was vilified in the media as being worse than the Devil and Hitler combined. He was fired like the next day. All for saying what pretty much every average Joe knows already.

I swear, I'm all for high tech and scientific research, except when it comes to mental technology. Because if they ever make a thought detector, you just KNOW they're gonna use it to sniff out people with impure thoughts and round them up. They're trying to do it right now even though they don't have a mental detector.

Murder Sterling, disband the team

[gelfling]

Toss every single employee of the organization into prison for life. Toss THEIR families out on the street and burn all their houses to the ground. Then pass a Federal law enslaving all white people in America.

Would THAT make amends or should we wage genocide on them as well?

Ballmer

[Prien715]

We've traded someone who flings rascist insults to a grown man who flings chairs.

Who said progress wasn't dead?

Taxes make it a win ?

[perpenso]

He lost the difference between what it was worth to him and what he got by selling it. If this was not a loss, then he would have sold it spontaneously, which he obviously didn't.

Don't forget the taxes. If he claims this is a forced sale then he saves $300M on taxes. That could put a dent into that "loss", maybe turn it into a "win".

The reward comes from the IRS ...

[perpenso]

I don't get all of the talk about how this is a reward. He could have sold the team at any time of his choosing.

The reward comes from the IRS, if he claims this is a forced sale then he saves $300M on taxes.

Straw Man

[pastafazou]

Nobody is being "enriched by Sterling's racism". The guy owned the team already; he was already rich. Forcing him to sell the team merely turned his capital asset (the franchise) into liquid assets (the money from selling it). What exactly are you proposing, he be stripped of his property for uttering a racist comment? What next, stripping people of their property because they make a derogatory comment about gays/Muslims/Christians/women/vegans/capitalists/socialists/lumberjacks? Seriously, it's time to let Sterling fade into obscurity.

Not involuntary

[Anonymous Coward]

He may claim that the sale is an Section 1033 involuntary conversion.
    This would skip the capital gains tax.

But his statement that violated NBA rules that forced the sale was voluntary.

I don't see how he can claim that the train that he put (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not) in motion is not of his own doing.

Not in CA

[PeeAitchPee]

Sorry Jack . . . CA is an all-party consent state, and therefore the recording itself was illegally obtained. What that bitch did absolutely violated CA law and the real question people should be asking right now is why she isn't in jail yet. You think that wouldn't happen if one of us upstanding citizens decided to record some CA legislature, for example, accepting a bribe? We'd be in the clink faster than Ballmer can throw a chair.

Players didn't lose

[Anonymous Coward]

NBA players are well paid by an professional sports standards, and with Sterling gone they rid of one the NBA's worst owners even when ignoring the most recent scandal.

Pics or ... oh hell!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pics or ... oh hell!

Banned for life for physical harm?

[ProfBooty]

Have any players been banned for life for causing physical harm?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Nope, Javaris Crittenton is currently involved in the legal system for murder. Gilbert Arenas pulled a gun on another player over a dispute in the lockerroom.

There are a number of other examples, but I guess causing actual harm is less bad for the NBA than embarrasing the NBA and its sponsors.

Wut??

[Anonymous Coward]

In capitalist USA, productive assets are transferred based on media campaigns against people. See also Brendan Eich.

huh?

[therealkevinkretz]

This is insane. Forcing someone against his will to sell his team *because you don't like words he said in private and which were recorded, probably in violation of the law and almost certainly without his knowledge* and begrudging him (and his innocent wife) his profit isn't enough - you want also for the other owners to forfeit theirs too because of it?

He's a doddering, bigoted anachronism. How is that worse than violent felonies that have been committed by some NBA players? Should they be banned from the NBA?

Re: Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this be

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfect!

Dr.kizzekpe i thank you sir?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy my ex girlfriend left me for dropped her for someone he works with! Your spell works fast! Of course she called me but I want nothing to do with her. I love knowing I had everything to do with this, kizzekpespells@outlook.com is the best spell caster in the world.

Seller = racist, Buyer = racist

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder why percentage of Microsoft employees were African American?