I never said I wanted to get rid of government. I rather like the part of government that handles the injustice of one individual infringing upon rights of another through an objective and impartial judge. There is of course a whole world of argument about what constitutes infringement which digresses from the main point.
I do under stand where you are coming from in regards to human nature. But, I propose the idea that we will never achieve a better form of capitalism if we don't hold our-selves, each individual accountable to themselves, to the ideal of what "should" be, not out of some kind of misguided love for all man, but for love of their own life. Bill Gates is still playing the "look at me, I'm good because I will sacrifice what I have dishonestly taken" game when he should have just played by ethical business rules and maybe he wouldn't feel the need to display himself for judgment.
People may call me a selfish bastard from time to time. All I demand, and all freely give, is honesty. Not that any of this furthers the discussion but I do mean to point out that I enjoyed your honesty and opinion.
The Wiki (and therefore more people than just you) think otherwise:
Capitalism in its narrowest sense is simply private ownership of capital. Capitalism, the economic system, is the system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market.
I would tend to agree with you if you want to say that we do not have and ideal capitalism anywhere in the world. But I won't agree with your opinion that a better form of capitalism will never exist. To think that this kind of slavery and oppression of the individual will persist or get worse is a pretty grim outlook, so pardon me for hoping.
Why would a falling economy caused by an inflating dollar drop the price of oil? That doesn't seem to jive with logic. I can agree with the driving less, but arguing that the economy is dying so prices are falling seems to not make much sense. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind this statement.
It's not hard to figure out that the oil companies are selling a product, the demand of which is growing every day, and the supply of which is shrinking everyday. Did you expect the price to stay even? If you don't think it's fair, don't buy the product. No one is making any one else buy gas. You have your dollars, let them speak for you.
Out of all of the ones that ran this time around, I'd vote for Paul or Gravel. Out of the lager pot I'd pick Andrew Napolitano or Eben Moglen as long as we are talking about people who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law.
A country is about a lot of things and one of the most important things is about keeping the majority of the people happy. Honestly? The vast majority of Windows users are quite happy. We, here, probably wish that they weren't but they are.
I wish the North Koreans weren't so happy under a dictatorship either...
I think civil rights would suffer even worse under the likes of Bill Gates because he cares little about the wants of his users when they pay him in an open market. But when you go to the government, you have little choice in the matter. So he pretty much has a total monopoly from the get go, and less regulations thanks to the ever expanding powers of the executive branch thanks to the current administration. You would be a fool to think that he wouldn't use his political power to further Microsoft's profits by eliminating the use of Linux at all levels of government, thus putting our country at even more risk from China's electronic attacks. Not to mention what he would like to mandate for federal school funding. Granted there are checks and balances to the system, but I'd rather have inept politicians blunder through that, than having a sly business man like Bill Gates work the system in ways it was not meant to be.
We need Bill Gates about as much as we need Obama or McCain, which is to say not at all...
LEO isn't the place to build this anyways, you want a Lagrangeian point or on the moon to build such a massive object. Also there would be problems with the EMP caused by the magnetosphere with nuclear pulse drive any where from 30 - 300 miles up (the ISS which is in LEO is 183 miles up). So yea... There are solutions that really don't stretch the imagination, just the pocket book, but no one said it would be easy.
I guess the big question is, with all the weaponry we have lying around, why bet on one? I say machine gun nuke the thing to kind of coral it away from us. Send em up 2 or 3 at a time. One to divert the asteroid and the other two to slow/vaporize the mess the first one made. The wiki says we have somewhere around 10,000 in the US alone, so if an asteroid comes, lite it up!
Logically you phrased it as: So do you suggest that everyone who runs for office really ought to be offering up their medical records for examination by voters?
The reply (not by GP..) was: I think maybe he would suggest that people are free to not vote for a candidate based on their refusal to share their medical records.
To refuse you would have to be asked. I don't think any one needs to ask Obama for his records but McCain (or even Paul who I would rather see as President), most certainly. But if Obama were to be asked and then refuse, well then that would smell to me.
But, to be sure, I'd vote on ideals first, health second. I don't see the benefit in putting them the other way around in any circumstance.
So was mine.
But that's probably because we are willing to spend the $129 in sweat equity to make our operating systems what we want. Most people don't have that option and are happy to pay $129. In other words: A carpenter wouldn't pay another carpenter to remodel his home...
Slashdot Mirror
That's a value judgment based on your own definition of a revolution. There are other definitions, not all are violent.
What about the First (and hopefully not last) American Revolution. I don't think they were starving until they were fighting...
Are you saying that humans are less adaptable than dinosaurs?
Yea we wouldn't want to turn out like the non-carbon neutral dinosaurs... they all died because they messed up their environment
I never said I wanted to get rid of government. I rather like the part of government that handles the injustice of one individual infringing upon rights of another through an objective and impartial judge. There is of course a whole world of argument about what constitutes infringement which digresses from the main point.
I do under stand where you are coming from in regards to human nature. But, I propose the idea that we will never achieve a better form of capitalism if we don't hold our-selves, each individual accountable to themselves, to the ideal of what "should" be, not out of some kind of misguided love for all man, but for love of their own life. Bill Gates is still playing the "look at me, I'm good because I will sacrifice what I have dishonestly taken" game when he should have just played by ethical business rules and maybe he wouldn't feel the need to display himself for judgment.
People may call me a selfish bastard from time to time. All I demand, and all freely give, is honesty. Not that any of this furthers the discussion but I do mean to point out that I enjoyed your honesty and opinion.
I would tend to agree with you if you want to say that we do not have and ideal capitalism anywhere in the world. But I won't agree with your opinion that a better form of capitalism will never exist. To think that this kind of slavery and oppression of the individual will persist or get worse is a pretty grim outlook, so pardon me for hoping.
LOL.
What a load of Frosty Piss that is.
Was that a rhetorical question?
I'm happy with it. If you can't use it, don't force yourself.
That's not capitalism. That's using government to get what you want by force.
Why would a falling economy caused by an inflating dollar drop the price of oil? That doesn't seem to jive with logic. I can agree with the driving less, but arguing that the economy is dying so prices are falling seems to not make much sense. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind this statement.
I think the point is that the Democrats have a majority and could pretty much do whatever they want... So who do you really have to blame here?
It's not hard to figure out that the oil companies are selling a product, the demand of which is growing every day, and the supply of which is shrinking everyday. Did you expect the price to stay even? If you don't think it's fair, don't buy the product. No one is making any one else buy gas. You have your dollars, let them speak for you.
Out of all of the ones that ran this time around, I'd vote for Paul or Gravel. Out of the lager pot I'd pick Andrew Napolitano or Eben Moglen as long as we are talking about people who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law.
Vista...
I wish the North Koreans weren't so happy under a dictatorship either...
I think civil rights would suffer even worse under the likes of Bill Gates because he cares little about the wants of his users when they pay him in an open market. But when you go to the government, you have little choice in the matter. So he pretty much has a total monopoly from the get go, and less regulations thanks to the ever expanding powers of the executive branch thanks to the current administration. You would be a fool to think that he wouldn't use his political power to further Microsoft's profits by eliminating the use of Linux at all levels of government, thus putting our country at even more risk from China's electronic attacks. Not to mention what he would like to mandate for federal school funding. Granted there are checks and balances to the system, but I'd rather have inept politicians blunder through that, than having a sly business man like Bill Gates work the system in ways it was not meant to be.
We need Bill Gates about as much as we need Obama or McCain, which is to say not at all...
You may think that but I want proof otherwise before we dismiss the idea.
LEO isn't the place to build this anyways, you want a Lagrangeian point or on the moon to build such a massive object. Also there would be problems with the EMP caused by the magnetosphere with nuclear pulse drive any where from 30 - 300 miles up (the ISS which is in LEO is 183 miles up). So yea... There are solutions that really don't stretch the imagination, just the pocket book, but no one said it would be easy.
Neither Rome, nor the ISS, was built in a day...
Really. I can't believe geeks would think that fabrication in space is impossible.
I guess the big question is, with all the weaponry we have lying around, why bet on one? I say machine gun nuke the thing to kind of coral it away from us. Send em up 2 or 3 at a time. One to divert the asteroid and the other two to slow/vaporize the mess the first one made. The wiki says we have somewhere around 10,000 in the US alone, so if an asteroid comes, lite it up!
I think we've got the 'getting it up there' part figured out already...
Logically you phrased it as: So do you suggest that everyone who runs for office really ought to be offering up their medical records for examination by voters?
The reply (not by GP..) was: I think maybe he would suggest that people are free to not vote for a candidate based on their refusal to share their medical records.
To refuse you would have to be asked. I don't think any one needs to ask Obama for his records but McCain (or even Paul who I would rather see as President), most certainly. But if Obama were to be asked and then refuse, well then that would smell to me.
But, to be sure, I'd vote on ideals first, health second. I don't see the benefit in putting them the other way around in any circumstance.
So was mine.
But that's probably because we are willing to spend the $129 in sweat equity to make our operating systems what we want. Most people don't have that option and are happy to pay $129. In other words: A carpenter wouldn't pay another carpenter to remodel his home...
That is indeed where I do live. The moral: never live outside your means.