Let's settle on a definition of Coercion. Here is mine from Dictionary.com: force or the power to use force in gaining compliance. My understanding of capitalism is I trade something of value to you, for equal value. You and I may disagree on the value until we mutually decide to make a trade, or one of us decides no to make the trade and we never decide on an agreed upon value. If you don't like the value I offer, don't make the trade. I see no coercion there, no force applied, only choices freely given. Your concept of capitalism is likely not the same as my concept of capitalism.
I have a problem with all coercion by the definition above. In capitalism I believe one has a fundamental choice that isn't available when the government is involved. It is my conjecture that you probably think somewhat opposite. And it is 'so called' necessity because neither you nor I will ever agree on eachother's ideal of necessity.
Like I said, you can do whatever you want and think whatever you want, and I don't have to agree to it, and I'm fine with that till you use coercion to force me to do what you think is right. However unless you use coercion on me, I see no benefit in using any kind of force upon you, government or otherwise. That is unless you apply coercion against me first.
You and I, and our respective ideologies will continue to disagree from here to eternity, of that we can be assured. Hopefully the pendulum will continue to swing eventually leading us to the realization that we just need to leave people to their own devices when they want to be left alone.
You can ask all you want. It is my choice not to give. Until you use government coercion that is. I have no beef with collective, volunteer action. It's just coercion I hate.
Freedom is the recognition of a choice even in the face of so called necessity.
Russia had collective action that lead to the oppression of pretty much everyone involved. Were those people free because there were no "resource owners"?
Um... I'm not a hard core believer in Jesus as my savior and all that, but I'm pretty sure his main contention was that we should be good to one another.
Misinterpretation for personal benefit has really messed up organized religion.
This is the same kind of egalitarianism that's stifling nearly everything good in the US. Which is to say it's not very egalitarian at all because someone has some crack pot idea about how thier world should work and the ends justify the means in their mind.
Although I might actually eat at Burger King or McDondald's if they showed that much enthusiasm about earning my dollars. As it is now, they don't seem to really care if I'm happy with their product or not... but that's enough tangential thoughts on that...
Speaking of tangential. Bravo on the sig.
The government is run by politicians.
A true quote by a not so great but not so evil man: "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river." -Nikita Khrushchev
Prohibition/Blackmarket fueled Violence. Drugs have about as much to do with the violence as the guns do. Guns and drugs are inanimate objects that don't do anything with out a person's input.
Are you at 5th grade reading comprehension?
With new booting software and Linux, your computer will now turn on faster than your cell phone.
Is that good enough for you?
Slashdot Mirror
Let's settle on a definition of Coercion. Here is mine from Dictionary.com: force or the power to use force in gaining compliance. My understanding of capitalism is I trade something of value to you, for equal value. You and I may disagree on the value until we mutually decide to make a trade, or one of us decides no to make the trade and we never decide on an agreed upon value. If you don't like the value I offer, don't make the trade. I see no coercion there, no force applied, only choices freely given. Your concept of capitalism is likely not the same as my concept of capitalism.
I have a problem with all coercion by the definition above. In capitalism I believe one has a fundamental choice that isn't available when the government is involved. It is my conjecture that you probably think somewhat opposite. And it is 'so called' necessity because neither you nor I will ever agree on eachother's ideal of necessity.
Like I said, you can do whatever you want and think whatever you want, and I don't have to agree to it, and I'm fine with that till you use coercion to force me to do what you think is right. However unless you use coercion on me, I see no benefit in using any kind of force upon you, government or otherwise. That is unless you apply coercion against me first.
You and I, and our respective ideologies will continue to disagree from here to eternity, of that we can be assured. Hopefully the pendulum will continue to swing eventually leading us to the realization that we just need to leave people to their own devices when they want to be left alone.
You can ask all you want. It is my choice not to give. Until you use government coercion that is. I have no beef with collective, volunteer action. It's just coercion I hate.
Freedom is the recognition of a choice even in the face of so called necessity.
The police force protects your property by their existence. Potential criminals know there will likely be consequences, and this deters crime.
Armed law abiding citizens also protect their own property, and this deters crime.
Russia had collective action that lead to the oppression of pretty much everyone involved.
Were those people free because there were no "resource owners"?
Um... I'm not a hard core believer in Jesus as my savior and all that, but I'm pretty sure his main contention was that we should be good to one another.
Misinterpretation for personal benefit has really messed up organized religion.
If we don't want to play World Policeman I'm sure China would be happy to step in.
Fine by me, at least they would be funding a war directly instead of indirectly through the US Federal Reserve...
This is the same kind of egalitarianism that's stifling nearly everything good in the US. Which is to say it's not very egalitarian at all because someone has some crack pot idea about how thier world should work and the ends justify the means in their mind.
I would generally agree with you on this point concerning any other kind of patent except for software...
I'm going to go with: everything because they are weak individuals, both intellectually and emotionally.
Did I win the prise?
You should write for cliff notes. Or just try to get First Post. You would be doing the slashdot community a favor...
"a problem" but not "your problem"
... disparity in looks/personality?
I concur. So would Darwin. One way or another, his kids won't have this problem...
True in games. True in Politics.
unconstitutional if they track you on private property.
No. I was 14. But I googled and lol'd. Thanks.
Exactly.
Although I might actually eat at Burger King or McDondald's if they showed that much enthusiasm about earning my dollars. As it is now, they don't seem to really care if I'm happy with their product or not... but that's enough tangential thoughts on that... Speaking of tangential. Bravo on the sig.
+1 The best thing I've heard today.
The government is run by politicians.
A true quote by a not so great but not so evil man:
"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river." -Nikita Khrushchev
A gun would aid in escape and evasion more than a pointy stick.
Prohibition/Blackmarket fueled Violence.
Drugs have about as much to do with the violence as the guns do.
Guns and drugs are inanimate objects that don't do anything with out a person's input.
Robotics. Requires no video output, just input.
Are you at 5th grade reading comprehension?
With new booting software and Linux, your computer will now turn on faster than your cell phone.
Is that good enough for you?
Disruptive technologies take a while...
Are you running for office? I'll send money.