The thing is, on the political front, people are so afraid of "the New World Order" and concerned about protecting the "sovereignty of nations", that the notion of having multinational governmental bodies with real teeth (i.e. enforcement power) is just not possible these days. I have no idea why people think it's ok to have multinational companies but not multinational governmental bodies. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Er... There are plenty of "multinational governmental bodies" arround (say, the European Union, and it's predecessors, like BeNeLux, the Comecon), and some others have been around for centuries (say, like Canada, the United States of America, the Confederatio Helvetica, the Deutsche Bundesrepublik, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and the Holy Germanic Roman Empire) that their individual constituting nations or states often have blended together to the state of being unrecognizable...
Multinational bodies are not necessarly a panacea, especially in those where one nation dominates others; those who are were founded for very specific purposes that, often, has been outlived...
For the benefit of those who do not live in the U.S. of A., can somebody summarize what is the millionnaire game show and what is the hoopla about it being "suppressed"?
Am I suggesting that people are incapable of making good cost-benefit analyses, and should be protected from themselves? No. The way to stop this is through education, through making sure people can see the consequences of their choices as consumers and making them relevant at the moment money is being plunked down.
Given the way the public education system is being gutted by government cutbacks (less taxes = less money for the State), it is clear that the bourgeoisie has NO INTEREST that the population be properly educated, since then they will not as eagerly purchase the ofren useless and many time dangerous goods peddled to them...
Why is it that America has proven to be the ideal breeding ground for the current corporation-driven global economy that has gotten so out of hand? If you look at all of the major issues that come up on/. about 95% of them are birthed in the US. How did the nation which prides itself on its God-given rights to freedom come to end up in such a state?
I think the "American Dream" has a lot to answer for. The dream of gaining wealth and possessions through the mechanisms of capitalism is one of the core national beliefs of Americans, and it pervades every part of their culture. Beneath its hope-filled surface, it subliminally encourages people to put themselves ahead of others, to work against them to better oneself, and to treat every opportunity in life as a means of making more money for yourself.
Looking at the history of England, one shall not be surprised of this. When the magna carta was signed in 1215, it was just a few barons stripping the king out of some of the power he had over them. Over the times, when the king got at odds with other aristrocrats, the latter would often revolt against the king and depose and behead him, say, à la Cromwell.
To this, add the fact that the british isles are rather poor in natural ressources, and that the custom divided estates unequally amongst sons, it is not surprising that plenty of people sought fortune overseas; at the death of the family head, most of the estate was passed to the eldest son, forcing the younger ones out so seek fortune elsewhere. Thus the british mindset is deeply oriented towards commerce, be it legitimate or outright plundering.
Huge private concerns were formed, with the sole objective of sucking dry the wealth of newly "discovered" territories. Those concerns were strictly private corporations belonging to a few shareholders, and they had their own armies and were granted godlike powers on those territories attributed to them. The Hudson's Bay Company (founded in 1670 and still thriving) was one of those concerns who delivered it's own law upon the natives of what is now northern Canada. And, unsurprisingly, that law made sure it got wealthier. Never mind that suddenly, millenia of Cree hunting traditions and customs became suddenly illegal, simply because they did not send every pelt into the coffers of the Hudson's Bay Company... A similar outfit ransacked India...
The Reformation had something to do with it, too. When you have to struggle mightily to make a decent living (just keep the house reasonably warm in winter and dry under the rain) under a harsh climate, when some (catholic) bozo comes along (from sunny southern Europe) and says that you should share your wealth with the poor, you're quick to give him the boot. Never mind that the scatholic prelates suck the wealth out of the people, what hurts the most is the pocketbook. This is why the english mindset loathes "compulsory charity" (what one would nowadays call "taxes for social programs") and explains the popularity of private charities to whom you give only if you want.
Later, when the Industrial Revolution got in full swing, the bourgeoisie gained power because the new industrial endeavours needed capital to be implemented, and those traders who plied the seas, amassing huge fortunes, were the most naturally placed to supply that capital, instead of the degenerated, inbred, sedentary aristocrats who toiled the same unchanging estates.
Over the times, the bourgeoisie increased in importance, and with it, came political power. Members of parliament were elected solely by the wealthiest property owners (it is not until the beginning of the XXth century that all "commoners" earned the right to vote), so it is not surprising that a strongly capitalist mindset got firmly entrenched in the government.
In the United States, Revolution separated the colonies from England, and brought with it a strong mistrust of Government. Hence the long string of rather ridiculous "checks and balances" that insure that no one can gain "too much" power; well, at least, that's what the "founding fathers" had in mind.
The infant United States of America was a fresh country, but it was still laced with the strongly english trading mindset, and that mindset permeated profoundly the emerging institutions. Industrialization was not possible without paramount attention given to property rights, especially more so that the legislatures were firmly in the hands of the bourgeoisie; thus, it is perceived to be extremely natural to kill somebody in order to protect property.
The small population only had, for models, the successes of the bourgeoisie (which was, by the way, and still is very competent at hiding it's failures - unless when they end-up in politics), and this, too, became part of the mindset. Thus, most people in the US aspire to be his own boss...
Then, came the XXth Century, pass two big wars and two communist revolutions that shook the universe, threatening the sacro-sanct property rights to an extent never seen before!!!
Fresh from a struggle against fascism, the United States was on the defensive, being threatened by a former ally. Followed an unprecendented buildup of military power that sucked dry the ressources of one of the eventual belligerents, and practically bankrupted the other.
Then communism fell. It naturally became the villain, and any idea that was leaning towards the left was immediately suspect. After all, it would lead to oblivion, no? More than ever, the trading mindset got even more entrenched throughout society. The only goal of commerce being profit, it was clear that anything has to be oriented towards profit, and to the maximum amount of it, please. Since one distrusts the government, one shall not look to it for relief, but rather to what one can do for himself.
And this is a godsend for the most powerful of people, because in a democracy, if you can lead those who have the power (the people) to believe that having less government is good, eventually, those citizens will want less government and vote accordingly. Because less government means more free-hand to do whatever you want, that is, profit... After all, since government naturally leans towards communism when it is not working towards property rights, it has to be the ennemy, no?
This is why, in the last 20 years, croporate power has risen so much: they are reaping what they sowed in the minds of people: less government. Less interference in their profit-making business, while the people receive the crumbs and applaud in the process, as they are led to believe by all the things thrown at them by the bourgeoisie to numb their minds that everything is the best that can be...
It's a classic magician trick: while the left hand does the trick, you have people watch the right hands. So, when the superbowl plays, no one think of what the big corporations do to increase their power and wealth even more.
In fact, in "Screwtape Letters," one of the devils etches out what could be the Corporatist Marketing Manifesto: "Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level; all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals. Thus Tyrants could practice, in a sense, "democracy."
Since the Fall of Communism(tm), what happenned to the Vogons who were obviously running communist regimes? Did they transfer into running the Big Corporations That Aspire to Rule the World(tm), thus explaining their recent rampant Big Brotherism(tm)???
France (not the people, but the government) has a few severe problems with it's economic system, and it is extending the same philosophy that caused these problems to software.
In France, the Government carefully caters to the needs of the people who elect it: the population.
Essentially, they are starting to treat software manufacturers like equity owners (shareholders).
In France, the rights of a shareholder are minimal. Unlike in the US, where shareholder interests are supreme and codified into the law, France gives very few rights to shareholders - decisions to improve a companies financial health and the wealth of the shareholders take a back seat to worker rights" to employment, etc.
And it is a good thing! This prevents the social structure of the society from crumbling to a state where nobody can expect help from other people, and cannot trust anybody else, including the State (like it currently is in the United States).
French society is a much more balanced society than anglo-saxon societies. The "Economy" may be important, but is is NOT THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN, as one may think by looking at an anglo-saxon society.
So, it is therefore a good thing that shareholders rights are not paramount before the rights of the majority of the population.
After all, that majority of the population are not entrepreneurs nor investors, and they elect a government that has to ensure that the State looks after their best interests.
The result? France attracks little foreign investment, and investors in France do not invest domestically. The capital flows to countries where their property rights are protected (US, UK, Europe).
Last time I checked, France *IS* *IN* *Europe*. And property rights are very well protected in France, as well as human rights are.
Now, what is more important, property rights, or human rights???
Thus France suffers from high unemployment and a lack of capital for new business start ups. When is the last time you bought anything that said "Made in France."
But the employers have, by law, to insure better working conditions than in anglo-saxon countries. Workers can work efficiently without having to worry about getting the boot tomorrow, even if they work satisfactorly. Good engineers can stay working as good engineers, without having to think about bailing out and starting their own upstart company, thus wasting the talent of a good engineer turned into a not-so-good administrator. It's not for nothing that Airbus is eating a whole chunk of american aerospace industry!!!! Ever flew in a Caravelle??? Rode in a Citroën DS??? Both (made 40 years ago) STILL run circles around the best american industry can produce TODAY.
The continuous refusal of britain to follow european social and human-right standards when it comes to human/property rights is quite indicative of the primitive state of anglo-saxon societies, where only the most powerful can thrive (at the expense of others), just like in the stone age.
Now, they are extending this philosophy - a disregard for property rights - to the area of intellectual property.
A true display of blatant ignorance, and typical anglo-saxon ethnocentrism; a stauch refusal to consider viewpoints different from one's. France is a country that has been built as much upon intellectual property as "physical" property. It is not for nothing that french Culture is one of the richest in the west; for each Shakespeare, France will boast hundreds of Racine, Montesquieu, Molière, Beaumarchais, Rabelais, Voltaire and whatnot.
How many litterature nobel prizes???
How many science nobel prizes???
Surely such a country cannot blatantly disregard TRUE intellectual property!!!
The same results will follow with software in France.
In the 1960s, France was at the forefront of software developpment. Then the 1970's came along with american computer companies strong-arm tactics. French informaticiens never forgot how they lost their prominence to snake-oil. They had their lesson, and will never be caught at it again.
It isn't that there is a problem with open source-like schemes. The problem is when the government compels is, no matter how well-intentioned.
How about when private concerns compel close-source? Is that better? Will you have the balls to say that it is "well intentioned" towards the public good???
In the French political tradition the government (== the state) is much more powerful and subject to less checks and balances than in the Anglo-American tradition. I see this as the continuation of the trend: the government is (slyly) trying to increase its power in the Information Age.
In a french society, there is no inherent visceral distrust of the government nor of the State. In France, there was no magna-carta to inflate the heads of power-hungry people to the point of totally subverting the State to the needs of the few powerful people who have enough wealth to run things as they whish.
In France, whenever the State or the Government thinks it can pull a fast one on the people, the people rebel and promptly overthows the culprit. This does a far more effective job than the labyrinth of byzantine anglo-saxon "checks and balances" that merely insure that only seasoned special interest group lobbyists will be able to steer things their ways in the ensuing political quagmire.
The french people therefore puts a lot of trust in the State, and the State has a therefore much larger role than in anglo-saxon societies. It is also an active economic partner; french people think nothing of having the State running profitable businesses (for one thing, 100% of their profits go back to the State, so that's so much more money that the people will have less to pay in taxes).
Even better, for the french, working for the State is not viewed as a bad thing; in fact, the State skims the best of the best in the schools, and offers free schooling in special schools that turn-out civil servants of exceptionnal ability, competence and talent. Recent French historry is peppered with thousands of such people of very humble extraction that rose to very influential positions, thanks to those State schools, and returned the favour with exceptionnal service to the State, for the benefit of the whole population, not just a few lucky shareholders.
And that's only legitimate: the taxpayers deserve the absolute very best people to work with their tax money.
This systems insure that anybody that has the potential for exceptional service receives the training for it, not just the very few whose fathers can afford college, or those who are lucky enough to brownnose themselves a scholarship.
The State is an emanation of the WHOLE NATION, and therefore it HAS TO WORK FOR THE WHOLE NATION. If it doesn't, that state is overthrown, either forcefully (1789, 1848), or peacefully (1959).
One, often useful, view on what's happening treats economic and political life as a huge power game, played by three kinds of players: governments, corporations, and individuals. Recently second half of the XX century) the governments have been on the losing side -- their power vis-a-vis other players have somewhat declined. Since the first goal of any government is to stay in power, and the second is to grab as much power as it can get away with, this makes government unhappy. Add to this the (yet) unfettered freedom of the 'net and the governments start to look positively worried.
Of course the State has to stay in power!!! There is only one State, and it's disappearance means anarchy. But only something that is legitinate can assume statehood, and it is certainly not the unaccountable private corporations that are so aggressively vying for statehood can be legitimate.
I don't see this (the French government claim to source disclosure) as a good thing. I am highly distrustful of governments and giving more power to them -- and this is a power grab by the government, make no mistake about it -- does not strike me as something to be applauded. I recognize that corporations are not all benevolent either, but I still think that governments are more dangerous.
You are incredibly blindfolded by the biggest anglo-saxon collective neurosis: the fear and distrust of the State. You are a perfect example of people being brainwashed by the continuous anti-State propaganda whose only purpose is to shrink the State so much that it will no longer stand in the way of big corporations who want to make the biggest amount of profit at the expense of everyone else.
Now, if there is no more State to make laws that protects you against greedy corporations, what will you do when some corporation decides that it wants your own house?
The currently available test can trace matrilineal ancestry back to one of seven women who lived 150,000 years ago to which 99% of all people of European descent can trace their ancestry. "
In a press release announcing the suit, publicists for the band and music companies even threw in a statement from Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich, who said it is "sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is."
DUH??? Hello? Anybody home?
What is that dope complaining about? People PIRATING their music, or record companies TRADING his "ART"????
Hey, dumbo, why don't you go to Wall-Marde, I hear they have a special on clues until Friday!!!!
You wake up in the morning when your AOL radio starts piping AOL news into your ears (at an unchangable 7:10 everywhere). You get out of bed and put put on your AOL clothing (one size fits all, or else) and eat your AOL breakfast. Your AOL car is already on in your garage (clothes take 15 minutes to put on, breakfast 11 minutes to eat. At least that's what AOL says) and it automatically filled the gas tank last night ($3.49 US/gallon). You drive down the AOL road (your car can't drive anywhere else) to your job at AOL.
You wake up in the morning when your State-supplied radio starts piping State-controlled news into your ears (at an unchangable 7:10 everywhere). You get out of bed and put put on your State-supplied clothing (two sizes: too large and too small) and eat your State-supplied breakfast. Your State-supplied car is already on in your garage (clothes take 15 minutes to put on, breakfast 11 minutes to eat. At least that's what the State says) and it automatically filled the gas tank last night (3.49 rubles/liter).You drive down the road to your job for the State.
...take the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 10. It says all people have the right to free speech. The Canadian Charter on is another example, and says, again, that Canadian citizens have the right to free speech. Look, though, at the US Constitution. It doesn't say this. Rather, it says that the government is forbidden to take away the right to free speech. The difference is extremely important; a law can be repealed, thus revoking the right to free speech, but if the government's forbidden to take away free speech then there's nothing it can do. That's the difference;...
This is total OXDUNG. Your half-witty piece of paper only applies to the State. Nothing prevents any private concern from taking away your free-speech rights, unlike the european and canadian charters, which apply to everyone, even big companies.
This is the PROBLEM with the U.S.: the big companies have all the power they want over individuals. Just like lords had in feudal France.
Being in a country that suffered intensely from anglo-saxon domination for almost a quarter of a millenium now made me interested in anglo-saxon history, and having studied it more than averagely, I wonder that given the facts that:
Anglo-saxons have a complete distrust of everything coming from the State, bordering on the collective neurosis (i.e. the immensely popular "government conspiracies" movie plots);
Anglo-saxons believe that the goal in life is to accummulate as much wealth/power as possible, even if it is at the expense of others (just look at the current Merger Madness that sacrifice thousands of jobs to boost share prices);
They can legitimately expect that others will act in the same way; that is, they cannot really trust others (look at the lawyerama all over the place);
Even then, they will rather rely heavily on the elite's opinion, elite that is only accountable to themselves (i.e. blindly trust big media).
So, given all this, then can somebody explain why in thell it is mostly in anglo-saxon countries (USA & U.K.) that you find the most blatant attempts (both by the State and by [big] private companies) to squash individual freedom, liberties and privacy????
Yup. I wish that politics weren't so much about getting elected and more about doing something important once in office. There are so many things that need reform in this country (gun control, drug laws, etc...) and it's not going to happen for a long while.
Politicians should be nominally elected for only one term, and eligible for a second term ONLY if 80% of their constituents vote for them. That way, they will do what has to be done, and not what the people are led to believe they want.
And, of course, voting should be compulsory, like in many modern democracies.
Slashdot Mirror
--
Here's my mirror
Er... There are plenty of "multinational governmental bodies" arround (say, the European Union, and it's predecessors, like BeNeLux, the Comecon), and some others have been around for centuries (say, like Canada, the United States of America, the Confederatio Helvetica, the Deutsche Bundesrepublik, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and the Holy Germanic Roman Empire) that their individual constituting nations or states often have blended together to the state of being unrecognizable...
Multinational bodies are not necessarly a panacea, especially in those where one nation dominates others; those who are were founded for very specific purposes that, often, has been outlived...
--
Here's my mirror
Thanks in advance.
--
Here's my mirror
Given the way the public education system is being gutted by government cutbacks (less taxes = less money for the State), it is clear that the bourgeoisie has NO INTEREST that the population be properly educated, since then they will not as eagerly purchase the ofren useless and many time dangerous goods peddled to them...
--
Here's my mirror
Looking at the history of England, one shall not be surprised of this. When the magna carta was signed in 1215, it was just a few barons stripping the king out of some of the power he had over them. Over the times, when the king got at odds with other aristrocrats, the latter would often revolt against the king and depose and behead him, say, à la Cromwell.
To this, add the fact that the british isles are rather poor in natural ressources, and that the custom divided estates unequally amongst sons, it is not surprising that plenty of people sought fortune overseas; at the death of the family head, most of the estate was passed to the eldest son, forcing the younger ones out so seek fortune elsewhere. Thus the british mindset is deeply oriented towards commerce, be it legitimate or outright plundering.
Huge private concerns were formed, with the sole objective of sucking dry the wealth of newly "discovered" territories. Those concerns were strictly private corporations belonging to a few shareholders, and they had their own armies and were granted godlike powers on those territories attributed to them. The Hudson's Bay Company (founded in 1670 and still thriving) was one of those concerns who delivered it's own law upon the natives of what is now northern Canada. And, unsurprisingly, that law made sure it got wealthier. Never mind that suddenly, millenia of Cree hunting traditions and customs became suddenly illegal, simply because they did not send every pelt into the coffers of the Hudson's Bay Company... A similar outfit ransacked India...
The Reformation had something to do with it, too. When you have to struggle mightily to make a decent living (just keep the house reasonably warm in winter and dry under the rain) under a harsh climate, when some (catholic) bozo comes along (from sunny southern Europe) and says that you should share your wealth with the poor, you're quick to give him the boot. Never mind that the scatholic prelates suck the wealth out of the people, what hurts the most is the pocketbook. This is why the english mindset loathes "compulsory charity" (what one would nowadays call "taxes for social programs") and explains the popularity of private charities to whom you give only if you want.
Later, when the Industrial Revolution got in full swing, the bourgeoisie gained power because the new industrial endeavours needed capital to be implemented, and those traders who plied the seas, amassing huge fortunes, were the most naturally placed to supply that capital, instead of the degenerated, inbred, sedentary aristocrats who toiled the same unchanging estates.
Over the times, the bourgeoisie increased in importance, and with it, came political power. Members of parliament were elected solely by the wealthiest property owners (it is not until the beginning of the XXth century that all "commoners" earned the right to vote), so it is not surprising that a strongly capitalist mindset got firmly entrenched in the government.
In the United States, Revolution separated the colonies from England, and brought with it a strong mistrust of Government. Hence the long string of rather ridiculous "checks and balances" that insure that no one can gain "too much" power; well, at least, that's what the "founding fathers" had in mind.
The infant United States of America was a fresh country, but it was still laced with the strongly english trading mindset, and that mindset permeated profoundly the emerging institutions. Industrialization was not possible without paramount attention given to property rights, especially more so that the legislatures were firmly in the hands of the bourgeoisie; thus, it is perceived to be extremely natural to kill somebody in order to protect property.
The small population only had, for models, the successes of the bourgeoisie (which was, by the way, and still is very competent at hiding it's failures - unless when they end-up in politics), and this, too, became part of the mindset. Thus, most people in the US aspire to be his own boss...
Then, came the XXth Century, pass two big wars and two communist revolutions that shook the universe, threatening the sacro-sanct property rights to an extent never seen before!!!
Fresh from a struggle against fascism, the United States was on the defensive, being threatened by a former ally. Followed an unprecendented buildup of military power that sucked dry the ressources of one of the eventual belligerents, and practically bankrupted the other.
Then communism fell. It naturally became the villain, and any idea that was leaning towards the left was immediately suspect. After all, it would lead to oblivion, no? More than ever, the trading mindset got even more entrenched throughout society. The only goal of commerce being profit, it was clear that anything has to be oriented towards profit, and to the maximum amount of it, please. Since one distrusts the government, one shall not look to it for relief, but rather to what one can do for himself.
And this is a godsend for the most powerful of people, because in a democracy, if you can lead those who have the power (the people) to believe that having less government is good, eventually, those citizens will want less government and vote accordingly. Because less government means more free-hand to do whatever you want, that is, profit... After all, since government naturally leans towards communism when it is not working towards property rights, it has to be the ennemy, no?
This is why, in the last 20 years, croporate power has risen so much: they are reaping what they sowed in the minds of people: less government. Less interference in their profit-making business, while the people receive the crumbs and applaud in the process, as they are led to believe by all the things thrown at them by the bourgeoisie to numb their minds that everything is the best that can be...
It's a classic magician trick: while the left hand does the trick, you have people watch the right hands. So, when the superbowl plays, no one think of what the big corporations do to increase their power and wealth even more.
--
Here's my mirror
Geeee!!! Sounds like big bad ole communism (tm) to me!!!
--
Here's my mirror
--
Here's my mirror
("Feu xyz") means ("The late xyz")...
--
Here's my mirror
No wonder you sign "Soldier": you cannot create by yourself, but have to plunder...
--
In France, the Government carefully caters to the needs of the people who elect it: the population.
And it is a good thing! This prevents the social structure of the society from crumbling to a state where nobody can expect help from other people, and cannot trust anybody else, including the State (like it currently is in the United States).
French society is a much more balanced society than anglo-saxon societies. The "Economy" may be important, but is is NOT THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN, as one may think by looking at an anglo-saxon society.
So, it is therefore a good thing that shareholders rights are not paramount before the rights of the majority of the population.
After all, that majority of the population are not entrepreneurs nor investors, and they elect a government that has to ensure that the State looks after their best interests.
Last time I checked, France *IS* *IN* *Europe*. And property rights are very well protected in France, as well as human rights are.
Now, what is more important, property rights, or human rights???
But the employers have, by law, to insure better working conditions than in anglo-saxon countries. Workers can work efficiently without having to worry about getting the boot tomorrow, even if they work satisfactorly. Good engineers can stay working as good engineers, without having to think about bailing out and starting their own upstart company, thus wasting the talent of a good engineer turned into a not-so-good administrator. It's not for nothing that Airbus is eating a whole chunk of american aerospace industry!!!! Ever flew in a Caravelle??? Rode in a Citroën DS??? Both (made 40 years ago) STILL run circles around the best american industry can produce TODAY.
The continuous refusal of britain to follow european social and human-right standards when it comes to human/property rights is quite indicative of the primitive state of anglo-saxon societies, where only the most powerful can thrive (at the expense of others), just like in the stone age.
A true display of blatant ignorance, and typical anglo-saxon ethnocentrism; a stauch refusal to consider viewpoints different from one's. France is a country that has been built as much upon intellectual property as "physical" property. It is not for nothing that french Culture is one of the richest in the west; for each Shakespeare, France will boast hundreds of Racine, Montesquieu, Molière, Beaumarchais, Rabelais, Voltaire and whatnot.
How many litterature nobel prizes???
How many science nobel prizes???
Surely such a country cannot blatantly disregard TRUE intellectual property!!!
In the 1960s, France was at the forefront of software developpment. Then the 1970's came along with american computer companies strong-arm tactics. French informaticiens never forgot how they lost their prominence to snake-oil. They had their lesson, and will never be caught at it again.
How about when private concerns compel close-source? Is that better? Will you have the balls to say that it is "well intentioned" towards the public good???
--
In a french society, there is no inherent visceral distrust of the government nor of the State. In France, there was no magna-carta to inflate the heads of power-hungry people to the point of totally subverting the State to the needs of the few powerful people who have enough wealth to run things as they whish.
In France, whenever the State or the Government thinks it can pull a fast one on the people, the people rebel and promptly overthows the culprit. This does a far more effective job than the labyrinth of byzantine anglo-saxon "checks and balances" that merely insure that only seasoned special interest group lobbyists will be able to steer things their ways in the ensuing political quagmire.
The french people therefore puts a lot of trust in the State, and the State has a therefore much larger role than in anglo-saxon societies. It is also an active economic partner; french people think nothing of having the State running profitable businesses (for one thing, 100% of their profits go back to the State, so that's so much more money that the people will have less to pay in taxes).
Even better, for the french, working for the State is not viewed as a bad thing; in fact, the State skims the best of the best in the schools, and offers free schooling in special schools that turn-out civil servants of exceptionnal ability, competence and talent. Recent French historry is peppered with thousands of such people of very humble extraction that rose to very influential positions, thanks to those State schools, and returned the favour with exceptionnal service to the State, for the benefit of the whole population, not just a few lucky shareholders.
And that's only legitimate: the taxpayers deserve the absolute very best people to work with their tax money.
This systems insure that anybody that has the potential for exceptional service receives the training for it, not just the very few whose fathers can afford college, or those who are lucky enough to brownnose themselves a scholarship.
The State is an emanation of the WHOLE NATION, and therefore it HAS TO WORK FOR THE WHOLE NATION. If it doesn't, that state is overthrown, either forcefully (1789, 1848), or peacefully (1959).
Of course the State has to stay in power!!! There is only one State, and it's disappearance means anarchy. But only something that is legitinate can assume statehood, and it is certainly not the unaccountable private corporations that are so aggressively vying for statehood can be legitimate.
You are incredibly blindfolded by the biggest anglo-saxon collective neurosis: the fear and distrust of the State. You are a perfect example of people being brainwashed by the continuous anti-State propaganda whose only purpose is to shrink the State so much that it will no longer stand in the way of big corporations who want to make the biggest amount of profit at the expense of everyone else.
Now, if there is no more State to make laws that protects you against greedy corporations, what will you do when some corporation decides that it wants your own house?
--
Thus, a company, a corporation, anything that is not made of blood and flesh is a moral person.
--
Gee, SEVEN women? Adam had quite a harem!!!
--
--
Just move your servers outsite of the U.K.
That's all.
--
Next time you're busted for "possession", tell the DA you have the "absolute right" to "have whatever you want"...
--
Alta-Vista quoteth:
DUH??? Hello? Anybody home?
What is that dope complaining about? People PIRATING their music, or record companies TRADING his "ART"????
Hey, dumbo, why don't you go to Wall-Marde, I hear they have a special on clues until Friday!!!!
--
--
You wake up in the morning when your State-supplied radio starts piping State-controlled news into your ears (at an unchangable 7:10 everywhere). You get out of bed and put put on your State-supplied clothing (two sizes: too large and too small) and eat your State-supplied breakfast. Your State-supplied car is already on in your garage (clothes take 15 minutes to put on, breakfast 11 minutes to eat. At least that's what the State says) and it automatically filled the gas tank last night (3.49 rubles/liter).You drive down the road to your job for the State.
Gee, sounds just like communist russia to me...
--
This is total OXDUNG. Your half-witty piece of paper only applies to the State. Nothing prevents any private concern from taking away your free-speech rights, unlike the european and canadian charters, which apply to everyone, even big companies.
This is the PROBLEM with the U.S.: the big companies have all the power they want over individuals. Just like lords had in feudal France.
--
Being in a country that suffered intensely from anglo-saxon domination for almost a quarter of a millenium now made me interested in anglo-saxon history, and having studied it more than averagely, I wonder that given the facts that:
So, given all this, then can somebody explain why in thell it is mostly in anglo-saxon countries (USA & U.K.) that you find the most blatant attempts (both by the State and by [big] private companies) to squash individual freedom, liberties and privacy????
--
--
Politicians should be nominally elected for only one term, and eligible for a second term ONLY if 80% of their constituents vote for them. That way, they will do what has to be done, and not what the people are led to believe they want.
And, of course, voting should be compulsory, like in many modern democracies.
--
--
--