Taxation funds the activities of government. In my country (Ireland) the main areas are Education, Health and Social Welfare.
Taxation doesn't fund activities of the govt. Production does. Taxation is just redistribution of production. It has already been demonstrated by experience of 20th century that it plain doesn't work, in addtion of taxation being simple deprivation of self-govt of individual in econ dimension.
These alloacations are decided by the representatives of the people in the annual budget. Within certain bounds, the necessary tax rates are decided based on the amount of money which the legislature want to spend.
I bet you believe in Santa Claus as well? You just wrote fairy tale for political sheep. What organizations (included to governmental ones, but not limited to) _really_ do, not what they claim they do, read on Public Choice Theory.
You pay tax on stuff you order down the phone so why complain when you have to do it using a computer.
Bad. Eliminate that instead of taxing the Internet.
Ones audio, ones visual, other than that theres no difference. Stop whining and grow up.
Money from taxation is acquired through extortion. It's not yours to take, and not yours to give, regardless how good intentions anybody might have or how good and how so oh the all important goals are to be (supposedly) realized for that money. Stop stealing and grow up.
If you ignore the stance of Nozick 'All taxes are theft' and other utopian libertarians you need to look at a fair tax method. 'Fair taxation' is an oxymoron -- taxes are simply unavoidable burdens paid to government. It was US Supreme Court, not 'utopian' libertarians, that ruled that there is no patriotic duty to pay more taxes than absolutely required. There's nothing 'fair' in taxes. The adequate question to ask is not why Internet sales are not taxed, but why regular sales are. Taxing Internet sales is using approach that is tried & untrue. PS. I don't see how making the claim about the nature of taxation (this way or another) can be 'utopian' or 'distopian' for that matter. That's sloppy thinking.
Ergo, we have the government making a long term investment for the public good. You know what's the first of three biggest lies? "I'm from government, and I'm here to help you". What you stated, i.e. the government is supposed to work for public good is propaganda for naive only (Ronald McDonald -- we do it just for you). The government is approximately as selfish as corporations are. Corporations just aren't that hypocritical. The only and single purpose of Clinton funding nanotech generously with your money, err, government's money, is to be able to get credit for eventual success of nanotech. Al Gore tried the same thing with funding Internet related research. The money that Clinton can put in nanotech research is hardly decisive wrt eventual success of failure of nanotech. There is too big stake for corporations to evade this chance. Corporations are going to work on this anyway, just like they have worked in the past on developement of computers -- take a look at the past of computers for an example. The money for nanotech by Clinton is only window dressing that is supposed to be background of Clinton himself to smile in front of nanotech and get interviewed in the tone "I made it happen!".
For this of you MS-head dolts, I'll say that last part again. Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market. These findings are spot on, and refuting them is futile.
Saying so does not make it so. Define "power". One has to really stretch opportunities and advanteges in marketplace that MS undoubtedly has to call it "power". As someone noted 'power comes out of barrel of a gun'. M$ doesn't have guns, M$ has only power of dollars. That's opportunity and some potential for doing harm without doubt, but it is widely overestimated, and so do you overestimate it.
You are an idiot to even claim that use of Microsoft products is voluntary.
Strange. I've never had a problem with not using M$' products when I did not want to. The only time I had to use M$ Word was when our company's customer asked to. Not different from customer demanding any other tool or technology to use (just like we have customers requiring us to do jobs in specific DTP programs or on Mac). Why don't you admit -- it's just people like using M$ products, and don't like the alternatives. That's it. True, M$ produces brain damaged software; but most of people want brain damaged software. Why? It's simpler to operate. They plain don't care. Do you want that outlawed?
The "moral right of man" to go after a "free" economy is a misnomer. Since Bill Gates and his megacorporation own a huge vertical monopoly in the computer market that prevents anyone else with a good idea, love of computers, and start-up capital to experience what you think of as a free economy.
Bullshit. How RH started up then? You allocate magical power to dollars owned by M$. Popular mistake made mostly by shallow thinkers. If BG owned half of dollars in the world, he still would not control my interests or my goals. Or any other customers'. Customer isn't controlled by company. Customer is controlled by his selfish gain. Sure, M$ is in better position than other companies to appeal to customer's interest. But it does not have direct control. The moment better offer appears (read carefully: better in eyes of millions of customers, not in eyes of geeks!), customer goes elsewhere. Businesses routinely overestimate loyalty of customers, and so do you. Steve Jobs has said that M$ products are 'tasteless'. Right on target. What M$' opponents forget is that most of people have poor taste. Thus, M$ appeals to them. That's it. There's nothing more in it. The issue is trivial.
When a monopoly forms, it is in everyone's best interest to break it up. This is not the end of the world. It does not mean government intervention for anyone else. The judiciary is not out of its authority or out of its domain in doing this. Government is not metiendo la pata where it doesn't belong. This is the way the system works. This is how we function as a people. This is right.
Above is one of larger stack of self-deceiving spells lying around. The state is organization like any other organization: primarily selfish. It is paramount of idiocy to accuse M$ of being monopoly for pushing Windows when the govt itself that supposedly protects the people from monopoly formed e.g. 1864 Currency Act that delegalizes issuing private currency. The big monopoly with guns supposedly dismantles small quasi-monopoly which is mostly result of trivial customers' choice (the customers that plain choose what is the most convenient to them and simply pisses on alternatives even though proponents of alternatives bullshit themselves it is not the way it is).
Every organization is a wannabee monopoly. M$ is such a wannabee monopoly. But so is Netscape, Caldera, RH, political parties, sunday school and gardeners' association. And primarily govt wants to be a monopoly. M$ has lots of dollars; however, nobody accuses govt of acting like monopoly even though govt has much more dollars. M$ has no legal monopoly over producing software; the govt does have monopoly over basically what it wants to have monopoly over. It's hilarious that this is M$ and not govt that gets accused of being monopoly. And, unlike M$, govt not only has more dollars; it also has guns. However, everybody cries "M$ is evil!". M$ isn't evil, it is plain selfish. There are organizations around with much heavier fist.
It is idiotic to think that govt is supposedly better for the people than M$ is. When M$ lifts a finger, it is for M$' gain; when govt lifts a finger, its is for govt's gain. The DOJ case does not serve the public; it serves the govt. Its purpose is to extend popularity and the power of govt. Had M$ have good public image, govt would not do anything to it, even if actual crimes of M$ (which I think it committed a few) were tenfold greater. Listen to the choir of delighted idiots, who cheer when their economic freedom is precisely the next candidate to be eliminated. And, just like M$, govt doesn't stop once it got in motion. M$ is broken up today, tommorrow you are. Enjoy what you asked for.
Send them to reeducation camp. Or shoot on the spot.
On more serious note, however, you express the idiotic mindset that makes me think that individual freedom can exist only in a limited period, after all. BTW, let's get this straight: I think MS products are mediocre at best. But if there are people who want to make and sell mediocre products, and people who want to buy mediocre products, this is none of your freaking business.
:"Everyone else does it" is a bullshit excuse. No:wonder this contry is going to hell. If the:pursuit of profits and power overrides integrity:and morals, we've achieved nothing. Your naiviety is stunning. It's rather obvious that where such money are at stake, delusions like yours mean no more than a fart.:If that's what capitalism and free markets are:about, then screw it all and bring on communism. This is idiocy of astronomic proportions. Do you have faintest idea about the communism? Were you born in one? Well, I was, and I've lived much of my life in it. Guess what -- the _organizations_ were far, far worse than any MS could ever be. There are parts of world where you can get somebody murdered for twenty bucks. Considering the stakes, MS behaved in _extremely_ civil manner. Sure, this behavior still has been ugly. But relatively to size of stakes in game, it still is civil. You're just spoilt and demand angel-like organization. Wake up!!! There are no "good" organizations. Each one is trying to maximize its own selfish gains using any means available. Anything else is just propaganda smoke emitted for politically naive sheep like you. When I read all those reactions in the press for the ruling, I can't resist impression that some day you will find yourself in totalitarian communism indeed -- it's amazing how fast people are willing to let freedom down the drain just because they don't like redneck-like company. If you're continuing down this road, you surely will find yourself in "from frying pan into fire" situation. Like Ayn Rand puts it, "those who do not distinguish power of a whip and power of a dollar, will learn the difference on their own backs". The whip is held by govt, not by MS; MS had only dollars. Lots of them, but still only dollars. I wish you good whipping.
Slashdot Mirror
Taxation doesn't fund activities of the govt. Production does. Taxation is just redistribution of production. It has already been demonstrated by experience of 20th century that it plain doesn't work, in addtion of taxation being simple deprivation of self-govt of individual in econ dimension.
These alloacations are decided by the representatives of the people in the annual budget. Within certain bounds, the necessary tax rates are decided based on the amount of money which the legislature want to spend.I bet you believe in Santa Claus as well? You just wrote fairy tale for political sheep. What organizations (included to governmental ones, but not limited to) _really_ do, not what they claim they do, read on Public Choice Theory.
Bad. Eliminate that instead of taxing the Internet.
Ones audio, ones visual, other than that theres no difference. Stop whining and grow up.
Money from taxation is acquired through extortion. It's not yours to take, and not yours to give, regardless how good intentions anybody might have or how good and how so oh the all important goals are to be (supposedly) realized for that money. Stop stealing and grow up.
If you ignore the stance of Nozick 'All taxes are theft' and other utopian libertarians you need to look at a fair tax method. 'Fair taxation' is an oxymoron -- taxes are simply unavoidable burdens paid to government. It was US Supreme Court, not 'utopian' libertarians, that ruled that there is no patriotic duty to pay more taxes than absolutely required. There's nothing 'fair' in taxes. The adequate question to ask is not why Internet sales are not taxed, but why regular sales are. Taxing Internet sales is using approach that is tried & untrue. PS. I don't see how making the claim about the nature of taxation (this way or another) can be 'utopian' or 'distopian' for that matter. That's sloppy thinking.
Ergo, we have the government making a long term investment for the public good. You know what's the first of three biggest lies? "I'm from government, and I'm here to help you". What you stated, i.e. the government is supposed to work for public good is propaganda for naive only (Ronald McDonald -- we do it just for you). The government is approximately as selfish as corporations are. Corporations just aren't that hypocritical. The only and single purpose of Clinton funding nanotech generously with your money, err, government's money, is to be able to get credit for eventual success of nanotech. Al Gore tried the same thing with funding Internet related research. The money that Clinton can put in nanotech research is hardly decisive wrt eventual success of failure of nanotech. There is too big stake for corporations to evade this chance. Corporations are going to work on this anyway, just like they have worked in the past on developement of computers -- take a look at the past of computers for an example. The money for nanotech by Clinton is only window dressing that is supposed to be background of Clinton himself to smile in front of nanotech and get interviewed in the tone "I made it happen!".
Introduction to Public Choice Theory
Also,
Public Choice and Bureaucracy
For this of you MS-head dolts, I'll say that last part again. Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
These findings are spot on, and refuting them is futile.
Saying so does not make it so. Define "power". One has to really stretch opportunities and advanteges in marketplace that MS undoubtedly has to call it "power". As someone noted 'power comes out of barrel of a gun'. M$ doesn't have guns, M$ has only power of dollars. That's opportunity and some potential for doing harm without doubt, but it is widely overestimated, and so do you overestimate it.
You are an idiot to even claim that use of Microsoft products is voluntary.
Strange. I've never had a problem with not using M$' products when I did not want to. The only time I had to use M$ Word was when our company's customer asked to. Not different from customer demanding any other tool or technology to use (just like we have customers requiring us to do jobs in specific DTP programs or on Mac).
Why don't you admit -- it's just people like using M$ products, and don't like the alternatives. That's it. True, M$ produces brain damaged software; but most of people want brain damaged software. Why? It's simpler to operate. They plain don't care. Do you want that outlawed?
The "moral right of man" to go after a "free" economy is a misnomer. Since Bill Gates and his megacorporation own a huge vertical monopoly in the computer market that prevents anyone else with a good idea, love of computers, and start-up capital to experience what you think of as a free economy.
Bullshit. How RH started up then? You allocate magical power to dollars owned by M$. Popular mistake made mostly by shallow thinkers. If BG owned half of dollars in the world, he still would not control my interests or my goals. Or any other customers'. Customer isn't controlled by company. Customer is controlled by his selfish gain. Sure, M$ is in better position than other companies to appeal to customer's interest. But it does not have direct control. The moment better offer appears (read carefully: better in eyes of millions of customers, not in eyes of geeks!), customer goes elsewhere. Businesses routinely overestimate loyalty of customers, and so do you.
Steve Jobs has said that M$ products are 'tasteless'. Right on target. What M$' opponents forget is that most of people have poor taste. Thus, M$ appeals to them. That's it. There's nothing more in it. The issue is trivial.
When a monopoly forms, it is in everyone's best interest to break it up. This is not the end of the world. It does not mean government intervention for anyone else. The judiciary is not out of its authority or out of its domain in doing this. Government is not metiendo la pata where it doesn't belong. This is the way the system works. This is how we function as a people. This is right.
Above is one of larger stack of self-deceiving spells lying around. The state is organization like any other organization: primarily selfish. It is paramount of idiocy to accuse M$ of being monopoly for pushing Windows when the govt itself that supposedly protects the people from monopoly formed e.g. 1864 Currency Act that delegalizes issuing private currency. The big monopoly with guns supposedly dismantles small quasi-monopoly which is mostly result of trivial customers' choice (the customers that plain choose what is the most convenient to them and simply pisses on alternatives even though proponents of alternatives bullshit themselves it is not the way it is).
Every organization is a wannabee monopoly. M$ is such a wannabee monopoly. But so is Netscape, Caldera, RH, political parties, sunday school and gardeners' association. And primarily govt wants to be a monopoly. M$ has lots of dollars; however, nobody accuses govt of acting like monopoly even though govt has much more dollars. M$ has no legal monopoly over producing software; the govt does have monopoly over basically what it wants to have monopoly over. It's hilarious that this is M$ and not govt that gets accused of being monopoly.
And, unlike M$, govt not only has more dollars; it also has guns. However, everybody cries "M$ is evil!". M$ isn't evil, it is plain selfish. There are organizations around with much heavier fist.
It is idiotic to think that govt is supposedly better for the people than M$ is. When M$ lifts a finger, it is for M$' gain; when govt lifts a finger, its is for govt's gain. The DOJ case does not serve the public; it serves the govt. Its purpose is to extend popularity and the power of govt. Had M$ have good public image, govt would not do anything to it, even if actual crimes of M$ (which I think it committed a few) were tenfold greater. Listen to the choir of delighted idiots, who cheer when their economic freedom is precisely the next candidate to be eliminated. And, just like M$, govt doesn't stop once it got in motion. M$ is broken up today, tommorrow you are. Enjoy what you asked for.
Send them to reeducation camp. Or shoot on the spot.
On more serious note, however, you express the idiotic mindset that makes me think that individual freedom can exist only in a limited period, after all.
BTW, let's get this straight: I think MS products are mediocre at best. But if there are people who want to make and sell mediocre products, and people who want to buy mediocre products, this is none of your freaking business.
:"Everyone else does it" is a bullshit excuse. No :wonder this contry is going to hell. If the :pursuit of profits and power overrides integrity :and morals, we've achieved nothing. Your naiviety is stunning. It's rather obvious that where such money are at stake, delusions like yours mean no more than a fart. :If that's what capitalism and free markets are :about, then screw it all and bring on communism. This is idiocy of astronomic proportions. Do you have faintest idea about the communism? Were you born in one? Well, I was, and I've lived much of my life in it. Guess what -- the _organizations_ were far, far worse than any MS could ever be. There are parts of world where you can get somebody murdered for twenty bucks. Considering the stakes, MS behaved in _extremely_ civil manner. Sure, this behavior still has been ugly. But relatively to size of stakes in game, it still is civil. You're just spoilt and demand angel-like organization. Wake up!!! There are no "good" organizations. Each one is trying to maximize its own selfish gains using any means available. Anything else is just propaganda smoke emitted for politically naive sheep like you. When I read all those reactions in the press for the ruling, I can't resist impression that some day you will find yourself in totalitarian communism indeed -- it's amazing how fast people are willing to let freedom down the drain just because they don't like redneck-like company. If you're continuing down this road, you surely will find yourself in "from frying pan into fire" situation. Like Ayn Rand puts it, "those who do not distinguish power of a whip and power of a dollar, will learn the difference on their own backs". The whip is held by govt, not by MS; MS had only dollars. Lots of them, but still only dollars. I wish you good whipping.