The ultimate Irony that will probably be lost on you is that based on free market principles Kodak is a perfect example of the market doing it's job and punishing a company that has not kept up and is no longer producing valuable products services that people want to buy.
- this is funny combined with this:
If they HAD NOT been 'attacked by the ebil gubment' this fate would probably have been avoided, and we probably wouldn't even have digital imaging now because they would have invented it, sat on it and/or prevented digital cameras from being imported.
You don't see the obvious stupidity in those statements? You don't clearly. It's government that created the copyright/patent system that even allows companies to use government force to prevent others from reverse-engineering or even coming up with their own solutions that are similar in nature to solve the same problem, and you are saying: government monopoly creation is a good thing?
The government CREATES the monopoly in the first place, by granting these 'copyrights/patents' and protecting them for the businesses. There should no government involvement in any of it, copyrights and patents and limiting liability and "insuring" against anything, thus creating moral hazards etc.etc.
This is lost on you, that the only entity that creates monopolies is government. As to businesses, they are using the government provided laws in order to attempt and ensure their 'walled gardens'.
How else would it be possible for a company to lock anybody into their own walled garden if there was no government laws CREATING and PROTECTING the walled gardens of patents and copyrights in the first place?
Well, not necessarily, often people start companies with the goal of selling them, sometimes owners just want to retire. This is not one of those situations here, but the government involvement is likely to cause massive layoffs in one or both of these companies later on.
- except that the regulation itself is unconstitutional and the fact is that all monopolies are created by government, not by market. In free market monopolies don't exist, only economies of scale, only companies that provide good product at good price, otherwise others enter the market with new ideas, tech and better prices.
But, I can tell that you kneel at the altar and think it's infallible... so, whatever... I completely disagree with you.
- that's a straw-man, I don't know what it means 'markets are infallible', I don't know what a 'fallibility' of a market is.
What I do know is that governments interfere with private individuals making private decisions and they end up destroying the markets.
Blah blah blah... corporations would fuck us all over if someone didn't keep an eye on them. Don't believe me? Go feed your children some melamine laced baby formula.
- sure, this happens, and it's a crime, nobody has the right to harm others. There is nothing that needs to be done from 'regulations' point of view, only the existing criminal laws need to apply.
Of-course governments created the moral hazard by removing legal liability from corporations and so it's near impossible to hold anybody personally responsible and that is a problem, but again, it's a government created problem.
I am not saying that Kodak would have survived for sure if government wasn't attacking it earlier, but you can't say they were at fault for their business when government was heavily meddling with it.
It's similar enough with the government interfering with AT&T and T-Mobile. Gov't prevents the merger and later one or both companies will suffer enough damage that may put them out of business, but you will say: it's definitely their fault, they couldn't survive in the market. Well, how do you know that the merger would not have given them some sort of an edge that they need to survive?
You can't have government interfering with private businesses, private property with all these unconstitutional regulations and laws and taxes and counterfeiting and then say - these companies were definitely destined for failure or these entire markets were definitely destined for failure.
The only thing we know for sure is that when government interferes with market, it causes failure.
Here is what will happen to the company if it goes bankrupt: various auctions, where parts of the company will be sold, or maybe just one buy out for a fraction of the cost, then there will be restructuring, which means assets will be salvaged, jobs eliminated, maybe departments will be sold off maybe technologies will be sold off, maybe the company will be rebuilt as a different company with some income generating streams, whatever. This is the same thing that happens when they take down an old ship or a plane or a train for example - parts and materials are salvaged, whatever can be sold is then sold.
The point of this is huge - it's to allow reuse/recycle of technologies and possibly jobs (even departments). Of-course Buffet is in this business, that's why he likes death taxes, because it gives him more opportunity for business, because taxes mostly can be paid only after assets are sold, such as businesses. Romney was in that business and now Gingrich and Santorum and Huntsman are saying he is a 'bad person' for doing this? Those sell outs.
When companies go down, just like any other assets, you have to reclaim what can be reused and recycled, otherwise untold amounts of useful technology and knowledge can be lost and even existing customers will go without any support. This is useful.
Of-course Kodak was attacked by the government in an anti-trust case and that is likely why the existing company with its existing management couldn't make the company survive.
Government loves to talk about jobs. Well here are a bunch of jobs they helped to destroy.
Ron Paul is absolutely correct Constitutionally, US federal government does not have the authority to destroy the rights of property owners.
"Civil Rights Act" should be called "Entitlements and Obligations Act" where it concerns private property, so let's not beat around the bush - this was unconstitutional, just like SS and Medicare and undeclared wars and counterfeiting money and 16th amendment, which contradicts 5th and 13th, and collects income taxes illegally.
Once again, the person who wrote some of the articles in Paul's newsletters over the decades was James B. Powell. Ron Paul wrote his articles, other people wrote theirs, sometime they wrote things that have nothing to do with Ron Paul's stand on things, clearly by the fact that Ron Paul was never a racist an he helped blacks for free in hospitals back in the day when nobody wanted to help and when he started his own practice he declined taking federal money (Medicare) and instead set prices according to what people could pay, sometimes getting paid in things like buckets of shrimp caught by the patients and sometimes with no charge at all.
The ONLY candidate (including the incumbent) who wants to stop the Drug war and release the prisoners who are jailed for non-violent drug related offenses cannot be racist by definition, because disproportionate majority of these prisoners are minorities - blacks and hispanics.
As to ending the federal reserve - that's just 100% correct. That's the thing that will break the ability of politicians and bankers to take over the economy, and just because you are blind and ignorant and don't understand it, does not change that fact.
USA shouldn't be submitting its sovereignty to UN. UN has no authority over US and US should pull out of that bitch.
NATO should be disbanded.
Birthright citizenship should not exist, doesn't exist anywhere else in the world.
Federal government has no authority to fund ridiculous organisations that promote or demote whatever sexual lifestyles.
Federal reserve must have competition, and so a gold standard (or in fact just returning to gold) is the correct thing to do to prevent crisis from happening in the first place by not allowing gov't and corporations that are close to government to get into counterfeit money debt and destroy credit to businesses and economy in the process. Gov't has no business guaranteeing loans to anybody either, so gold standard would prevent it, and it means it would have prevented the housing bubble for example.
All foreign aid must be stopped.
As to him believing that life starts at conception - that's his right to believe it.
---
Believing anything is his business, like if believes something about xmass and the Left, it's his business, it doesn't end up as any legislation.
Being against gay marriage is his business, he has no authority to dictate as a POTUS one way or another, it's a State rights issue, not federal gov't issue.
Being opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is completely correct based on the part of the bill that destroys the private property rights. He is 100% correct and that bill shouldn't have been called 'Civil Rights Act', it should have been called "Entitlements and Obligations Act"
Estate tax MUST be repealed, so must every other type of income based tax, corporate, payroll, etc. All of this stuff is unconstitutional because it is unapportioned and the 16th amednment contradicts the 5th and 13th.
You are FULL OF SHIT, linking to that SALON smear campaign story, there is NOTHING there about Paul making any racist remarks.
Salon is part of the establishment that is waging a BULLSHIT war against Ron Paul, who was never a racist, as my comment you are replying to PROVES.
I have no interest one way or another about Panama canal, don't care, don't know the issue.
Believing in New World Order is not in any way inconsistent with the BANKS ruling the entire world at this point, JP Morgan and GS and Bank of America and DB and UBS and Citi etc., they RUN the governments.
UNESCO, just like UN and NATO cannot tell USA citizens how to run their lives, they they want to tell them, so Ron Paul is again 100% correct.
When I was contracting between 2001 and 2009, I made more than BOTH of them, it was mostly Java.
When running my own company, the income is non-existent until there are real revenues, and then whatever is left over after all of the expenses and re-investments, that's what I can pay myself.
If it is all "property rights based", then money talks the loudest (most property), and the factories will absolutely dump their crap into the rivers.
- no, money only talks loudest when it can get the support of government. It is the role of the government to protect liberty and private property, otherwise there is no point to a government at all. All of those principles have been compromised and it's time to revamp them obviously, but money must not be an object of discussion when a judgement is made on whether 'dumping crap into rivers' is a private property violation or not, if multiple private properties are on that river and that river is used by more than one private owner.
As to 'prior to regulations' failing - that's nonsense. The government has been bought for a very long time, and that is where the failure comes in. It's these phantom regulations that are changed based on who has more money and influence in government.
There are only these regulations that must be protected: private liberty, privacy and private property.
You are absolutely 100% correct, I hate democracy as a principle because I've met the average voter. That's why I absolutely agree with those who wrote US Constitution, that a representative republic is better than a democracy, simply because the majority must never be allowed to rule the minority in any way.
Take dumping raw sewage into the river. To stop that, we need law (regulation). This is an example of good regulation.
- actually the dumping itself was only possible because of the consent that the government gave to its utility monopolies, which it created by destroying competition in utility fields.
The only way to fix the specific problems of pollution is to get government protection out of the utility business and enact property right laws.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
You see, it's all good while the government just uses its powers to shake down small businesses in unrelated industries, the business must be regulated, right?
When they "regulate" the movers or when they regulate the retailers or when they regulate the brick manufacturers etc. etc., what do you think they are really doing? You think they are doing you a favour? Guess why the business and labour regulations cause massive outflow of investment and jobs to countries with much fewer regulations.
This is the same thing, but finally they hit somewhere it hurts and you can't ignore it and even CHEER for it.
When gov't regulates the banks and creates a massive monopoly formation by destroying competition and the government ensures the monopoly with FDIC (you didn't think they insured YOU with this nonsense, did you? It was creating a massive moral hazard, so you wouldn't care what bank you lent your money to), when gov't creates a monopoly in banking and then gives banks free money from Federal reserve, counterfeits the money, sets crazy 0% price on money borrowing and destroys the credit market for businesses, you don't care, you think it's good - it's gov't regulations.
Now they show you how it's done with something you care about, and what now? Why is this more important than anything else they've done before? Medical regulations and monopoly creation, same with education, same with banking, houses, money itself, energy, food, you pick your subject, it's government regulated and destroyed.
It's exactly the same thing, the difference is it's not a small enough group of people for you not to care about their rights being violated. Yes, this is violation of your right to speech and to do business, just like every other government regulation is a violation of your right to speech and property and business, all of them are, it's just different industries are not as visible to you and you don't care.
This is good, the fact that the government now decided to hit you where it hurts is good, because that's when the masses start caring, only when it starts hurting them very very directly.
Oh, don't let the reality stand in the way of your ideology.
Paulâ(TM)s support base is a patchwork of libertarian-minded Republicans and independent voters drawn to his non-interventionist foreign policy views and distrust of the federal government. A surge in same-day registration tomorrow would, presumably, be a very good thing for Paul.
Recent polling in Iowa suggest Paul does very well with voters unaffiliated with either party. In the most recent Des Moines Register poll the libertarian-leaning congressman won 42 percent of unaffiliated voters, with Romney well behind at 19 percent.
They are showing Romney at 43% and then Gingrich at 9% and Huntsman at 7% in NH. They are saying then that Romney has 30% lead on all other candidates.
Of-course they leave out Ron Paul completely, who actually is about 20% there.
Who are these people that do this brilliant piece of 'non-partisan reporting'? CBS.
I'm much more inclined to look at a candidate that uses or has used technology versus those who just like to talk about it.
- then it's Ron Paul, no contest.
Why, you ask?
Because without technology and especially the Internet where would Ron Paul's campaign be? You certainly wouldn't hear about him or anybody like him in the MSM, so then what, town hall meetings?
Ron Paul is actually using the technology in the political process. Obama's blackberry and what not, and you are still going to get SOPA and PIPA and no veto from Obama.
Do you realise now how silly it is, to say that the most important thing is who uses the technology most is your preferred candidate, because you are actually oblivious as to how the technology is really used?
The question is actually this: who is going to prevent government force from taking your liberty to use and work with technology that you choose?
It's 3 o'clock and so it's time to shop shop shop.
Say, have you ever sat at your computer and had a thought of eating something while watching the porn? Has FBI ever storm your house to get you and your computer and have you thought to yourself: Dammit, I wish I could just eat that harddrive to prevent the agents from finding my treasured information? Well NOW YOU CAN!
Our latest line of products includes edible salmon drives, they will not only store your most 'important' data securely, but they taste like your favorite fish chips.
Buy NOW and get a bottle of this excellent Lemon Tartar Sauce absolutely FREE!
Buy 2 and get 1 free. We'll also throw in 2 crab memory sticks, an oyster mouse and a carp pad. ALL with just five easy payments of $19.99.
Well good luck because the richest of the rich only want to help each other
- makes sense. But if the richest of the rich are that rich because they stole money from people through their connection to the federal and state government, and they are getting free money from the Federal reserve and they are getting government contracts, then those are the people you want to kick out of the government structures, and that's not going to happen at all ever until the government is forced *by force, be it elections or violence* to return to obeying the law, and Constitution is the law that prevents individuals from being abused by government growth, and gov't taking over individual's lives, liberty and property.
Rich people who make it by providing services and products need to be encouraged to do business in your economy, not discouraged.
Rich people who get their money from the government in the first place, be it by contracts or be it by federal reserve or be it by illegal wars etc.etc., those need to be kicked out and gov't power needs to be reduced to only do what it is allowed to do.
As to 'schools, roads, utilities' - the time after US Civil war and before the 1913 shows that growth of overall strength of economy lifts all boats. You want more people to become rich, not the other way around, because wealth is savings and it's what allows more investment, including all investments that deal with infrastructure and education and transport and health and food, etc.
The rich also want to become richer, so that's why they invest all of the money they don't use into new businesses, but as long as the only business that is profitable is government business and free money, that's where all of the investments will be made and it will crash the real economy.
Of-course this bankruptcy was not inevitable even in the face of the various disruptive technologies but only when government decided to step in and tell Kodak what it could and could not do, how it could not diversify its business, how it could not invest into other businesses and opportunities that the failure of the company became inevitable.
You think government CREATES jobs? It never jobs, it has no job-creating capacity. Even jobs that are directly created with government money cost more jobs that are destroyed/prevented from being created in the private sector, because every government sponsored job is a job that should never have existed and it only exists by taxing productive sectors.
Governments are the only real reasons for the economic disasters around the world since the beginning of the man kind.
What IS obvious is that where there is an opportunity for a government to grab some power by instituting some new program under the guise of helping society somehow, the government will grab that power, will grab money for that power and eventually will destroy the very system that it set off to 'save' from a non-existing threat.
Gov't money is what is causing rise of prices in education, health care, houses, and all things now, that the USD and bonds are the current debt bubble being inflated.
It's not for the lack of charitable people or lack of doctors only charging what patients can pay.
It's gov't money, which come with regulations, that create monopolies, which lock out competition, including monopolies on health care, health insurance (which should be insurance and not managed health accounts, as they are now). People used to pay doctors out of pocket because the costs were low and falling, then came in government to fix an non-existing problem.
It's not only a choice between: do what your gov't forces you under the gun point or GTFO.
There is another choice - fuck the government and the horse it rode in on. It's up to the individuals to make individual choices and to help those they want to help without being forced by the guns of gov't officials.
Ron Paul provided free medical care to patients who couldn't afford his services and he never accepted a penny from Medicare in his practice.
Even before he had his own practice, back in 1972 he helped people who weren't helped by the system and took care of their bills. Black people, and that's a guy who is labeled a 'racist' today by the MSM.
So instead of creating giant bureaucracies that end up destroying the economies and under the barrel of a government gun forcing everybody to participate in something that can actually do on their own, with donations or work, how about we let the people truly decide if they care about others?
Yes, the individuals deciding what and when they do on their own in their own lives. What a novel and a radical concept.
Retirement should be moved down to 45, who needs stupid people?
No, not good enough. We should move retirement age down to 35 - you'll at least have 10 years with the same cognitive abilities while retired.
Of-course moving it down to 25 means you'll have 20 YEARS of fully intelligent (or whatever passes for intelligent nowadays) life in front of you.
However if we move it down to 15, then it would be just awesome. Graduate from school and retire at about the same time. Work sucks anyway, why bother starting?
---
Makes perfect sense.
That is until you realise that somebody actually has to do something to feed all these retired and very smart individuals.
I don't want Unity on my computer and I don't watch TV, just youtube videos. They are going the way of a TV on a general computer with Unity and sacrificing normal desktop for it.
Slashdot Mirror
The ultimate Irony that will probably be lost on you is that based on free market principles Kodak is a perfect example of the market doing it's job and punishing a company that has not kept up and is no longer producing valuable products services that people want to buy.
- this is funny combined with this:
If they HAD NOT been 'attacked by the ebil gubment' this fate would probably have been avoided, and we probably wouldn't even have digital imaging now because they would have invented it, sat on it and/or prevented digital cameras from being imported.
You don't see the obvious stupidity in those statements? You don't clearly. It's government that created the copyright/patent system that even allows companies to use government force to prevent others from reverse-engineering or even coming up with their own solutions that are similar in nature to solve the same problem, and you are saying: government monopoly creation is a good thing?
The government CREATES the monopoly in the first place, by granting these 'copyrights/patents' and protecting them for the businesses. There should no government involvement in any of it, copyrights and patents and limiting liability and "insuring" against anything, thus creating moral hazards etc.etc.
This is lost on you, that the only entity that creates monopolies is government. As to businesses, they are using the government provided laws in order to attempt and ensure their 'walled gardens'.
How else would it be possible for a company to lock anybody into their own walled garden if there was no government laws CREATING and PROTECTING the walled gardens of patents and copyrights in the first place?
Patents, copyrights, DMCA? Now SOPA and PIPA? All the other protectionist stuff? And you are saying it's going to be "lost on me"?
It's thick irony, layer upon layer.
Well, not necessarily, often people start companies with the goal of selling them, sometimes owners just want to retire. This is not one of those situations here, but the government involvement is likely to cause massive layoffs in one or both of these companies later on.
- except that the regulation itself is unconstitutional and the fact is that all monopolies are created by government, not by market. In free market monopolies don't exist, only economies of scale, only companies that provide good product at good price, otherwise others enter the market with new ideas, tech and better prices.
But, I can tell that you kneel at the altar and think it's infallible ... so, whatever ... I completely disagree with you.
- that's a straw-man, I don't know what it means 'markets are infallible', I don't know what a 'fallibility' of a market is.
What I do know is that governments interfere with private individuals making private decisions and they end up destroying the markets.
Blah blah blah ... corporations would fuck us all over if someone didn't keep an eye on them. Don't believe me? Go feed your children some melamine laced baby formula.
- sure, this happens, and it's a crime, nobody has the right to harm others. There is nothing that needs to be done from 'regulations' point of view, only the existing criminal laws need to apply.
Of-course governments created the moral hazard by removing legal liability from corporations and so it's near impossible to hold anybody personally responsible and that is a problem, but again, it's a government created problem.
Not true at all, not when you have so called 'anti-trust' legislation thrown against you by the government.
I am not saying that Kodak would have survived for sure if government wasn't attacking it earlier, but you can't say they were at fault for their business when government was heavily meddling with it.
It's similar enough with the government interfering with AT&T and T-Mobile. Gov't prevents the merger and later one or both companies will suffer enough damage that may put them out of business, but you will say: it's definitely their fault, they couldn't survive in the market. Well, how do you know that the merger would not have given them some sort of an edge that they need to survive?
You can't have government interfering with private businesses, private property with all these unconstitutional regulations and laws and taxes and counterfeiting and then say - these companies were definitely destined for failure or these entire markets were definitely destined for failure.
The only thing we know for sure is that when government interferes with market, it causes failure.
Here is what will happen to the company if it goes bankrupt: various auctions, where parts of the company will be sold, or maybe just one buy out for a fraction of the cost, then there will be restructuring, which means assets will be salvaged, jobs eliminated, maybe departments will be sold off maybe technologies will be sold off, maybe the company will be rebuilt as a different company with some income generating streams, whatever. This is the same thing that happens when they take down an old ship or a plane or a train for example - parts and materials are salvaged, whatever can be sold is then sold.
The point of this is huge - it's to allow reuse/recycle of technologies and possibly jobs (even departments). Of-course Buffet is in this business, that's why he likes death taxes, because it gives him more opportunity for business, because taxes mostly can be paid only after assets are sold, such as businesses. Romney was in that business and now Gingrich and Santorum and Huntsman are saying he is a 'bad person' for doing this? Those sell outs.
When companies go down, just like any other assets, you have to reclaim what can be reused and recycled, otherwise untold amounts of useful technology and knowledge can be lost and even existing customers will go without any support. This is useful.
Of-course Kodak was attacked by the government in an anti-trust case and that is likely why the existing company with its existing management couldn't make the company survive.
Government loves to talk about jobs. Well here are a bunch of jobs they helped to destroy.
Ron Paul is absolutely correct Constitutionally, US federal government does not have the authority to destroy the rights of property owners.
"Civil Rights Act" should be called "Entitlements and Obligations Act" where it concerns private property, so let's not beat around the bush - this was unconstitutional, just like SS and Medicare and undeclared wars and counterfeiting money and 16th amendment, which contradicts 5th and 13th, and collects income taxes illegally.
Once again, the person who wrote some of the articles in Paul's newsletters over the decades was James B. Powell. Ron Paul wrote his articles, other people wrote theirs, sometime they wrote things that have nothing to do with Ron Paul's stand on things, clearly by the fact that Ron Paul was never a racist an he helped blacks for free in hospitals back in the day when nobody wanted to help and when he started his own practice he declined taking federal money (Medicare) and instead set prices according to what people could pay, sometimes getting paid in things like buckets of shrimp caught by the patients and sometimes with no charge at all.
The ONLY candidate (including the incumbent) who wants to stop the Drug war and release the prisoners who are jailed for non-violent drug related offenses cannot be racist by definition, because disproportionate majority of these prisoners are minorities - blacks and hispanics.
As to ending the federal reserve - that's just 100% correct. That's the thing that will break the ability of politicians and bankers to take over the economy, and just because you are blind and ignorant and don't understand it, does not change that fact.
USA shouldn't be submitting its sovereignty to UN. UN has no authority over US and US should pull out of that bitch.
NATO should be disbanded.
Birthright citizenship should not exist, doesn't exist anywhere else in the world.
Federal government has no authority to fund ridiculous organisations that promote or demote whatever sexual lifestyles.
Federal reserve must have competition, and so a gold standard (or in fact just returning to gold) is the correct thing to do to prevent crisis from happening in the first place by not allowing gov't and corporations that are close to government to get into counterfeit money debt and destroy credit to businesses and economy in the process. Gov't has no business guaranteeing loans to anybody either, so gold standard would prevent it, and it means it would have prevented the housing bubble for example.
All foreign aid must be stopped.
As to him believing that life starts at conception - that's his right to believe it.
---
Believing anything is his business, like if believes something about xmass and the Left, it's his business, it doesn't end up as any legislation.
Being against gay marriage is his business, he has no authority to dictate as a POTUS one way or another, it's a State rights issue, not federal gov't issue.
Being opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is completely correct based on the part of the bill that destroys the private property rights. He is 100% correct and that bill shouldn't have been called 'Civil Rights Act', it should have been called "Entitlements and Obligations Act"
Estate tax MUST be repealed, so must every other type of income based tax, corporate, payroll, etc. All of this stuff is unconstitutional because it is unapportioned and the 16th amednment contradicts the 5th and 13th.
You are FULL OF SHIT, linking to that SALON smear campaign story, there is NOTHING there about Paul making any racist remarks.
Salon is part of the establishment that is waging a BULLSHIT war against Ron Paul, who was never a racist, as my comment you are replying to PROVES.
I have no interest one way or another about Panama canal, don't care, don't know the issue.
Believing in New World Order is not in any way inconsistent with the BANKS ruling the entire world at this point, JP Morgan and GS and Bank of America and DB and UBS and Citi etc., they RUN the governments.
UNESCO, just like UN and NATO cannot tell USA citizens how to run their lives, they they want to tell them, so Ron Paul is again 100% correct.
You are a shill, a stooge, quite worthless.
When I was contracting between 2001 and 2009, I made more than BOTH of them, it was mostly Java.
When running my own company, the income is non-existent until there are real revenues, and then whatever is left over after all of the expenses and re-investments, that's what I can pay myself.
If it is all "property rights based", then money talks the loudest (most property), and the factories will absolutely dump their crap into the rivers.
- no, money only talks loudest when it can get the support of government. It is the role of the government to protect liberty and private property, otherwise there is no point to a government at all. All of those principles have been compromised and it's time to revamp them obviously, but money must not be an object of discussion when a judgement is made on whether 'dumping crap into rivers' is a private property violation or not, if multiple private properties are on that river and that river is used by more than one private owner.
As to 'prior to regulations' failing - that's nonsense. The government has been bought for a very long time, and that is where the failure comes in. It's these phantom regulations that are changed based on who has more money and influence in government.
There are only these regulations that must be protected: private liberty, privacy and private property.
You are absolutely 100% correct, I hate democracy as a principle because I've met the average voter. That's why I absolutely agree with those who wrote US Constitution, that a representative republic is better than a democracy, simply because the majority must never be allowed to rule the minority in any way.
no, you are either misinformed or a shill, a plant, a stooge.
First, even before he had his own practice, in 1972 he was helping black patients when nobody else would, and he took care of the hospital costs, I doubt too many racists are that charitable to minorities.
Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.
Take dumping raw sewage into the river. To stop that, we need law (regulation). This is an example of good regulation.
- actually the dumping itself was only possible because of the consent that the government gave to its utility monopolies, which it created by destroying competition in utility fields.
The only way to fix the specific problems of pollution is to get government protection out of the utility business and enact property right laws.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
You see, it's all good while the government just uses its powers to shake down small businesses in unrelated industries, the business must be regulated, right?
When they "regulate" the movers or when they regulate the retailers or when they regulate the brick manufacturers etc. etc., what do you think they are really doing? You think they are doing you a favour? Guess why the business and labour regulations cause massive outflow of investment and jobs to countries with much fewer regulations.
This is the same thing, but finally they hit somewhere it hurts and you can't ignore it and even CHEER for it.
When gov't regulates the banks and creates a massive monopoly formation by destroying competition and the government ensures the monopoly with FDIC (you didn't think they insured YOU with this nonsense, did you? It was creating a massive moral hazard, so you wouldn't care what bank you lent your money to), when gov't creates a monopoly in banking and then gives banks free money from Federal reserve, counterfeits the money, sets crazy 0% price on money borrowing and destroys the credit market for businesses, you don't care, you think it's good - it's gov't regulations.
Now they show you how it's done with something you care about, and what now? Why is this more important than anything else they've done before? Medical regulations and monopoly creation, same with education, same with banking, houses, money itself, energy, food, you pick your subject, it's government regulated and destroyed.
It's exactly the same thing, the difference is it's not a small enough group of people for you not to care about their rights being violated. Yes, this is violation of your right to speech and to do business, just like every other government regulation is a violation of your right to speech and property and business, all of them are, it's just different industries are not as visible to you and you don't care.
This is good, the fact that the government now decided to hit you where it hurts is good, because that's when the masses start caring, only when it starts hurting them very very directly.
I don't know what you are all referring to here, but if it's those newsletters, here is who actually wrote them: James B. Powell
Oh, don't let the reality stand in the way of your ideology.
Paulâ(TM)s support base is a patchwork of libertarian-minded Republicans and independent voters drawn to his non-interventionist foreign policy views and distrust of the federal government. A surge in same-day registration tomorrow would, presumably, be a very good thing for Paul.
Recent polling in Iowa suggest Paul does very well with voters unaffiliated with either party. In the most recent Des Moines Register poll the libertarian-leaning congressman won 42 percent of unaffiliated voters, with Romney well behind at 19 percent.
Yeah, here is one of those MSM reports.
They are showing Romney at 43% and then Gingrich at 9% and Huntsman at 7% in NH. They are saying then that Romney has 30% lead on all other candidates.
Of-course they leave out Ron Paul completely, who actually is about 20% there.
Who are these people that do this brilliant piece of 'non-partisan reporting'? CBS.
I'm much more inclined to look at a candidate that uses or has used technology versus those who just like to talk about it.
- then it's Ron Paul, no contest.
Why, you ask?
Because without technology and especially the Internet where would Ron Paul's campaign be? You certainly wouldn't hear about him or anybody like him in the MSM, so then what, town hall meetings?
Ron Paul is actually using the technology in the political process. Obama's blackberry and what not, and you are still going to get SOPA and PIPA and no veto from Obama.
Do you realise now how silly it is, to say that the most important thing is who uses the technology most is your preferred candidate, because you are actually oblivious as to how the technology is really used?
The question is actually this: who is going to prevent government force from taking your liberty to use and work with technology that you choose?
It's 3 o'clock and so it's time to shop shop shop.
Say, have you ever sat at your computer and had a thought of eating something while watching the porn? Has FBI ever storm your house to get you and your computer and have you thought to yourself: Dammit, I wish I could just eat that harddrive to prevent the agents from finding my treasured information? Well NOW YOU CAN!
Our latest line of products includes edible salmon drives, they will not only store your most 'important' data securely, but they taste like your favorite fish chips.
Buy NOW and get a bottle of this excellent Lemon Tartar Sauce absolutely FREE!
Buy 2 and get 1 free. We'll also throw in 2 crab memory sticks, an oyster mouse and a carp pad. ALL with just five easy payments of $19.99.
Order will not last, call now.
(void where prohibited, batteries not included).
Well good luck because the richest of the rich only want to help each other
- makes sense. But if the richest of the rich are that rich because they stole money from people through their connection to the federal and state government, and they are getting free money from the Federal reserve and they are getting government contracts, then those are the people you want to kick out of the government structures, and that's not going to happen at all ever until the government is forced *by force, be it elections or violence* to return to obeying the law, and Constitution is the law that prevents individuals from being abused by government growth, and gov't taking over individual's lives, liberty and property.
Rich people who make it by providing services and products need to be encouraged to do business in your economy, not discouraged.
Rich people who get their money from the government in the first place, be it by contracts or be it by federal reserve or be it by illegal wars etc.etc., those need to be kicked out and gov't power needs to be reduced to only do what it is allowed to do.
As to 'schools, roads, utilities' - the time after US Civil war and before the 1913 shows that growth of overall strength of economy lifts all boats. You want more people to become rich, not the other way around, because wealth is savings and it's what allows more investment, including all investments that deal with infrastructure and education and transport and health and food, etc.
The rich also want to become richer, so that's why they invest all of the money they don't use into new businesses, but as long as the only business that is profitable is government business and free money, that's where all of the investments will be made and it will crash the real economy.
Of-course this bankruptcy was not inevitable even in the face of the various disruptive technologies but only when government decided to step in and tell Kodak what it could and could not do, how it could not diversify its business, how it could not invest into other businesses and opportunities that the failure of the company became inevitable.
You think government CREATES jobs? It never jobs, it has no job-creating capacity. Even jobs that are directly created with government money cost more jobs that are destroyed/prevented from being created in the private sector, because every government sponsored job is a job that should never have existed and it only exists by taxing productive sectors.
Governments are the only real reasons for the economic disasters around the world since the beginning of the man kind.
No, that's not obvious at all.
What IS obvious is that where there is an opportunity for a government to grab some power by instituting some new program under the guise of helping society somehow, the government will grab that power, will grab money for that power and eventually will destroy the very system that it set off to 'save' from a non-existing threat.
Gov't money is what is causing rise of prices in education, health care, houses, and all things now, that the USD and bonds are the current debt bubble being inflated.
It's not for the lack of charitable people or lack of doctors only charging what patients can pay.
It's gov't money, which come with regulations, that create monopolies, which lock out competition, including monopolies on health care, health insurance (which should be insurance and not managed health accounts, as they are now). People used to pay doctors out of pocket because the costs were low and falling, then came in government to fix an non-existing problem.
The consequences are here now.
False choice.
It's not only a choice between: do what your gov't forces you under the gun point or GTFO.
There is another choice - fuck the government and the horse it rode in on. It's up to the individuals to make individual choices and to help those they want to help without being forced by the guns of gov't officials.
Ron Paul 2012.
Ron Paul provided free medical care to patients who couldn't afford his services and he never accepted a penny from Medicare in his practice.
Even before he had his own practice, back in 1972 he helped people who weren't helped by the system and took care of their bills. Black people, and that's a guy who is labeled a 'racist' today by the MSM.
So instead of creating giant bureaucracies that end up destroying the economies and under the barrel of a government gun forcing everybody to participate in something that can actually do on their own, with donations or work, how about we let the people truly decide if they care about others?
Yes, the individuals deciding what and when they do on their own in their own lives. What a novel and a radical concept.
You are not thinking.
Retirement should be moved down to 45, who needs stupid people?
No, not good enough. We should move retirement age down to 35 - you'll at least have 10 years with the same cognitive abilities while retired.
Of-course moving it down to 25 means you'll have 20 YEARS of fully intelligent (or whatever passes for intelligent nowadays) life in front of you.
However if we move it down to 15, then it would be just awesome. Graduate from school and retire at about the same time. Work sucks anyway, why bother starting?
---
Makes perfect sense.
That is until you realise that somebody actually has to do something to feed all these retired and very smart individuals.
I don't want Unity on my computer and I don't watch TV, just youtube videos. They are going the way of a TV on a general computer with Unity and sacrificing normal desktop for it.