Yes, my maturity must be calculated based on the way I spell the name of a business I personally find a waste of bandwidth. As to the rest of it - I am sorry, I failed with you, I tried make a joke, it didn't work, hope you do not begrudge me this failure for too long, are we square?
As an example, no local producer of goods could ever compete with the likes of Walmart as Walmart, system-wide, could adjust pricing to make up for reduced pricing in a given area. There's no such thing as "competition" when going up against mega corps such as that.
- what is natural about Walmart? The ties to the government, which provide them with the preferential treatment?
But what is it that you find wrong with that store? They are working hard day and night to bring you the cheapest ass goods little Chinese hands can make. They are increasing their efficiency, I am sure even US military buys their services in business analysis for developing the most efficient shipping strategies.
AT&T had all sorts of protection by the governments, from the Fed to State and municipal, people were expressly forbidden from competing with them, that's just an insult, the injury was that AT&T was declared a "national monopoly" by the federal government, which supposedly was to improve "national security".
There were thousands of policies that directly helped AT&T to have no competition in the market for decades.
As to wireless - all of the bands must be for sale, and those who can make the most profit out of them should own them, because that's the point - those who make the most profit (without government help/regulations) are the ones, who are providing the most needed/used service.
What happened, k5 isn't cutting it for you anymore?
By the way, if you are ever in Lucerne, leave a message here, I'll buy you some soup.
As to the rest of the drivel - government makes everybody equally.... poor, not more than that. Only free market competition forces people to come up with everything new and interesting, with all the new products and services, all while reducing costs and increasing efficiency. But you'd rather lament on the unfairness of that system, which allows some to be more than others, while greatly increasing the actual wealth of society - production, than the system you prefer, which punishes people who actually do the work of increasing the wealth, all while promoting the worthless consumption by the welfare state proles.
ah, how sweet, the k5 troll rearing its head above the water once more.
As to your claim that people turn into criminals without the 'society' (read, the rich and Chinese) paying for their education, well that's nonsense based on history. Without public education people don't become criminals, they become apprentices (as long, as government doesn't fuck that up as well, as it did, with all the minimum wage and other so called 'pro-labor', but really anti-job laws).
Sure, some turn into criminals - well that's what private security forces and guns are for.
This just take the concept of 'cruel and unusual' punishment to a whole new level. I don't know what I would do if I was forced by a court to do something with twuter, would I live through that without horrific mental trauma? Unlikely.
As a vegetarian I do not particularly care much, but wouldn't that only add to the nutrient content of the product?
Kidding aside, the free market capitalism brought all sorts of improvements and inventions/innovations into the food production, storage, safety, this includes everything: from refrigeration, to preservation, to cheapness and abundance of the products.
Of-course then the government stepped in, (especially Nixon), and made put in price controls, "fighting" the symptoms of the very inflation he caused, by defaulting on the US obligation to give gold back for US dollars to anybody, asking for it. The various agricultural subsidies didn't help the matter, ensuring that the kinds of foods people eat are high on sugars and low on actual nutrition.
please cite examples where the "free market" has helped any major economic power.
- how about helping a non-major economic power to become one? USA 19 century. China of our time.
Natural monopolies are not a problem, as if they abuse that, eventually competition rises, especially given any new technologies. As long as there is no government protecting a monopoly of any kind, competition arises.
AT&T was turned into a government protected monopoly, I am sure that it helped your wired and wireless data plans to be competitive in the world market. Did it?
Hey, dumbass clown of the earth, how about using the puny clump of half-gray goo that sits between your ears before commenting here, or is that too much effort?
The anti-trust laws were created to fight trusts, which were originally helped by the government in the first place, and while those laws were used a couple of times to break certain trusts, in actuality what the government did since 1913 is protected every single large business there is out there, all of this culminating in the 'too big to fail' in 1929 (yeah, 1929 first) and then the biggest known to the generation xyz of today - the 2008 'too big to fail', and every time the government stepped in to save the monopolies, not to break them, all of this done by destroying the currency, the purchasing power, the market and the economy, and thus the society. I think your brain became a collateral victim of that particular crime as well.
Anyway, I hope you find the pieces of what you are looking for in the trash can of history, and for your sake, they better be able to put that Humpty Dumpty back together again through a hole in your scull.
Do you really think businesses are so trustworthy that they shouldn't be policed
- wrong question.
Businesses should not have government power in them, should not have government protecting them, people who run them should not get government protection.
You can't put a business on trial for murder, but you can put a business owner or a manager on trial for murder, thus, when government created the very idea of 'limited liability' and applied it to businesses, to create the corporation, which protects the management/owners from legal liability, became the moment, when corporations were born and got the power OF the government.
The problem is not with business, but problem is with government protecting some businesses while destroying others and thus distorting the free market and destroying the competition and responsibility.
You also seem to be seeing "free market" and "government regulation" as polar opposites.
- they are.
what would stop our businesses from stooping to particularly destructive forms of competition, such as murdering the employees, suppliers, and even customers of rivals
- criminal law.
Another bit of confusion is mistaking government interference for what is really business interference.
- the root of the problem lies in the population, which allows the government to go beyond its boundaries and distort and manipulate the businesses and the economy, even destroy the currency, because if the government didn't have those powers allowed to it (and it does not have them, Constitutionally at least), then there would be no profit for a business to try and buy government officials, if those officials couldn't help the corporation to achieve some specific economic outcomes.
Of-course I mean the government must be extremely small, not 10% of population working for it, as it is now, but less than 1% for sure, less even than 0.03%, then spending wouldn't be an issue, because there wouldn't be much to spend on beyond the minimum military and the court system.
"Free market capitalism" is inherently unstable. It requires a great amount of regulation to even exist.One *must* be for government regulation (or be insane: see "libertarian") to be for free market capitalism.
- beautiful sentence, which negated itself, caused the universe to fold into nothingness and then explode into everything.
I am calling him a Marxists for his Marxists views, such as this:
The cause of unemployment is not someone or society deciding that software should be free. The cause of the problem is largely economic policies designed to benefit only the rich. Such as driving wages down.
- that's a person who buys into Marxist thinking and also does not understand that if there was no government control over market, the competition would drive all costs down, not only wages, and that is a net positive for the economy, which in 19 century USA worked that way - dollar was becoming more valuable, while goods were becoming more accessible and cheaper.
In that situation the wages are not even necessarily pushed down, but they may keep steady, while the purchasing power grows, which is the preferred economic outcome as opposed to the government created inflation, which drives all costs up, the wages also go up trying to catch up, but they never can.
What's keeping the greedy and stupid from becoming tyrannical?
- simple: they are not out to try and 'better' the society, to 'right' the wrongs, etc. They are only interested in their own enrichment, and that keeps them quite occupied, so they don't have time, energy and interest for being tyrannical. However they eventually end up creating a different type of tyranny - tyranny of the mob, as for them that's the way to stay in office, (which is all they are concerned about), by promising every single thing the idiot voters want them to do with somebody else's money.
Great Depression was created by the US government printing money after the 1921-22 recession was over, once Harding cut gov't spending by 70%. Great Depression started with US propping up UK pound, and then all the bail outs and the government spending and stimulus and more mis-allocation of resources. I left a comment about it some time ago.
I hate to break it to you, but living in 1900 or 1910 wasn't the utopian society you make it seem
- never said it was a 'utopia'.
I said it was a healthier economy, which allowed innovation.
Just because you can point at 1900 and say that in some towns (overall child mortality was 10%) was 30% for some towns, doesn't mean anything.
I can point that in 1800 the child mortality rate was 25% overall, not 10% overall as it already was in 1900, which was a huge drop attributed to the increasing wealth of the population due exactly to free market capitalism.
As to life expectancy - 50 years is a false number, that was the average calculated by adding all those children who died never making it to 50 years. One's life expectancy rose dramatically, the further from childhood the person was, people lived well into their seventies and eighties and nineties back in all those centuries regardless of your contention to make it seem like people were dropping dead at the age of 50 in 1900. That's plainly ridiculous.
Work place deaths were a daily occurrence because having something like guard rails where not required during this time.
- so? Industries were learning and efficiencies were increased in production, I am sure it is not in the best interest of a business to lose experienced people, so whatever safety precautions were eventually appearing (out of NOTHING), were created by the industries.
If you think 1900 was such a great time then cut your electricity usage to about 1/10 of your existing usage.
- stupid.
Stupid. The increase in wealth of the society due to capitalism and free market provided people with the ability to use much more than they ever could before, that's why the population has exploded at least by a factor of 4 since 1900, given all the inventions and innovations of that age, and the reason we can use much more energy today, is because of all that innovation. Saying that a person must go back to less comfort, something equal to the comfort of 1900 today, if he believes that the economic structure was better then than it is now, that's just stupid.
Throw away your fridge and any means to keep food fresh
- why? The fridge technology became usable exactly during the 19 century due to the capitalism and free market, so one more stupid point by an AC.
try walking to work, working 15 hours a day for 6 days a week for a wage that would pay approximately 1/5 of what you're making now without adjusting prices for inflation.
- ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, what inflation?
In 19 century the US economy was experiencing DEFLATION, my patently ignorant AC. Deflation - reduction of monetary supply. Money became x2 more valuable by the 1913, than it was in 1800. What inflation?
As a consequence of deflation, prices were falling throughout the century, while competition was increasing and new businesses created more and more wealth in the economy.
Remove all of your access any public service by not sending your children to school, not taking them to a doctor when they're sick because you can't afford it.
- which is a good thing. There must be no public services. All services need to be private.
I'm sick of hearing from Libertarians about some utopian dream in the 19th century any very early 20th without looking at all the things government regulation has done
- money printing and borrowing, stealing income, FDIC moral hazard, which eventually lead to the banks, that became 'too big to fail', because they didn't have to compete on risk aversion, only on interest rates, moral hazard of SS, which created generations of dependent people, moral hazard of gov't money in education, health, military, housing, roads, infrastructure, transportation, energy, telecommunications, etc.etc., all of which is disastrous and the consequences are a complete destruction of the economy and the dollar.
I don't know what 'everything' is for you, but the economy was growing, wealth was increasing, money was strengthening, innovation was most abundant exactly when US had the most real type of free market capitalism it ever had, and it was 19 century, before 1913.
You don't know shit about anything - throwing it back at you.
Those people, listed as 'robber barons', all have enjoyed close ties to government, using their ties to increase their profits, thus gov't was participating in the market economy at the time just as well, only it was participating with much fewer people, as it was a much smaller government.
The rest of your 'comment' is just pure vitriol without as much as a glimpse of intelligence o reason or knowledge. Go, brew your hate somewhere in a dark corner.
My 'whining'?:) Well, the good thing is that such a person as RMS won't make it into government, I'd rather have greedy and stupid people there, completely evil, than his type, which believes he'll be doing 'good', while turning tyrannical. I remember what that kind of a person turns a country into given power, so thanks, but no thanks.
the America was not 'divided amount 12 rich people" in 19 century. 19 century was the epitome of growth of economic wealth in USA, as the dollar was constantly strengthening while the production was growing, new ideas, inventions, innovation was making it to the market every day, all of which was driven exactly by competition among anybody who was willing to save some money or was able to borrow some money and start a business.
The '12 richest people' - from the tycoons and heads of largest trusts to robber barons, all benefited from close government ties.
Anyway, you can go ahead now with more ad-hominem 'moronic illusion ignorant bullshit' theory, I don't care.
Everything changes - the megas wouldn't exist if government wasn't there, protecting them from any competition, saving them from their resource mis-management, which ultimately collapses them.
2008 MUST have made it clear to you that there is no such thing that cannot be brought down by its own doing (well, actually all of human history must have made it clear to you, see USSR and early last century Germany and the Roman Empire for reference.)
I explained in detail what I mean by him being anti-free market and pro-government regulations here.
The paradox is that he simultaneously reconciles his believe that government must be in control over the markets, while at the same time being against government setting rules that favor large corporations, but the underlying reason for both of those things is the same - government involvement into the market and economy and setting the fiscal policy. He genuinely does not understand the economics and how the economy is distorted and resources are mis-allocated by the government regulations, maybe that's how he manages not to see the paradox.
the paradox is not that he is just anti-free market and pro-government control, but that he is that AND that he is also against government skewing the market at the same time, by passing laws that make it illegal to share the passwords, etc.
Yes, and that's why the people who are in control of the monetary supply are the ones in ultimate control over the freedoms of the people (or lack thereof). I am talking about the Fed and the Treasury.
Never mind standing armies - those who print money set the policy.
Yeah, it's old news. There is a paradox here with RMS simultaneously being anti-free market capitalism and being pro-government control, while hating the natural expression of power of that pro-government control over the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, my maturity must be calculated based on the way I spell the name of a business I personally find a waste of bandwidth. As to the rest of it - I am sorry, I failed with you, I tried make a joke, it didn't work, hope you do not begrudge me this failure for too long, are we square?
As an example, no local producer of goods could ever compete with the likes of Walmart as Walmart, system-wide, could adjust pricing to make up for reduced pricing in a given area. There's no such thing as "competition" when going up against mega corps such as that.
- what is natural about Walmart? The ties to the government, which provide them with the preferential treatment?
But what is it that you find wrong with that store? They are working hard day and night to bring you the cheapest ass goods little Chinese hands can make. They are increasing their efficiency, I am sure even US military buys their services in business analysis for developing the most efficient shipping strategies.
AT&T had all sorts of protection by the governments, from the Fed to State and municipal, people were expressly forbidden from competing with them, that's just an insult, the injury was that AT&T was declared a "national monopoly" by the federal government, which supposedly was to improve "national security".
There were thousands of policies that directly helped AT&T to have no competition in the market for decades.
As to wireless - all of the bands must be for sale, and those who can make the most profit out of them should own them, because that's the point - those who make the most profit (without government help/regulations) are the ones, who are providing the most needed/used service.
Cheers.
Keep this shit coming, at least it's amusing, though factually insane.
What happened, k5 isn't cutting it for you anymore?
By the way, if you are ever in Lucerne, leave a message here, I'll buy you some soup.
As to the rest of the drivel - government makes everybody equally.... poor, not more than that. Only free market competition forces people to come up with everything new and interesting, with all the new products and services, all while reducing costs and increasing efficiency. But you'd rather lament on the unfairness of that system, which allows some to be more than others, while greatly increasing the actual wealth of society - production, than the system you prefer, which punishes people who actually do the work of increasing the wealth, all while promoting the worthless consumption by the welfare state proles.
Cheers.
ah, how sweet, the k5 troll rearing its head above the water once more.
As to your claim that people turn into criminals without the 'society' (read, the rich and Chinese) paying for their education, well that's nonsense based on history. Without public education people don't become criminals, they become apprentices (as long, as government doesn't fuck that up as well, as it did, with all the minimum wage and other so called 'pro-labor', but really anti-job laws).
Sure, some turn into criminals - well that's what private security forces and guns are for.
This just take the concept of 'cruel and unusual' punishment to a whole new level. I don't know what I would do if I was forced by a court to do something with twuter, would I live through that without horrific mental trauma? Unlikely.
As a vegetarian I do not particularly care much, but wouldn't that only add to the nutrient content of the product?
Kidding aside, the free market capitalism brought all sorts of improvements and inventions/innovations into the food production, storage, safety, this includes everything: from refrigeration, to preservation, to cheapness and abundance of the products.
Of-course then the government stepped in, (especially Nixon), and made put in price controls, "fighting" the symptoms of the very inflation he caused, by defaulting on the US obligation to give gold back for US dollars to anybody, asking for it. The various agricultural subsidies didn't help the matter, ensuring that the kinds of foods people eat are high on sugars and low on actual nutrition.
please cite examples where the "free market" has helped any major economic power.
- how about helping a non-major economic power to become one? USA 19 century. China of our time.
Natural monopolies are not a problem, as if they abuse that, eventually competition rises, especially given any new technologies. As long as there is no government protecting a monopoly of any kind, competition arises.
AT&T was turned into a government protected monopoly, I am sure that it helped your wired and wireless data plans to be competitive in the world market. Did it?
Hey, dumbass clown of the earth, how about using the puny clump of half-gray goo that sits between your ears before commenting here, or is that too much effort?
The anti-trust laws were created to fight trusts, which were originally helped by the government in the first place, and while those laws were used a couple of times to break certain trusts, in actuality what the government did since 1913 is protected every single large business there is out there, all of this culminating in the 'too big to fail' in 1929 (yeah, 1929 first) and then the biggest known to the generation xyz of today - the 2008 'too big to fail', and every time the government stepped in to save the monopolies, not to break them, all of this done by destroying the currency, the purchasing power, the market and the economy, and thus the society. I think your brain became a collateral victim of that particular crime as well.
Anyway, I hope you find the pieces of what you are looking for in the trash can of history, and for your sake, they better be able to put that Humpty Dumpty back together again through a hole in your scull.
Do you really think businesses are so trustworthy that they shouldn't be policed
- wrong question.
Businesses should not have government power in them, should not have government protecting them, people who run them should not get government protection.
You can't put a business on trial for murder, but you can put a business owner or a manager on trial for murder, thus, when government created the very idea of 'limited liability' and applied it to businesses, to create the corporation, which protects the management/owners from legal liability, became the moment, when corporations were born and got the power OF the government.
The problem is not with business, but problem is with government protecting some businesses while destroying others and thus distorting the free market and destroying the competition and responsibility.
You also seem to be seeing "free market" and "government regulation" as polar opposites.
- they are.
what would stop our businesses from stooping to particularly destructive forms of competition, such as murdering the employees, suppliers, and even customers of rivals
- criminal law.
Another bit of confusion is mistaking government interference for what is really business interference.
- the root of the problem lies in the population, which allows the government to go beyond its boundaries and distort and manipulate the businesses and the economy, even destroy the currency, because if the government didn't have those powers allowed to it (and it does not have them, Constitutionally at least), then there would be no profit for a business to try and buy government officials, if those officials couldn't help the corporation to achieve some specific economic outcomes.
Of-course I mean the government must be extremely small, not 10% of population working for it, as it is now, but less than 1% for sure, less even than 0.03%, then spending wouldn't be an issue, because there wouldn't be much to spend on beyond the minimum military and the court system.
"Free market capitalism" is inherently unstable. It requires a great amount of regulation to even exist .One *must* be for government regulation (or be insane: see "libertarian") to be for free market capitalism.
- beautiful sentence, which negated itself, caused the universe to fold into nothingness and then explode into everything.
insane.
I am calling him a Marxists for his Marxists views, such as this:
The cause of unemployment is not someone or society deciding that software should be free. The cause of the problem is largely economic policies designed to benefit only the rich. Such as driving wages down.
- that's a person who buys into Marxist thinking and also does not understand that if there was no government control over market, the competition would drive all costs down, not only wages, and that is a net positive for the economy, which in 19 century USA worked that way - dollar was becoming more valuable, while goods were becoming more accessible and cheaper.
In that situation the wages are not even necessarily pushed down, but they may keep steady, while the purchasing power grows, which is the preferred economic outcome as opposed to the government created inflation, which drives all costs up, the wages also go up trying to catch up, but they never can.
What's keeping the greedy and stupid from becoming tyrannical?
- simple: they are not out to try and 'better' the society, to 'right' the wrongs, etc. They are only interested in their own enrichment, and that keeps them quite occupied, so they don't have time, energy and interest for being tyrannical. However they eventually end up creating a different type of tyranny - tyranny of the mob, as for them that's the way to stay in office, (which is all they are concerned about), by promising every single thing the idiot voters want them to do with somebody else's money.
Karl Marx is your authority on business? Hmmm.
Great Depression was created by the US government printing money after the 1921-22 recession was over, once Harding cut gov't spending by 70%. Great Depression started with US propping up UK pound, and then all the bail outs and the government spending and stimulus and more mis-allocation of resources. I left a comment about it some time ago.
I hate to break it to you, but living in 1900 or 1910 wasn't the utopian society you make it seem
- never said it was a 'utopia'.
I said it was a healthier economy, which allowed innovation.
Just because you can point at 1900 and say that in some towns (overall child mortality was 10%) was 30% for some towns, doesn't mean anything.
I can point that in 1800 the child mortality rate was 25% overall, not 10% overall as it already was in 1900, which was a huge drop attributed to the increasing wealth of the population due exactly to free market capitalism.
As to life expectancy - 50 years is a false number, that was the average calculated by adding all those children who died never making it to 50 years. One's life expectancy rose dramatically, the further from childhood the person was, people lived well into their seventies and eighties and nineties back in all those centuries regardless of your contention to make it seem like people were dropping dead at the age of 50 in 1900. That's plainly ridiculous.
Work place deaths were a daily occurrence because having something like guard rails where not required during this time.
- so? Industries were learning and efficiencies were increased in production, I am sure it is not in the best interest of a business to lose experienced people, so whatever safety precautions were eventually appearing (out of NOTHING), were created by the industries.
If you think 1900 was such a great time then cut your electricity usage to about 1/10 of your existing usage.
- stupid.
Stupid. The increase in wealth of the society due to capitalism and free market provided people with the ability to use much more than they ever could before, that's why the population has exploded at least by a factor of 4 since 1900, given all the inventions and innovations of that age, and the reason we can use much more energy today, is because of all that innovation. Saying that a person must go back to less comfort, something equal to the comfort of 1900 today, if he believes that the economic structure was better then than it is now, that's just stupid.
Throw away your fridge and any means to keep food fresh
- why? The fridge technology became usable exactly during the 19 century due to the capitalism and free market, so one more stupid point by an AC.
try walking to work, working 15 hours a day for 6 days a week for a wage that would pay approximately 1/5 of what you're making now without adjusting prices for inflation.
- ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, what inflation?
In 19 century the US economy was experiencing DEFLATION, my patently ignorant AC. Deflation - reduction of monetary supply. Money became x2 more valuable by the 1913, than it was in 1800. What inflation?
As a consequence of deflation, prices were falling throughout the century, while competition was increasing and new businesses created more and more wealth in the economy.
Remove all of your access any public service by not sending your children to school, not taking them to a doctor when they're sick because you can't afford it.
- which is a good thing. There must be no public services. All services need to be private.
I'm sick of hearing from Libertarians about some utopian dream in the 19th century any very early 20th without looking at all the things government regulation has done
- money printing and borrowing, stealing income, FDIC moral hazard, which eventually lead to the banks, that became 'too big to fail', because they didn't have to compete on risk aversion, only on interest rates, moral hazard of SS, which created generations of dependent people, moral hazard of gov't money in education, health, military, housing, roads, infrastructure, transportation, energy, telecommunications, etc.etc., all of which is disastrous and the consequences are a complete destruction of the economy and the dollar.
I don't know what 'everything' is for you, but the economy was growing, wealth was increasing, money was strengthening, innovation was most abundant exactly when US had the most real type of free market capitalism it ever had, and it was 19 century, before 1913.
You don't know shit about anything - throwing it back at you.
Those people, listed as 'robber barons', all have enjoyed close ties to government, using their ties to increase their profits, thus gov't was participating in the market economy at the time just as well, only it was participating with much fewer people, as it was a much smaller government.
The rest of your 'comment' is just pure vitriol without as much as a glimpse of intelligence o reason or knowledge. Go, brew your hate somewhere in a dark corner.
My 'whining'? :) Well, the good thing is that such a person as RMS won't make it into government, I'd rather have greedy and stupid people there, completely evil, than his type, which believes he'll be doing 'good', while turning tyrannical. I remember what that kind of a person turns a country into given power, so thanks, but no thanks.
the America was not 'divided amount 12 rich people" in 19 century. 19 century was the epitome of growth of economic wealth in USA, as the dollar was constantly strengthening while the production was growing, new ideas, inventions, innovation was making it to the market every day, all of which was driven exactly by competition among anybody who was willing to save some money or was able to borrow some money and start a business.
The '12 richest people' - from the tycoons and heads of largest trusts to robber barons, all benefited from close government ties.
Anyway, you can go ahead now with more ad-hominem 'moronic illusion ignorant bullshit' theory, I don't care.
Everything changes - the megas wouldn't exist if government wasn't there, protecting them from any competition, saving them from their resource mis-management, which ultimately collapses them.
2008 MUST have made it clear to you that there is no such thing that cannot be brought down by its own doing (well, actually all of human history must have made it clear to you, see USSR and early last century Germany and the Roman Empire for reference.)
I explained in detail what I mean by him being anti-free market and pro-government regulations here.
The paradox is that he simultaneously reconciles his believe that government must be in control over the markets, while at the same time being against government setting rules that favor large corporations, but the underlying reason for both of those things is the same - government involvement into the market and economy and setting the fiscal policy. He genuinely does not understand the economics and how the economy is distorted and resources are mis-allocated by the government regulations, maybe that's how he manages not to see the paradox.
the paradox is not that he is just anti-free market and pro-government control, but that he is that AND that he is also against government skewing the market at the same time, by passing laws that make it illegal to share the passwords, etc.
As to citation - here is my comment from the story on RMS going to Palestine's university and not to Israel's on the same trip and the link in that comment goes to the article, which has all those citations, that I mention in that comment.
Yes, and that's why the people who are in control of the monetary supply are the ones in ultimate control over the freedoms of the people (or lack thereof). I am talking about the Fed and the Treasury.
Never mind standing armies - those who print money set the policy.
Yeah, it's old news. There is a paradox here with RMS simultaneously being anti-free market capitalism and being pro-government control, while hating the natural expression of power of that pro-government control over the market.
To stop those monsters 1-2-3
Here's a fresh new way that's trouble free
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...
Guarantee void in Tennessee!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!