'Bolivia produces' does not mean there are no poor people who don't produce. '115 million chickens' does not mean anything to people who have 0 chickens.
If Gates offered Bolivia money equivalent of the chickens, the government would have taken the check, cached it and bought itself another tank or a gold plated Mercedes, that would have been appropriate. As is, his gift is inappropriate, how does it benefit the already rich and powerful in Bolivia?
Gates clearly wants to try and teach a few people how to fish instead of donating fish that was caught already. To me it shows that he tried it the other way and realized it does nothing at all at reducing poverty.
Gates is now realizing what is obvious from the start: welfare is crap, it does not work to reduce poverty, only production does. Well, most of the West is not realizing it yet.
Gary Johnson is the only moral humanist in these elections. He wants freedom, he doesn't want the government to steal from anybody to redistribute to anybody else, doesn't want to spy on civilians for no reason, he would not start new wars (I wonder how he would deal with the current ones). In the USA he is a rarity today, unfortunatly.
Capitalism is not broken, it is collectivism and central planning that is broken. Free market capitalism clears supply and demand (including that of labour) at the correct price points.
Hold on, however if you are not even dealing in USA dollars, the USA government still wants a cut of that. Does USA own every currency out there? Does it own every gold molecule? Is there a Fed's stamp on every gold particle in existence? However if you did some work for somebody and they paid you with a piece of gold, the IRS wants its cut. By the way, IRS is not the Fed, right? So why is IRS demanding Federal reserve notes exactly, under your logic shouldn't it be the Fed demanding that money?
If you personally grow some apples and exchange those apples for a chicken that somebody else grew, the IRS wants a cut in Federal reserve notes.
Was there an IRS or Fed stamp on your apples or on that chicken?
I was 100% against the Iraq invasion and at the time argued to no end with a bunch of Americans on some stupid forum called 'triangle' something. The Americans truly fucking believed this nonsense, they were as certain about it then as they are certain today that the Federal reserve has their best interest in mind and is doing the right thing and that 'inflation is good for you'.
AFAIC the very fact that the USA invaded Iraq was proof positive that Saddam didn't have anything much in terms of weapons. If there were any real WMDs there, USA would have stayed out. The entire event was televised, think about that, that was the first real war that people watched on TV almost in real time. Even Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't have dared allow a war to be shown on TV if Saddam had any weapons to speak of.
I think all laws regulating any business, labour, money must be cancelled. Since that isn't happening, I am perfectly satisfied with at least some businesses getting around these laws (that shouldn't exist AFAIC in the first place). Personally I think with the kind of money that some governments are interfering with when they come to steal from the googles of the world or come to shut down ubers of the world, it is more than enough reason to place contracts on the heads of any and all officials, judges, politicians who are doing this. I would have made it a personal goal to personally hurt those, who tried hurting me this way. Hopefully something happens to put these politicians and officials in their place, where they belong.
I don't agree at all that Uber is bad for anybody except for monopolies. Nobody forces you to work as an uber driver, nobody forces you to buy uber service. The company is great, AFAIC, the problem is government and all forms of collectivism, not yet another business model you don't like.
DEA is really unconstitutional but of course this and the very basic idea of individual freedom got lost in all the following cases...
People must have the freedom to use any substance on themselves they desire. Government forbidding them in oppression and eventually it will become clear to everybody that individuals must not be oppressed by governments. Until then you will have your DEAs and such.
What happened to property rights? What happened to the most fundamental right of the individual to not be attacked by the government and have property stolen without any trial or judgement, nothing at all?
Actual Free Trade does not require any government to do anything beyond getting its hands out of business and out of people's pockets.
You want to trade freely with other nations? Go ahead, trade.
Government 'free trade' is not Free Trade at all, it's a bunch of rules and strings attached to everything, there is no liberty to set contract terms, there is no liberty of anything since government regulates the entire thing.
Consumer reviews are being cited as the reason for destroying anonymity online? That is the most fake reason for central control of your lifes ever invented. Never mind the 'think of the children', never mind 'terrorist', but 'consumer reviews'????? Shit. The real reason is not failing in line, not doing what some politician tells you, not paying tax on everything under the sun, leaking information exposing government corruption (oxymoron, government IS corruption by definition of the word), embarrassing some government official online, etc. Consumer reviews have nothing to do with anything.
EU was set up yo fix problems that apparently could not be fixed by individual governments. So to fix problems of governments a super government was set up. As if two wrongs can make a right. The reality is that people need less centralization not more, this includes centralization of government. It is better to have 1000 small corrupt governments that can be dealt with individually and that present competition to each other corruption than 1 massive super government that is the final authority, it is of-course also corrupt and there is no competition and no escape from it anywhere. Most people are actually stupid, so naturally many of the stupid people think the government should exist and be as massive and powerful as possible to 'protect' them from all the life's issues. What the stupid don't understand is that the massive government 'protects' them from life and gives them prison instead.
So someone with physical access to your phone can add a couple of wires to it and connect your phone to a computer that decodes some signals to listen to you??? I guess I am missing the part where this makes ant kind of sense. Don't pay attention to the wires sticking out of your phone. Don't pay attention to the computer these wires go into. Also we are going to record you at the frequencies that are useless for listening....
Biden is clearly the establishment backup plan in case something happens to Clinton and she is indicted by the FBI for her illegal home made mail server used for government purposes.
Trump is getting stabbed in the back quite a bit lately (not that he doesn't deserve all the stabbing).
Bernie is a threat to the establishment that must be eliminated clearly.
Personally I cheer for Gary Johnson, he has 10% of the vote already. Unfortunately there is no ancap candidate, but in a sense it would have been ironic to have one...
It is robbery, the important thing to understand that if it continues this way while the productivity is in the hands of the few, so is ability to create. Ability to create also is ability to destroy. Working out a way to distribute a pathogen to billions involved in this robbery and then to activate the pathogen upon some centralized signal will put an end to this problem AFAIC.
Ha ha ha, dumb ass, you have no imagination, nothing at all. Da Vinci did something that others couldn't, same with people who have capital - they can do something others cannot. Da Vinci's work would not exist if it wasn't for people with capital. To argue that people with capital should not be using it for their own purposes - furthering the arts and sciences, would be arguing against Da Vinci's work. That you don't see it is not surprising, I already stated that you are blind, you are confirming it here very clearly.
Cue the/. comments how this development requires UBI to 'take care' of the poor language handlers in Geneva. Of-course Switzerland just voted down an attempt at UBI in a democratic referendum, 78% against the UBI.
Today Robin Hood is evil. Under a supposed equality under law, Robin Hood is evil. Is Robin Hood evil under slavery (inequality of people under law), that is an interesting question.
You are full of crap, not just lacking imagination. Leonardo Da Vinci was leaps and bounds above and beyond most people of his time, should his time have been spent on collectivism, volunteering maybe somehow to increase the outcomes of others rather than doing the maximum he could with his own abilities? No, that would have been a complete waste. The outcomes for others are improved every day, not by wasting capital savings of the productive part of the population, but by the productive part of the population using their capital savings to do the best for themselves.
Yes, you heard it, 'trickle down economics' is what I am talking about. People producing, saving, investing to improve their own lives is what builds the economy that everybody enjoys. There will never be and there shouldn't be equality of outcome forced by any form of violence, it does not do a thing for discovery, it does however hold everything back by dissipating capital savings and reducing individual freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
'Bolivia produces' does not mean there are no poor people who don't produce. '115 million chickens' does not mean anything to people who have 0 chickens.
If Gates offered Bolivia money equivalent of the chickens, the government would have taken the check, cached it and bought itself another tank or a gold plated Mercedes, that would have been appropriate. As is, his gift is inappropriate, how does it benefit the already rich and powerful in Bolivia?
Gates clearly wants to try and teach a few people how to fish instead of donating fish that was caught already. To me it shows that he tried it the other way and realized it does nothing at all at reducing poverty.
Gates is now realizing what is obvious from the start: welfare is crap, it does not work to reduce poverty, only production does. Well, most of the West is not realizing it yet.
I disagree on every point, but most importantly I disagree that government oppression and aggression can be used for any form of redistribution.
AFAIC it is 'the poor group' that has gained advantage from the structure created by the taxes paid, not 'the wealthy group'.
The poor are benefiting disproportionately from the money that the wealthy have disproportionately stolen from them by the government.
Gary Johnson is the only moral humanist in these elections. He wants freedom, he doesn't want the government to steal from anybody to redistribute to anybody else, doesn't want to spy on civilians for no reason, he would not start new wars (I wonder how he would deal with the current ones). In the USA he is a rarity today, unfortunatly.
Capitalism is not broken, it is collectivism and central planning that is broken. Free market capitalism clears supply and demand (including that of labour) at the correct price points.
Hold on, however if you are not even dealing in USA dollars, the USA government still wants a cut of that. Does USA own every currency out there? Does it own every gold molecule? Is there a Fed's stamp on every gold particle in existence? However if you did some work for somebody and they paid you with a piece of gold, the IRS wants its cut. By the way, IRS is not the Fed, right? So why is IRS demanding Federal reserve notes exactly, under your logic shouldn't it be the Fed demanding that money?
If you personally grow some apples and exchange those apples for a chicken that somebody else grew, the IRS wants a cut in Federal reserve notes.
Was there an IRS or Fed stamp on your apples or on that chicken?
I was 100% against the Iraq invasion and at the time argued to no end with a bunch of Americans on some stupid forum called 'triangle' something. The Americans truly fucking believed this nonsense, they were as certain about it then as they are certain today that the Federal reserve has their best interest in mind and is doing the right thing and that 'inflation is good for you'.
AFAIC the very fact that the USA invaded Iraq was proof positive that Saddam didn't have anything much in terms of weapons. If there were any real WMDs there, USA would have stayed out. The entire event was televised, think about that, that was the first real war that people watched on TV almost in real time. Even Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't have dared allow a war to be shown on TV if Saddam had any weapons to speak of.
Nice one, I am ROTFLMAO. All you have to do is take a look the mods on my comments to know how funny your statement is.
I think all laws regulating any business, labour, money must be cancelled. Since that isn't happening, I am perfectly satisfied with at least some businesses getting around these laws (that shouldn't exist AFAIC in the first place). Personally I think with the kind of money that some governments are interfering with when they come to steal from the googles of the world or come to shut down ubers of the world, it is more than enough reason to place contracts on the heads of any and all officials, judges, politicians who are doing this. I would have made it a personal goal to personally hurt those, who tried hurting me this way. Hopefully something happens to put these politicians and officials in their place, where they belong.
I don't agree at all that Uber is bad for anybody except for monopolies. Nobody forces you to work as an uber driver, nobody forces you to buy uber service. The company is great, AFAIC, the problem is government and all forms of collectivism, not yet another business model you don't like.
DEA is really unconstitutional but of course this and the very basic idea of individual freedom got lost in all the following cases...
People must have the freedom to use any substance on themselves they desire. Government forbidding them in oppression and eventually it will become clear to everybody that individuals must not be oppressed by governments. Until then you will have your DEAs and such.
I am completely amoral. I strongly prefer tabs but I can and sometimes do use spaces depending on the context.
What happened to property rights? What happened to the most fundamental right of the individual to not be attacked by the government and have property stolen without any trial or judgement, nothing at all?
Actual Free Trade does not require any government to do anything beyond getting its hands out of business and out of people's pockets.
You want to trade freely with other nations? Go ahead, trade.
Government 'free trade' is not Free Trade at all, it's a bunch of rules and strings attached to everything, there is no liberty to set contract terms, there is no liberty of anything since government regulates the entire thing.
Consumer reviews are being cited as the reason for destroying anonymity online? That is the most fake reason for central control of your lifes ever invented. Never mind the 'think of the children', never mind 'terrorist', but 'consumer reviews'????? Shit. The real reason is not failing in line, not doing what some politician tells you, not paying tax on everything under the sun, leaking information exposing government corruption (oxymoron, government IS corruption by definition of the word), embarrassing some government official online, etc. Consumer reviews have nothing to do with anything.
EU was set up yo fix problems that apparently could not be fixed by individual governments. So to fix problems of governments a super government was set up. As if two wrongs can make a right. The reality is that people need less centralization not more, this includes centralization of government. It is better to have 1000 small corrupt governments that can be dealt with individually and that present competition to each other corruption than 1 massive super government that is the final authority, it is of-course also corrupt and there is no competition and no escape from it anywhere. Most people are actually stupid, so naturally many of the stupid people think the government should exist and be as massive and powerful as possible to 'protect' them from all the life's issues. What the stupid don't understand is that the massive government 'protects' them from life and gives them prison instead.
Or Gary Johnson, who now has 10% national support.
So someone with physical access to your phone can add a couple of wires to it and connect your phone to a computer that decodes some signals to listen to you??? I guess I am missing the part where this makes ant kind of sense. Don't pay attention to the wires sticking out of your phone. Don't pay attention to the computer these wires go into. Also we are going to record you at the frequencies that are useless for listening....
Biden is clearly the establishment backup plan in case something happens to Clinton and she is indicted by the FBI for her illegal home made mail server used for government purposes.
Trump is getting stabbed in the back quite a bit lately (not that he doesn't deserve all the stabbing).
Bernie is a threat to the establishment that must be eliminated clearly.
Personally I cheer for Gary Johnson, he has 10% of the vote already. Unfortunately there is no ancap candidate, but in a sense it would have been ironic to have one...
Why does it matter to you who turns on the killswitch, this or that person?
It is robbery, the important thing to understand that if it continues this way while the productivity is in the hands of the few, so is ability to create. Ability to create also is ability to destroy. Working out a way to distribute a pathogen to billions involved in this robbery and then to activate the pathogen upon some centralized signal will put an end to this problem AFAIC.
Ha ha ha, dumb ass, you have no imagination, nothing at all. Da Vinci did something that others couldn't, same with people who have capital - they can do something others cannot. Da Vinci's work would not exist if it wasn't for people with capital. To argue that people with capital should not be using it for their own purposes - furthering the arts and sciences, would be arguing against Da Vinci's work. That you don't see it is not surprising, I already stated that you are blind, you are confirming it here very clearly.
Pure unadulterated nonsense to compare free people making their own decisions how to live their lives to slaves.
Cue the /. comments how this development requires UBI to 'take care' of the poor language handlers in Geneva. Of-course Switzerland just voted down an attempt at UBI in a democratic referendum, 78% against the UBI.
I discuss why UBI is the wrong idea in a few posts and there is an obvious backlash from the usual suspects here.
Today Robin Hood is evil. Under a supposed equality under law, Robin Hood is evil. Is Robin Hood evil under slavery (inequality of people under law), that is an interesting question.
You are full of crap, not just lacking imagination. Leonardo Da Vinci was leaps and bounds above and beyond most people of his time, should his time have been spent on collectivism, volunteering maybe somehow to increase the outcomes of others rather than doing the maximum he could with his own abilities? No, that would have been a complete waste. The outcomes for others are improved every day, not by wasting capital savings of the productive part of the population, but by the productive part of the population using their capital savings to do the best for themselves.
Yes, you heard it, 'trickle down economics' is what I am talking about. People producing, saving, investing to improve their own lives is what builds the economy that everybody enjoys. There will never be and there shouldn't be equality of outcome forced by any form of violence, it does not do a thing for discovery, it does however hold everything back by dissipating capital savings and reducing individual freedom.