You don't fight with such vigor to shut out debate unless the foundation of your argument is suspect.
Interesting comment.
As an exercise in honesty, if I were to assert that the moon is made out of green cheese, would you feel inclined to make a logical argument to refute my assertion?
From where I sit, I would simply tell any moron who diligently tried to back up that assertion that they were imbeciles and completely not worth a response - but that's me.
In fact, if we get rid of company taxes, society would save a lot of money on useless company tax advisors, and experts trying to close loopholes in tax laws.
Right - now there's a well thought-out concept.
Let's ensure that the people pay to keep the infrastructure that businesses use in good repair - even though the value that each citizen gets from that infrastructure varies across different earnings demographics. But no matter, those good-for-nothing poor people should pay to keep our corporate infrastructure in place, otherwise the rich will have to shoulder the burden - and that would be unfair to those who reap the greatest rewards from this system. Is that the point you were trying to make?
After all, think of the poor multinationals who pay little to no tax to the US government already. Why should those poor overvalued businesses have to contribute to our society in any meaningful manner? Look at the incredible myriads f benefit that the Trump corporate structure delivers to Americans. How could we live without the crap he foists on us and then brags about this garbage as if we couldn't live without him.
A CEO I worked for once said "People are idiots, they think they can raise minimum wadge or add taxes to a company to pay for some social benefit. Corporations pass the added expense on to the customer. Thus they never realize they are the ones paying the taxes not the company.
What your CEO missed in his rationalization is that society has little to no use for his corporation. In other words, he is running a failed business model which should be taxed out of existence because it adds no value to society.
In a just world, this asshole would then be forced on the dole and enjoy how wonderful a life he leads being pampered by the government./snark
Prey tell, what do you consider a better ideal than a Free Market based on **voluntary** (and thus, moral) exchange for perceived win-win ? You prefer involuntary (and thus, immoral) win-lose exchanges, such as the system called 'socialism' ?
I already answered that question.
A correctly regulated market which allows for a level playing field.
An alleged independent businessman as yourself wants *more* regulation?
Yes, that's correct. A businessman who has owned and operated his own business for going on 30 years wants the right amount of regulation.
But what's funny about that is that you actually think you should be allowed to have an opinion this in this discussion as if you are some kind of equal or peer to me.
ROFL! you are too funny, and rather transparent.
I understand that English is not your first language but I didn't realize that reading comprehension was such a challenge for you.
But please enlighten us all how your country is not hampered by regulation and how removing regulation would harm the country? I cannot wait to hear this.
Well, let me bring you up to date on what you obviously don't know.
The United States is now running equal to China as the world's single largest economy. We do this with less than 1/3rd of China's population.
In other words, the US is not hampered by regulation and if it is, maybe the rest of the world should immediately hamper themselves so they can catch up.
lemonade
Let's see if you can understand even the most basic concept so that you won't make even more of a complete jackass out of yourself.
I fully support and demand that any business selling food not only be licensed but inspected so as to insure that any food sold is safe to eat. I know that where you live food safety isn't a problem and that the when you get sick you probably shit pleasant smelling rainbows - but here in regulation land, we're not as lucky as you so obviously are.
This level of INSANITY is only possible due to assh0les like you, who cheerlead for it. "Land of the Free" ROFL !
It is said that imbeciles laugh at what they don't understand. Thank you for proving that adage correct.
I've a better idea.
That would be a refreshing change.
Name an index and I'll tell you whether my country is better or worse than yours. On pretty-much everything except purchasing power parity and military power we're vastly better than the USA. Lower corruption, greater social cohesion, happier populace, lower inequality, debt to GDP, gun crime, broadband availability and speeds, etc.
I thought you said you had a better idea.
When can I expect to read it?
The USA is indeed a very great country, but the smartest and richest people from the USA have been buying up massive estates in my country because once you have made your money in the USA life is MUCH better here.
So, you are about to be displaced out of your great country? Damn, I wonder how great life will be for you after that happens?
Yes, when you say "most" this is true. My country is one of the few NOT going to hell - because it follows the policies I'm talking about, and not the ones you are talking about.
Except that your country is being bought out from underneath you? If only there was some way to prevent that from happening... Undoubtedly less regulations will fix that challenge too.
You are so certain that what you strongly believe in now is the only possible course of action - you are delusional in your ignorance and your bad temper and arrogance is keeping you blind.
I love this! Nowhere did I ever say that anything is "the only possible course of action" but
True in that all we see are considered by economists to be "Hampered Free Markets" on one degree or another. But isn't a Free Market the ideal?
No, I do not believe the Free Market is the ideal, nor do I believe one can realistically exist any more than a pure democracy or communism.
sure, Government is required to regulate some aspects to preserve competition - but that is not what is seen in the USA.
Indeed.
You can't say the USA has a "light touch" regulatory environment, which is why your country is going to hell.
I find that generalization patently absurd based on the sweeping declaration that it made. And there are any number of reasons this country is going to hell but regulation probably is near the bottom of the list. I see people who willingly vote against their best interests as being one of the reasons why a political system which is based on people voting for their best interests is failing. And in case this statement was lost in the noise, the libertarian movement is largely based on people making the best decisions as to what is good for them.
Let me also add that this country isn't "going to hell" any more than most of the rest of them are - so it would be appreciated if we could keep this discussion inside the bounds of reality.
An entrepreneur cannot open a lemonade stand in California without requiring 29 permits. You think that is ideal? you think pushing back against this insanity is "not being in the real world" ?
I think your claim is pure hyperbole. I live in Maryland, I filed for a business license, paid the fee and that was it. In addition, I filed paperwork with the state department of taxation as well as declare my business name but both of those tasks took under five minutes each. Now, businesses that are engaged in using dangerous chemicals or a food handling facility have significantly more permitting (as they should) but for the most part opening a business here is relatively painless.
I wouldn't live there [Somalia], because I live in a country that is better than Somalia and the USA.
Wow, there's a subjective statement offered as though it was an indisputable fact. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm happy you think your country is so much better than either Somalia or the US but you do understand that some of us might not agree with you, right?
Feel free to identify this wonderful land so that we may all feel inferior to your paradise - unless, of course, you feel that we might not agree with you.
But would the Somalians be any better off with more Government? NO!
Well, how could anyone argue with that declaration? After all, you did type your opinion in ALL CAPS.
the problem in Somalia is Islamic jihad and Sharia supremacism
Those are only two of Somalia's problems and probably not the worst two. In fact, I could probably name a dozen more critical issue Somalia is facing without giving it too much thought.
- nothing to do with the "libertarian paradise" you despise.
How can I despise something that doesn't exist? You mistake my contempt for a badly thought-out concept for hatred when it is little more than ridicule.
The true question is "how much" regulation? I say "less is more".
Yes, you say "less is more" but you somehow can't actually quantify that limit - and there's where the problem comes in. It's like the Laffer curve - which some people point to when they talk about tax rates. The problem is, no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly where on that curve is optimal or where the tipping point lies - other than to say that 100% is too much and 0% would probably be too little.
That is why the meme is "Limited Government", NOT "Zero Government" (Anarchy), and you push in y
"Capitalist textbook" ? you mean "Free Market"? "capitalist" is the Marxist word for the Free Market.
Who are you kidding? If we are going to be honest about this subject, how about if we agree that there never has been anything even close to resembling a free market.
And what few experiments we have documented where unregulated markets were allowed to flourish, we saw monopolies take over the entire market. Perhaps the term "Gilded Age" means something to you.
No, the principal objective is to make *profit* - otherwise the business is unsustainable. But profit can be traded for market share, or social capital or a number of other things. You are not a very good businessman.
Perhaps, speaking as a business person, I should have used the term "profit" - but if you can't make money, profit is not going to happen. And as to trading profit for market share, that's typically not a sustainable model longer term, now is it? And social capital? - Sure, you run your business along those lines and get back to me as to how that works out long term. As to your comment about me being not a very good businessman, coming up on 30 years of supporting myself and family in a relatively comfortable lifestyle would disagree with you - but I'm sure you know better.
The interesting thing about Somalia is how well it is growing economically in the absence of Government. Now, Islamic jihad is causing all sorts of problems, as is tribalism and corruption - but it is undeniable that in the absence of Government regulation entrepreneurs are getting on and doing all sorts of stuff. It is clear you are not up with the play with what is going on in Somalia at all.
Sure, Somalia is a libertarian paradise. As I know you're just dying to move there and put your money where your mouth is, I won't hold you up any longer.
But your post is completely confused - on one hand you advocate Big Government, and on the other hand you try to portray yourself as some kind of "uber-capitalist".
Neither description is accurate. I believe in a correctly regulated market, one that levels the playing field. I have zero issues with government having electrified this country or put in place a system that allowed for the telecommunications network to become the gold standard of the world - but that was then. Today's quasi-deregulated insanity allows for - get this - one level of broadband in one neighborhood and literally across the street it isn't available. All this in the land of "Can you hear me now?" instead of providing excellent quality services, we get - hit or miss. Feel free to read the anecdotal evidence supplied above about how well Seattle is doing.
I guess that dichotomy is resolve once we understand that you are a "cronyist" who wants to suck more money from taxpayers that is not gained through voluntary exchange for your service - but is taken through the threat of State violence. Yeah, that explains your position precisely.
What color is the sky in your reality? Well there son, how about you pack all of that bullshit and move to a country where you earned income can roam free. Do it, many of us will even chip in to pay for that one way ticket.
And, for the record, when faced with the opportunity to "taking" taxpayer money, I turned it down - multiple times. I should probably add that I did so for reasons very different than what you'd probably think but you'd probably have a hard time believing it anyway.
Oh, and your "Mythical land" statements are just stupid. Just because you don't understand other countries that are leapfrogging the incompetence in the USA doesn't mean they don't exist.
Actually, I do understand that many countries are surpassing the US, most of which are doing so using government instead of private enterprise. In some cases, public/private partnerships are worked out which seem
Capitalist textbooks will also teach you that if you don't have any customers, you won't make money. Piss off customers and they'll go to another supplier. If government prevents the existence of another supplier, what you have isn't capitalism.
Yes, that's it. Dozens of businesses will spring forth and build incredibly expensive networks to fight over market share. And they will do this especially in cases where all of the businesses have driven the price to the absolute lowest possible dollar. This is how people who have never run a business think the world would run, if only libertarians were in charge.
Sadly, reality works along, well, more real lines.
What country do I live in, Einstein? you know NOTHING.
Oh, you live in Mythical land! Forgive me, I should have known. And much like Somalia, where infrastructure blossoms in the Spring sun along with the free medical care, your mythical country has free land for these companies which are unfettered by government to build their cable plant, fiber, and/or wireless on, which reduces their cost for such construction projects to nearly zero except for that free hardware. And because government has no use for money in mythical land, (where for profit businesses fight for the right to build infrastructure in locations which will never break even) there is no need for taxes to be collected because all of government's functions are grown right beside infrastructure on the midsummer's night's eves.
Clearly you are not in business, otherwise you wouldn't be so dumb as to trot out this cartoonish cultural Marxist meme. I call bs on your claim. Fool.
Established in 1987, which is more than likely before your parents finished wiping your ass for you. More to the point, if you actually understood anything about business, aside from what they teach you at Mythical Land Libertarian Bullshit University, you would understand that only objective is to make money. Any decent capitalistic textbook will tell you that making money will not be impeded by anything - especially customer satisfaction. And more to the point, even in Mythical Land, there is a massive capital layout required to bring these networks to life and to keep them continually maintained as well as upgraded as necessary. Oh and, I know a lot about this subject, I built these networks in hundreds of locations, all over world, with the exception of the Antarctic continent. So you might say I have quite a bit more experience in this field than you do - in spite of what you think about yourself.
Is there ANY place in America where converting anything into a monopoly that is tightly-tied to government has made the customers happy?????
Yes, Chattanooga, to name only one. Just because you have no idea what you're talking about (as evidenced by your above statement) doesn't mean you have an educated opinion. Get a fucking grip, will you?
I live in a country that has already leap-frogged America by *AVOIDING* the Big Government solutions you are advocating.
Bullshit. You live in a country where the government enabled a monopoly to control the infrastructure and for the time being you are seeing the benefit. If history has taught us anything, it is that this will change.
Businesses don't exist to keep their customers happy, that's not our job. We do what we do to keep our investors happy and if that means squeezing the customer for every last drop of blood we can get, we damn well do it.
And in the 1930s, you'd be the one telling us that we "had" to vote for either Stalin or Hitler, amirite?
No, in the 1930s, we'd be telling you that we need to provide telecommunications and electrification to just about every single address in the entire country.
Amazingly, we did this and when it came time for the entire country to ramp up production, we were able to meet that demand - unlike what might have happened if we listened to the morons now pushing this shit all over again.
This man intentionally voted to eliminate his own health care and then complained that the person he voted for is taking that coverage away.
At the risk of reducing your point to a cheap joke, this guy is a self-correcting problem.
Nonetheless, you point stands. What mass media has become is a watering hole to dispense carefully scripted messages to lead the sheep. And even more incredibly, this same medium is under constant attack for being too liberal.
A democracy, or democratic republic, if you will, requires an educated electorate. We have allowed our society to praise ignorance while shunning educated people in many ways. Even worse, we now accept that everyone's opinion is somehow equally valuable, as if some guy should be accorded the same standing in a discussion about cancer as a licensed oncologist. And when a healthy segment of the voting population can be directed to vote against their best interests, the foundation of our political system begins to crumble.
Here's where I object to this type to "educational reform".
If we allow this charade to come to its logical conclusion, in a couple of decades, a large percentage of Oklahomans will become largely unemployable in any capacity past menial labor. And if we accept that the demand for menial labor is going to steadily decrease, this leaves many of these people relegated the welfare ranks, ironically where the Republicans would prefer to let them starve.
This means that "we" (the larger SlashDot community) will eventually have to pay to carry these "miseducated" Americans or make the judgment call to let them get by on their own, something that I would be reticent to do.
Add to that, the fact that the Republicans will refuse to accept any responsibility for this catastrophe or will hand us the line that this was done by the old Republican Party and that the new, improved Republicans would never have enacted this type of legislation. Alternately, maybe they'll simply claim it was the liberal media that caused the problem, seeing as it would be hard to pin this on terrorism, drugs, or pornography.
As someone who doesn't know an ass from a hole in a tree, maybe we should poison the net with all kinds of pictures showing every single possible SCADA device ever made as having been installed in every single location. And just to keep things interesting, why don't we make up a few dozen brands to add to the mix.
Sometimes bad information is more potent than no information at all.
My cheeky comment was more to open a discussion on one aspect that always troubled me - the founders talked a good game, but they certainly didn't walk it. This well known violation seems at odds with their ideals.
As I mentioned previously, what Franklin did does not excuse anyone else from committing the same act. Yes, I agree with you. The founders touted the "All men are created equal" line but then ensured that slaves were not defined as men.
However, and let's be clear on this point, none of this has any relevance of the topic of the moment. We have laws in place which dictate how our government is allowed to operate. And if we can prosecute and then jail Americans for breaking many of our laws where no tangible victim can be found, we can damn well prosecute and then incarcerate those who break our laws regardless of their claim that they were simply following orders.
By all means, provide your source that supports your ridiculous claims.
If I had made any ridiculous claims, I would be glad to supply sources. But since everything I brought to your attention is in the public record, maybe you should shun those moronic sites you have been reading and try reality for a while.
There's the short list detailing everything you've worked so hard to ignore. So, how about if you do a little reading and see if you can find out how many people went to jail for those thousands of lynchings history has recorded. And while you're at it, how about if you show me where in the FBI's charter authorizes surveillance on lawful folk singers, non-violent rock stars as well as religious men who preached peaceful assembly to redress what they believed to be illegal grievances.
Ignorance can be unlearned while willful ignorance is an inexcusable state of mind.
And we know that Benjamin F read the mail of suspected Tories... I guess the Amendments may have been tongue in cheek?
The FBI saw that these people were blacklisted and in MLK's case the FBI deliberately tried to drive him to commit suicide.
But even if we were to accept that Franklin did break what would eventually become our law of the land, the argument that two wrongs make a right is an absurd proposition.
you're talking about protesters from a time when the FBI routinely invented evidence against people.
Sorry, but no. Most, if not all those named have admitted their guilt.
Yes. I have no doubt that you believe what you posted given the level of credibility for the sources where you get your information.
I love the fact that it actually makes sense to you that people who were convicted of felony murder are walking around free in our country. If only Charles Manson had been a liberal, he'd undoubtedly be president of a university by now, right?
I'm very familiar with the document. In fact, I am very fond of it.
Now if the FBI was to say they were keeping an eye on these folks because they had intel they were up to nefarious purposes, then yes.
And yet, after all this time, we do know that they FBI routinely acted against people like Martin Luther King, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger and John Lennon among many others without "intel" of any kind other than a gut feeling by Jedgar himself.
The KKK is an extreme left-wing organization led by democrats, and has been since its inception. White democrat politicians from the south are almost universally racist even today.
There is an extreme level of willful ignorance shown in your comment that makes me wonder if you are trolling or actually that misinformed.
The FBI went after the KKK, and plenty of other far-right wing organizations.
Indeed. And in those cases, they went after violent assholes who lynched people, bombed churches and generally broke the law with impunity as no jury in their locations would ever convict them.
Conversely, while right-wing terrorists are demonized, left-wing terrorists get hired as professors to spread their influence on the next generation
Oh, you mean like when the FBI tried to force Martin Luther King to commit suicide? Or when they went after people like Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, or John Lennon?
No, you're talking about protesters from a time when the FBI routinely invented evidence against people. Of course, common sense should have told you that people convicted of felony murders usually spend a lot of time in jail.
And that is quite the source you provided. Do you usually read sites where "journalists" write in potato quality English?
While it may be ironic that Boudin received a teaching position at a university she was plotted to bomb...
Preventing political messages?
yep... they where doing their cold war job.
Are you actually admitting that we no longer hold the FBI to working within the framework of the Constitution? If so, why do we incarcerate Americans for any crimes if we allow treason (as defined by the intentional undermining of our Constitution) to operate with impunity?
Basically, this whole thing is just a complaint about the FBI doing their job.
Would you mind explaining exactly what you think the FBI is expected to do as part of their job?
Last I heard, having a political philosophy, of just about any kind, was protected by the Constitution. Can you imagine the uproar we would see if the FBI targeted the entire conservative bloc in this country? Conversely, when the FBI went after the left, no one seemed to care enough to do anything about restricting these actions.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't fight with such vigor to shut out debate unless the foundation of your argument is suspect.
Interesting comment.
As an exercise in honesty, if I were to assert that the moon is made out of green cheese, would you feel inclined to make a logical argument to refute my assertion?
From where I sit, I would simply tell any moron who diligently tried to back up that assertion that they were imbeciles and completely not worth a response - but that's me.
In short, current technology - no. I have high hopes for thorium reactors, if we ever put the money into making them viable.
In fact, if we get rid of company taxes, society would save a lot of money on useless company tax advisors, and experts trying to close loopholes in tax laws.
Right - now there's a well thought-out concept.
Let's ensure that the people pay to keep the infrastructure that businesses use in good repair - even though the value that each citizen gets from that infrastructure varies across different earnings demographics. But no matter, those good-for-nothing poor people should pay to keep our corporate infrastructure in place, otherwise the rich will have to shoulder the burden - and that would be unfair to those who reap the greatest rewards from this system. Is that the point you were trying to make?
After all, think of the poor multinationals who pay little to no tax to the US government already. Why should those poor overvalued businesses have to contribute to our society in any meaningful manner? Look at the incredible myriads f benefit that the Trump corporate structure delivers to Americans. How could we live without the crap he foists on us and then brags about this garbage as if we couldn't live without him.
A CEO I worked for once said "People are idiots, they think they can raise minimum wadge or add taxes to a company to pay for some social benefit. Corporations pass the added expense on to the customer. Thus they never realize they are the ones paying the taxes not the company.
What your CEO missed in his rationalization is that society has little to no use for his corporation. In other words, he is running a failed business model which should be taxed out of existence because it adds no value to society.
/snark
In a just world, this asshole would then be forced on the dole and enjoy how wonderful a life he leads being pampered by the government.
Prey tell, what do you consider a better ideal than a Free Market based on **voluntary** (and thus, moral) exchange for perceived win-win ? You prefer involuntary (and thus, immoral) win-lose exchanges, such as the system called 'socialism' ?
I already answered that question.
A correctly regulated market which allows for a level playing field.
An alleged independent businessman as yourself wants *more* regulation?
Yes, that's correct. A businessman who has owned and operated his own business for going on 30 years wants the right amount of regulation.
But what's funny about that is that you actually think you should be allowed to have an opinion this in this discussion as if you are some kind of equal or peer to me.
ROFL! you are too funny, and rather transparent.
I understand that English is not your first language but I didn't realize that reading comprehension was such a challenge for you.
But please enlighten us all how your country is not hampered by regulation and how removing regulation would harm the country? I cannot wait to hear this.
Well, let me bring you up to date on what you obviously don't know.
The United States is now running equal to China as the world's single largest economy. We do this with less than 1/3rd of China's population.
In other words, the US is not hampered by regulation and if it is, maybe the rest of the world should immediately hamper themselves so they can catch up.
lemonade
Let's see if you can understand even the most basic concept so that you won't make even more of a complete jackass out of yourself.
I fully support and demand that any business selling food not only be licensed but inspected so as to insure that any food sold is safe to eat. I know that where you live food safety isn't a problem and that the when you get sick you probably shit pleasant smelling rainbows - but here in regulation land, we're not as lucky as you so obviously are.
This level of INSANITY is only possible due to assh0les like you, who cheerlead for it. "Land of the Free" ROFL !
It is said that imbeciles laugh at what they don't understand. Thank you for proving that adage correct.
I've a better idea.
That would be a refreshing change.
Name an index and I'll tell you whether my country is better or worse than yours. On pretty-much everything except purchasing power parity and military power we're vastly better than the USA. Lower corruption, greater social cohesion, happier populace, lower inequality, debt to GDP, gun crime, broadband availability and speeds, etc.
I thought you said you had a better idea.
When can I expect to read it?
The USA is indeed a very great country, but the smartest and richest people from the USA have been buying up massive estates in my country because once you have made your money in the USA life is MUCH better here.
So, you are about to be displaced out of your great country? Damn, I wonder how great life will be for you after that happens?
Yes, when you say "most" this is true. My country is one of the few NOT going to hell - because it follows the policies I'm talking about, and not the ones you are talking about.
Except that your country is being bought out from underneath you? If only there was some way to prevent that from happening... Undoubtedly less regulations will fix that challenge too.
You are so certain that what you strongly believe in now is the only possible course of action - you are delusional in your ignorance and your bad temper and arrogance is keeping you blind.
I love this! Nowhere did I ever say that anything is "the only possible course of action" but
True in that all we see are considered by economists to be "Hampered Free Markets" on one degree or another. But isn't a Free Market the ideal?
No, I do not believe the Free Market is the ideal, nor do I believe one can realistically exist any more than a pure democracy or communism.
sure, Government is required to regulate some aspects to preserve competition - but that is not what is seen in the USA.
Indeed.
You can't say the USA has a "light touch" regulatory environment, which is why your country is going to hell.
I find that generalization patently absurd based on the sweeping declaration that it made. And there are any number of reasons this country is going to hell but regulation probably is near the bottom of the list. I see people who willingly vote against their best interests as being one of the reasons why a political system which is based on people voting for their best interests is failing. And in case this statement was lost in the noise, the libertarian movement is largely based on people making the best decisions as to what is good for them.
Let me also add that this country isn't "going to hell" any more than most of the rest of them are - so it would be appreciated if we could keep this discussion inside the bounds of reality.
An entrepreneur cannot open a lemonade stand in California without requiring 29 permits. You think that is ideal? you think pushing back against this insanity is "not being in the real world" ?
I think your claim is pure hyperbole. I live in Maryland, I filed for a business license, paid the fee and that was it. In addition, I filed paperwork with the state department of taxation as well as declare my business name but both of those tasks took under five minutes each. Now, businesses that are engaged in using dangerous chemicals or a food handling facility have significantly more permitting (as they should) but for the most part opening a business here is relatively painless.
I wouldn't live there [Somalia], because I live in a country that is better than Somalia and the USA.
Wow, there's a subjective statement offered as though it was an indisputable fact. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm happy you think your country is so much better than either Somalia or the US but you do understand that some of us might not agree with you, right?
Feel free to identify this wonderful land so that we may all feel inferior to your paradise - unless, of course, you feel that we might not agree with you.
But would the Somalians be any better off with more Government? NO!
Well, how could anyone argue with that declaration? After all, you did type your opinion in ALL CAPS.
the problem in Somalia is Islamic jihad and Sharia supremacism
Those are only two of Somalia's problems and probably not the worst two. In fact, I could probably name a dozen more critical issue Somalia is facing without giving it too much thought.
- nothing to do with the "libertarian paradise" you despise.
How can I despise something that doesn't exist? You mistake my contempt for a badly thought-out concept for hatred when it is little more than ridicule.
The true question is "how much" regulation? I say "less is more".
Yes, you say "less is more" but you somehow can't actually quantify that limit - and there's where the problem comes in. It's like the Laffer curve - which some people point to when they talk about tax rates. The problem is, no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly where on that curve is optimal or where the tipping point lies - other than to say that 100% is too much and 0% would probably be too little.
That is why the meme is "Limited Government", NOT "Zero Government" (Anarchy), and you push in y
"Capitalist textbook" ? you mean "Free Market"? "capitalist" is the Marxist word for the Free Market.
Who are you kidding? If we are going to be honest about this subject, how about if we agree that there never has been anything even close to resembling a free market.
And what few experiments we have documented where unregulated markets were allowed to flourish, we saw monopolies take over the entire market. Perhaps the term "Gilded Age" means something to you.
No, the principal objective is to make *profit* - otherwise the business is unsustainable. But profit can be traded for market share, or social capital or a number of other things. You are not a very good businessman.
Perhaps, speaking as a business person, I should have used the term "profit" - but if you can't make money, profit is not going to happen. And as to trading profit for market share, that's typically not a sustainable model longer term, now is it? And social capital? - Sure, you run your business along those lines and get back to me as to how that works out long term. As to your comment about me being not a very good businessman, coming up on 30 years of supporting myself and family in a relatively comfortable lifestyle would disagree with you - but I'm sure you know better.
The interesting thing about Somalia is how well it is growing economically in the absence of Government. Now, Islamic jihad is causing all sorts of problems, as is tribalism and corruption - but it is undeniable that in the absence of Government regulation entrepreneurs are getting on and doing all sorts of stuff. It is clear you are not up with the play with what is going on in Somalia at all.
Sure, Somalia is a libertarian paradise. As I know you're just dying to move there and put your money where your mouth is, I won't hold you up any longer.
But your post is completely confused - on one hand you advocate Big Government, and on the other hand you try to portray yourself as some kind of "uber-capitalist".
Neither description is accurate. I believe in a correctly regulated market, one that levels the playing field. I have zero issues with government having electrified this country or put in place a system that allowed for the telecommunications network to become the gold standard of the world - but that was then. Today's quasi-deregulated insanity allows for - get this - one level of broadband in one neighborhood and literally across the street it isn't available. All this in the land of "Can you hear me now?" instead of providing excellent quality services, we get - hit or miss. Feel free to read the anecdotal evidence supplied above about how well Seattle is doing.
I guess that dichotomy is resolve once we understand that you are a "cronyist" who wants to suck more money from taxpayers that is not gained through voluntary exchange for your service - but is taken through the threat of State violence. Yeah, that explains your position precisely.
What color is the sky in your reality? Well there son, how about you pack all of that bullshit and move to a country where you earned income can roam free. Do it, many of us will even chip in to pay for that one way ticket.
And, for the record, when faced with the opportunity to "taking" taxpayer money, I turned it down - multiple times. I should probably add that I did so for reasons very different than what you'd probably think but you'd probably have a hard time believing it anyway.
Oh, and your "Mythical land" statements are just stupid. Just because you don't understand other countries that are leapfrogging the incompetence in the USA doesn't mean they don't exist.
Actually, I do understand that many countries are surpassing the US, most of which are doing so using government instead of private enterprise. In some cases, public/private partnerships are worked out which seem
Capitalist textbooks will also teach you that if you don't have any customers, you won't make money. Piss off customers and they'll go to another supplier. If government prevents the existence of another supplier, what you have isn't capitalism.
Yes, that's it. Dozens of businesses will spring forth and build incredibly expensive networks to fight over market share. And they will do this especially in cases where all of the businesses have driven the price to the absolute lowest possible dollar. This is how people who have never run a business think the world would run, if only libertarians were in charge.
Sadly, reality works along, well, more real lines.
What country do I live in, Einstein? you know NOTHING.
Oh, you live in Mythical land! Forgive me, I should have known. And much like Somalia, where infrastructure blossoms in the Spring sun along with the free medical care, your mythical country has free land for these companies which are unfettered by government to build their cable plant, fiber, and/or wireless on, which reduces their cost for such construction projects to nearly zero except for that free hardware. And because government has no use for money in mythical land, (where for profit businesses fight for the right to build infrastructure in locations which will never break even) there is no need for taxes to be collected because all of government's functions are grown right beside infrastructure on the midsummer's night's eves.
Clearly you are not in business, otherwise you wouldn't be so dumb as to trot out this cartoonish cultural Marxist meme. I call bs on your claim. Fool.
Established in 1987, which is more than likely before your parents finished wiping your ass for you. More to the point, if you actually understood anything about business, aside from what they teach you at Mythical Land Libertarian Bullshit University, you would understand that only objective is to make money. Any decent capitalistic textbook will tell you that making money will not be impeded by anything - especially customer satisfaction. And more to the point, even in Mythical Land, there is a massive capital layout required to bring these networks to life and to keep them continually maintained as well as upgraded as necessary. Oh and, I know a lot about this subject, I built these networks in hundreds of locations, all over world, with the exception of the Antarctic continent. So you might say I have quite a bit more experience in this field than you do - in spite of what you think about yourself.
Is there ANY place in America where converting anything into a monopoly that is tightly-tied to government has made the customers happy?????
Yes, Chattanooga, to name only one. Just because you have no idea what you're talking about (as evidenced by your above statement) doesn't mean you have an educated opinion. Get a fucking grip, will you?
I live in a country that has already leap-frogged America by *AVOIDING* the Big Government solutions you are advocating.
Bullshit. You live in a country where the government enabled a monopoly to control the infrastructure and for the time being you are seeing the benefit. If history has taught us anything, it is that this will change.
Businesses don't exist to keep their customers happy, that's not our job. We do what we do to keep our investors happy and if that means squeezing the customer for every last drop of blood we can get, we damn well do it.
And in the 1930s, you'd be the one telling us that we "had" to vote for either Stalin or Hitler, amirite?
No, in the 1930s, we'd be telling you that we need to provide telecommunications and electrification to just about every single address in the entire country.
Amazingly, we did this and when it came time for the entire country to ramp up production, we were able to meet that demand - unlike what might have happened if we listened to the morons now pushing this shit all over again.
This man intentionally voted to eliminate his own health care and then complained that the person he voted for is taking that coverage away.
At the risk of reducing your point to a cheap joke, this guy is a self-correcting problem.
Nonetheless, you point stands. What mass media has become is a watering hole to dispense carefully scripted messages to lead the sheep. And even more incredibly, this same medium is under constant attack for being too liberal.
A democracy, or democratic republic, if you will, requires an educated electorate. We have allowed our society to praise ignorance while shunning educated people in many ways. Even worse, we now accept that everyone's opinion is somehow equally valuable, as if some guy should be accorded the same standing in a discussion about cancer as a licensed oncologist. And when a healthy segment of the voting population can be directed to vote against their best interests, the foundation of our political system begins to crumble.
Here's where I object to this type to "educational reform".
If we allow this charade to come to its logical conclusion, in a couple of decades, a large percentage of Oklahomans will become largely unemployable in any capacity past menial labor. And if we accept that the demand for menial labor is going to steadily decrease, this leaves many of these people relegated the welfare ranks, ironically where the Republicans would prefer to let them starve.
This means that "we" (the larger SlashDot community) will eventually have to pay to carry these "miseducated" Americans or make the judgment call to let them get by on their own, something that I would be reticent to do.
Add to that, the fact that the Republicans will refuse to accept any responsibility for this catastrophe or will hand us the line that this was done by the old Republican Party and that the new, improved Republicans would never have enacted this type of legislation. Alternately, maybe they'll simply claim it was the liberal media that caused the problem, seeing as it would be hard to pin this on terrorism, drugs, or pornography.
As someone who doesn't know an ass from a hole in a tree, maybe we should poison the net with all kinds of pictures showing every single possible SCADA device ever made as having been installed in every single location. And just to keep things interesting, why don't we make up a few dozen brands to add to the mix. Sometimes bad information is more potent than no information at all.
See: Human Health, Tobacco.
Your ranting still doesn't detract one bit from what I've said, and fails to disprove one single case I cited.
Only in your own mind, only in yours.
My cheeky comment was more to open a discussion on one aspect that always troubled me - the founders talked a good game, but they certainly didn't walk it. This well known violation seems at odds with their ideals.
As I mentioned previously, what Franklin did does not excuse anyone else from committing the same act. Yes, I agree with you. The founders touted the "All men are created equal" line but then ensured that slaves were not defined as men.
However, and let's be clear on this point, none of this has any relevance of the topic of the moment. We have laws in place which dictate how our government is allowed to operate. And if we can prosecute and then jail Americans for breaking many of our laws where no tangible victim can be found, we can damn well prosecute and then incarcerate those who break our laws regardless of their claim that they were simply following orders.
By all means, provide your source that supports your ridiculous claims.
If I had made any ridiculous claims, I would be glad to supply sources. But since everything I brought to your attention is in the public record, maybe you should shun those moronic sites you have been reading and try reality for a while.
FBI's "Suicide Letter" to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Dangers of Unchecked Surveillance
Pete Seeger
Woody Guthrie
John Lennon
Even more black people were lynched in the U.S. than previously thought, study finds
The Murder of Emmett Till
There's the short list detailing everything you've worked so hard to ignore. So, how about if you do a little reading and see if you can find out how many people went to jail for those thousands of lynchings history has recorded. And while you're at it, how about if you show me where in the FBI's charter authorizes surveillance on lawful folk singers, non-violent rock stars as well as religious men who preached peaceful assembly to redress what they believed to be illegal grievances.
Ignorance can be unlearned while willful ignorance is an inexcusable state of mind.
And we know that Benjamin F read the mail of suspected Tories... I guess the Amendments may have been tongue in cheek?
The FBI saw that these people were blacklisted and in MLK's case the FBI deliberately tried to drive him to commit suicide.
But even if we were to accept that Franklin did break what would eventually become our law of the land, the argument that two wrongs make a right is an absurd proposition.
Sorry, but no. Most, if not all those named have admitted their guilt.
Yes. I have no doubt that you believe what you posted given the level of credibility for the sources where you get your information.
I love the fact that it actually makes sense to you that people who were convicted of felony murder are walking around free in our country. If only Charles Manson had been a liberal, he'd undoubtedly be president of a university by now, right?
Check out Amendment 1.
I'm very familiar with the document. In fact, I am very fond of it.
Now if the FBI was to say they were keeping an eye on these folks because they had intel they were up to nefarious purposes, then yes.
And yet, after all this time, we do know that they FBI routinely acted against people like Martin Luther King, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger and John Lennon among many others without "intel" of any kind other than a gut feeling by Jedgar himself.
The KKK is an extreme left-wing organization led by democrats, and has been since its inception. White democrat politicians from the south are almost universally racist even today.
There is an extreme level of willful ignorance shown in your comment that makes me wonder if you are trolling or actually that misinformed.
Fucking Poe's Law - How does it work?
The FBI went after the KKK, and plenty of other far-right wing organizations.
Indeed. And in those cases, they went after violent assholes who lynched people, bombed churches and generally broke the law with impunity as no jury in their locations would ever convict them.
Conversely, while right-wing terrorists are demonized, left-wing terrorists get hired as professors to spread their influence on the next generation
Oh, you mean like when the FBI tried to force Martin Luther King to commit suicide? Or when they went after people like Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, or John Lennon?
No, you're talking about protesters from a time when the FBI routinely invented evidence against people. Of course, common sense should have told you that people convicted of felony murders usually spend a lot of time in jail.
And that is quite the source you provided. Do you usually read sites where "journalists" write in potato quality English?
While it may be ironic that Boudin received a teaching position at a university she was plotted to bomb...
Preventing political messages? yep... they where doing their cold war job.
Are you actually admitting that we no longer hold the FBI to working within the framework of the Constitution? If so, why do we incarcerate Americans for any crimes if we allow treason (as defined by the intentional undermining of our Constitution) to operate with impunity?
Basically, this whole thing is just a complaint about the FBI doing their job.
Would you mind explaining exactly what you think the FBI is expected to do as part of their job?
Last I heard, having a political philosophy, of just about any kind, was protected by the Constitution. Can you imagine the uproar we would see if the FBI targeted the entire conservative bloc in this country? Conversely, when the FBI went after the left, no one seemed to care enough to do anything about restricting these actions.