Corporations are more efficient at extracting money for as little value as possible, without accountability or oversight.
Organizing into groups is not the same thing as being a statist. Anarchy means no rulers, no heirarchy, not no organization or state, and libertarianism is a form of individualist anarchy.
Corporations are simply another form of heirarchical group organization: in short, statist. To be non statist, an anarchist, or a true libertarian one must oppose heirarchical organizations. One is not required to oppose non-heirarchical organizations.
Again, why should anyone care about market efficiency if it only benefits others? Why should we allow certain types of group organization (corporations) and not others? How can you even have a corporation without a state? A true libertarian would oppose corporations as an invention of the state, created and maintained with state power. How could you have limited liability without a state?
The free market fails to provide the efficiency you seek in certain well defined cases: natural monopoly, imbalance of information, and externalities. Without a state or a non-heirarchical organized group, how can you deal with those inefficiencies and market failures?
While a sense of loyalty to a country is not always in a person's self interest, wanting to preserve one's livelihood is in one's self interest. As the free market is predicated on people serving their own interests, why would you deny some people the right to act in their interests, while enabling others?
If a for profit company arose that offered members certain services, like job protection and other union like services, wouldn't that simply be the free market at work? Would you oppose that instance of the free market because you don't like the outcome? What other outcomes do you consider bad enough that you would support overriding the free market?
The inconsistent, illogical, and transparently self-serving nature of your philosophy is patently obvious.
So the current destruction of that part of the earth has revealed an earlier attempt to destroy that part of the earth... when will Mother Nature learn she can't get rid of us that easy?
She doesn't want to kill us off. We're her eggs. She wants us to leave the nest, and go reproduce her on other planets.
But seriously, my GF in college worked with Chris Reeves at the Williamstown Theater Festival, and she said he was the nicest, most supportive and hard working actor she's ever met. He would thank the freaking techs! He would run lines with interns fer chrissake!
He got thrown from his horse the summer after that, we were both pretty sad for the man.
Some people believe in the heirarchical status quo: those in power deserve to be in power, those who fail deserve to fail. It is a defense mechanism against a cruel and unjust universe. If we just believe that, despite all appearances, the world is fair and just, we won't suffer this terrible feeling of guilt, and we won't have this frightening desire to act to end injustice. So the world is fair and just, those who have deserve to have, those who have not deserve to have not, and any attempt to change things will make things less fair and just.
It is frightening to see people aggressively defending their own oppressors, because they choose to identify with the role of oppressor rather than oppressed, as if that means they are not, in fact, oppressed. Or maybe it is because they really think that one day, they will get their chance to be the oppressor.
If a market is free, anyone can decide not to do business with anyone else, for any reason. Why should anyone give a rat's ass about 'market efficiency' if said efficiency benefits someone else? It is simply amazing to me that you will so vocally defend companies acting in out of self interest, from individuals acting out of their own self interest. Why do you value the self interest of certain groups of people (corporations) over other groups (boycotters)?
You may hate it, but people will always band together into groups to protect their interests, with or without a government. In a true lasseiz faire capitalist society, people will create their own social structures to protect their interests, there will be countless advocacy and interest groups that will use all the tools at their disposal, including boycotts, public pressure, and educational campaigns, to punish companies that do not perform as the members wish.
You've provided a sterling example of why I dislike most libertarians. You don't want freedom, you want license to do whatever you please, for yourself, and everyone else should shut the fuck up and do what they are told. It is absolutely hypocrisy of the worst sort. It is also elitist, supports tyranny and encourages heirarchy.
In short, you are a statist. You just think corporations should BE the state.
I thought that by using the examples of Oprah and Ed Wood, the difference would be made clear. Pretentious suckage thinks it is awesome and deserves to have it's ass kissed. Cluelessly earnest suckage merely thinks it doesn't suck, and it just wants to be your friend rather than wanting it's ass kissed. Cynically smarmy suckage knows it sucks, but thinks you are too dumb to notice.
I thought cluelessly earnest suckage was the best kind? Pretentious suckage is only fun if everyone recognizes the suckitude, but, for example, we have Oprah. There is some of the most pretentious suckage that ever sucked a suck. Yet people eat it up, and so it is infuriating rather than enjoyable. One can always enjoy cluelessly earnest suckage, like Ed Wood's sucktastic films.
Generally, people do not arrive at conclusions through logical means. Certainty is a feeling, not the end result of logic. People start with the conclusions they want to arrive at, then work backwards to create a chain of rationalizations leading there.
But we did not elect our politicians to further India's interests. We did not elect them to further IBM's. We elected them to further our interests. That being said, it would be hypocritical to proclaim a love of free markets and libertarianism, while supporting protectionist policies and government intervention. Hypocritical in the extreme. However, this would not make them communists, it is much more accurate to call them hypocritical protectionists.
What would NOT be hypocritical would be to call for a citizen lead and enforced boycott of IBM. One can be a libertarian and love the free market, but still not want to do business with companies that screw over your friends and neighbors. However, I think you will find that most libertarians want license to do whatever they please, rather than desiring true freedom, which takes work, and principles.
Ooh, ooh, ooh; want to learn how to defend yourself against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you, eh? Well let me tell you something lad! When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after YOU with a bunch of loganberries, don't come cryin' to me!
Who says? Anarchism means 'no rulers' not 'no government.' While prefering consensus, a democracy is a perfectly acceptable compromise to most anarchists.
I've heard Fall From Heaven II for Civ4:Beyond the Sword is in vein with MoMagic. Haven't tried it yet though.
It is absolutely amazing, a whole new game. The amount of work put into that mod is simply staggering. If you want Civ with mages, dragons, werewolves, role playing, and a cool fantasy story, Fall from Heaven II and Fall Further are definitely worth a try.
Okay, well, ahh, kind of took the wind out of my sails. In my defense, you are probably the first actual knowledgeable Slashdotter to engage in this kind of first-postery.
Many flavors are soluble in fat, but not water. When creating low fat versions of high fat dishes, you must always adjust the seasoning to account for this.
In any science story, we will more than likely find a special category of 'first post' comment: the 'I'm smarter than teh science-talking-guys!" first post. These posts always feature a blindingly obvious 'criticism' of the science at hand, usually made by someone with no formal training in the field, that any competent scientist will take into account, but many halfway competent science writers will fail to mention. Thus, to the uninformed, the first poster appears insightful. "Wow! Good call, how could those dumb scientists miss that?!?" Uh, yeah, they didn't. I'm just curious, but what is your background in biology and chemistry? Are you educated on this subject, or are you just one of those people who likes to think they know better than those boneheaded scientist-types?
Just in case I haven't made it crystal clear: you have not thought up anything the scientists did not take into account. I guarantee, you have not come up with a cogent criticism of this experiment, and you are not smarter than the fellows performing this experiment. You are not insightful, and your karma whoring question does not add anything of value to the discussion.
Making working fakes would be less trouble, it is done quite frequently at plants in China. The production lines are already set up, you just go in after hours. You generally won't find the holograms on these kinds of 'fakes', though. Here, you find counterfeit holograms, on solid lead fake cores. That's interesting to me.
Obviously, it is an interesting story for most people. Most people without a vested interest in NewEgg, that is. Nobody gives a rat's ass that you don't find it interesting. Honestly, I can think of only one reason to post here anonymously, claiming this story is not interesting...
This story is not "OMG! NewEgg is so bad!! They shipped fake CPUs!" okay? No one is bashing NewEgg, you can relax, your job there is probably safe.
The story is "Wow! Look at these hunks of lead and plastic blocks with stickers that look like fans on them!" I mean, someone went to a lot of trouble to make these things. It's an interesting story.
The legal idea was not to destroy the evidence or deny all of it to the Feds forever, it was to maintain control over it and attempt to assert doctor-patient privilege to prevent them from obtaining it legally. If they already have it, that's kind of a moot point. We knew we weren't going to protect ourselves, we just didn't want them going after our clients.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations are more efficient at extracting money for as little value as possible, without accountability or oversight.
Organizing into groups is not the same thing as being a statist. Anarchy means no rulers, no heirarchy, not no organization or state, and libertarianism is a form of individualist anarchy.
Corporations are simply another form of heirarchical group organization: in short, statist. To be non statist, an anarchist, or a true libertarian one must oppose heirarchical organizations. One is not required to oppose non-heirarchical organizations.
Again, why should anyone care about market efficiency if it only benefits others? Why should we allow certain types of group organization (corporations) and not others? How can you even have a corporation without a state? A true libertarian would oppose corporations as an invention of the state, created and maintained with state power. How could you have limited liability without a state?
The free market fails to provide the efficiency you seek in certain well defined cases: natural monopoly, imbalance of information, and externalities. Without a state or a non-heirarchical organized group, how can you deal with those inefficiencies and market failures?
While a sense of loyalty to a country is not always in a person's self interest, wanting to preserve one's livelihood is in one's self interest. As the free market is predicated on people serving their own interests, why would you deny some people the right to act in their interests, while enabling others?
If a for profit company arose that offered members certain services, like job protection and other union like services, wouldn't that simply be the free market at work? Would you oppose that instance of the free market because you don't like the outcome? What other outcomes do you consider bad enough that you would support overriding the free market?
The inconsistent, illogical, and transparently self-serving nature of your philosophy is patently obvious.
Oh God, you're right. I can't believe I put wooden face's last name on Christopher.
So the current destruction of that part of the earth has revealed an earlier attempt to destroy that part of the earth ... when will Mother Nature learn she can't get rid of us that easy?
She doesn't want to kill us off. We're her eggs. She wants us to leave the nest, and go reproduce her on other planets.
Christopher Walken.
But seriously, my GF in college worked with Chris Reeves at the Williamstown Theater Festival, and she said he was the nicest, most supportive and hard working actor she's ever met. He would thank the freaking techs! He would run lines with interns fer chrissake!
He got thrown from his horse the summer after that, we were both pretty sad for the man.
Some people believe in the heirarchical status quo: those in power deserve to be in power, those who fail deserve to fail. It is a defense mechanism against a cruel and unjust universe. If we just believe that, despite all appearances, the world is fair and just, we won't suffer this terrible feeling of guilt, and we won't have this frightening desire to act to end injustice. So the world is fair and just, those who have deserve to have, those who have not deserve to have not, and any attempt to change things will make things less fair and just.
It is frightening to see people aggressively defending their own oppressors, because they choose to identify with the role of oppressor rather than oppressed, as if that means they are not, in fact, oppressed. Or maybe it is because they really think that one day, they will get their chance to be the oppressor.
What bullshit. Oprah expects to be worshiped by her followers. She may have risen from humble beginnings, but she forgot those beginnings decades ago.
If a market is free, anyone can decide not to do business with anyone else, for any reason. Why should anyone give a rat's ass about 'market efficiency' if said efficiency benefits someone else? It is simply amazing to me that you will so vocally defend companies acting in out of self interest, from individuals acting out of their own self interest. Why do you value the self interest of certain groups of people (corporations) over other groups (boycotters)?
You may hate it, but people will always band together into groups to protect their interests, with or without a government. In a true lasseiz faire capitalist society, people will create their own social structures to protect their interests, there will be countless advocacy and interest groups that will use all the tools at their disposal, including boycotts, public pressure, and educational campaigns, to punish companies that do not perform as the members wish.
You've provided a sterling example of why I dislike most libertarians. You don't want freedom, you want license to do whatever you please, for yourself, and everyone else should shut the fuck up and do what they are told. It is absolutely hypocrisy of the worst sort. It is also elitist, supports tyranny and encourages heirarchy.
In short, you are a statist. You just think corporations should BE the state.
Unfortunately, there is no known method for keeping certain types of people from clicking on kitten-related links.
You could chop off their hands.
I thought that by using the examples of Oprah and Ed Wood, the difference would be made clear. Pretentious suckage thinks it is awesome and deserves to have it's ass kissed. Cluelessly earnest suckage merely thinks it doesn't suck, and it just wants to be your friend rather than wanting it's ass kissed. Cynically smarmy suckage knows it sucks, but thinks you are too dumb to notice.
I thought cluelessly earnest suckage was the best kind? Pretentious suckage is only fun if everyone recognizes the suckitude, but, for example, we have Oprah. There is some of the most pretentious suckage that ever sucked a suck. Yet people eat it up, and so it is infuriating rather than enjoyable. One can always enjoy cluelessly earnest suckage, like Ed Wood's sucktastic films.
Generally, people do not arrive at conclusions through logical means. Certainty is a feeling, not the end result of logic. People start with the conclusions they want to arrive at, then work backwards to create a chain of rationalizations leading there.
But we did not elect our politicians to further India's interests. We did not elect them to further IBM's. We elected them to further our interests. That being said, it would be hypocritical to proclaim a love of free markets and libertarianism, while supporting protectionist policies and government intervention. Hypocritical in the extreme. However, this would not make them communists, it is much more accurate to call them hypocritical protectionists.
What would NOT be hypocritical would be to call for a citizen lead and enforced boycott of IBM. One can be a libertarian and love the free market, but still not want to do business with companies that screw over your friends and neighbors. However, I think you will find that most libertarians want license to do whatever they please, rather than desiring true freedom, which takes work, and principles.
He's far more lovable as an old drunk who doesn't take himself seriously than as a young starship captain who thought he could sing.
KHAAAAAAN!
Ooh, ooh, ooh; want to learn how to defend yourself against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you, eh? Well let me tell you something lad! When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after YOU with a bunch of loganberries, don't come cryin' to me!
Who says? Anarchism means 'no rulers' not 'no government.' While prefering consensus, a democracy is a perfectly acceptable compromise to most anarchists.
I've heard Fall From Heaven II for Civ4:Beyond the Sword is in vein with MoMagic. Haven't tried it yet though.
It is absolutely amazing, a whole new game. The amount of work put into that mod is simply staggering. If you want Civ with mages, dragons, werewolves, role playing, and a cool fantasy story, Fall from Heaven II and Fall Further are definitely worth a try.
Dude. You're busting my bubble here.
Actually, yes. Yes I do.
Okay, well, ahh, kind of took the wind out of my sails. In my defense, you are probably the first actual knowledgeable Slashdotter to engage in this kind of first-postery.
Many flavors are soluble in fat, but not water. When creating low fat versions of high fat dishes, you must always adjust the seasoning to account for this.
In any science story, we will more than likely find a special category of 'first post' comment: the 'I'm smarter than teh science-talking-guys!" first post. These posts always feature a blindingly obvious 'criticism' of the science at hand, usually made by someone with no formal training in the field, that any competent scientist will take into account, but many halfway competent science writers will fail to mention. Thus, to the uninformed, the first poster appears insightful. "Wow! Good call, how could those dumb scientists miss that?!?" Uh, yeah, they didn't. I'm just curious, but what is your background in biology and chemistry? Are you educated on this subject, or are you just one of those people who likes to think they know better than those boneheaded scientist-types?
Just in case I haven't made it crystal clear: you have not thought up anything the scientists did not take into account. I guarantee, you have not come up with a cogent criticism of this experiment, and you are not smarter than the fellows performing this experiment. You are not insightful, and your karma whoring question does not add anything of value to the discussion.
Making working fakes would be less trouble, it is done quite frequently at plants in China. The production lines are already set up, you just go in after hours. You generally won't find the holograms on these kinds of 'fakes', though. Here, you find counterfeit holograms, on solid lead fake cores. That's interesting to me.
Obviously, it is an interesting story for most people. Most people without a vested interest in NewEgg, that is. Nobody gives a rat's ass that you don't find it interesting. Honestly, I can think of only one reason to post here anonymously, claiming this story is not interesting...
Dude, I bought a fake i7 on eBay, but it turned out to be real! What a ripoff!
This story is not "OMG! NewEgg is so bad!! They shipped fake CPUs!" okay? No one is bashing NewEgg, you can relax, your job there is probably safe.
The story is "Wow! Look at these hunks of lead and plastic blocks with stickers that look like fans on them!" I mean, someone went to a lot of trouble to make these things. It's an interesting story.
The legal idea was not to destroy the evidence or deny all of it to the Feds forever, it was to maintain control over it and attempt to assert doctor-patient privilege to prevent them from obtaining it legally. If they already have it, that's kind of a moot point. We knew we weren't going to protect ourselves, we just didn't want them going after our clients.