400 experts are having a good "conferency" time wasting taxpayer money on an event that has absolutely nothing to do with its proclaimed goals. I call this security drill a complete bullshit.
So government shields big businesses from competition in certain areas, enabling them to keep prices high and pocket amazing profits. Then the government steps in and forces the corporations to return the favor by giving free goodies to the public, thus winning government the popularity and votes. So it is in fact the population and consumers that pay for the broadband, but in indirect way, which is most likely more expensive than if they'd bear direct costs. This is another example of Bastiat's classic "What is seen and what is not seen".
in a free country, it should not bother you on what terms does subject A and subject B voluntarily agree upon. If this practice was aimed at artificially increasing the price of their products, the better for amd and its retail chain, since their competitive advantage would be much significant. Seriously - these anti-trust laws are pure fascism.
i have already provided an example above - america in 19th century. I can only be sorry, that you refuse to see it. It was the best place on the globe to be, even if you were poor. It was not lincoln or roosevelt that made the country great (i am not american btw), but the hard working people who were busy with their own enterprises trying to make a living and get rich at the same time and didn't have big government on their backs telling them what to do and claim half of their income and savings in taxes and inflation. And even an employment in a robber baron factory was voluntary, and if you didn't like it - you could start your own business and do whatever you like to earn yourself a living (starting a business was waaaay much easier those times). Or you could move to the west and claim some land, where you would be free of any opression.
In my country (a typical social-welfare state), we have strong pro-worker laws, minimum wage levels. Yet there is a large group of people, whose income is nominally much higher than it would be 100 years ago, but in real terms - all they can afford is food, clothing, housing bills and perhaps one vacation per year. You sure it's that much better now? Yes one can argument that they get free medical care and education now, but they could afford that all by themselves (in a laissez-faire system) should government not slash their salaries by 40% tax and subsequently tax all goods with 20% VAT.
But I have to admit, that I enjoyed debating with you. Time for some sleep now./P
Minimum wage fosters unemployment - that's a fact. Since wage cannot be set higher than is the product of labor contracted. You wouldn't do that yourself if you were a business owner.
I was of course quite positive on that you would not send your child to work. But I hardly think those desperate enough to do so would be deferred by the weight of legislation. Furthermore, it is quite clear, that by disallowing regular businesses from hiring them, you force their miserable parents to send them to prostitute, beg or mug people on the streets.
I apologise for my first fallacy. When one advocates liberty and freedom, he often finds etatism and socialism equally evil.
However I am certain, that what you are utterly wrong about the second one. Regulation simply tilts the market forces towards ineffectiveness and irresponsibility. Free market is much more effective in delivering the social good than government planning. As a market is the only true democracy, where participants vote with their dollars on what is to be produced, how and in what volumes.
I am sorry to say this, but everything you list is typical socialist fallacy. Imagine that those regulations were dropped tomorrow. Would you send your child to work for those extra $200 it could possibly bring home?
Or why don't businesses pay everyone only the minimum wage? They're not obliged to pay more by governments after all.
and I guess you credit government with improving their situation, ignoring the vast increases in productivity and hence rise in real wages. No mister, no one can create wealth by a decree.
Pure capitalism was not tried yet. Almost-pure capitalism was tried in 19th century in America and made it the richest and most productive country in the world. Poor from around the people were migrating to the US. I would expect it to be the other way around if what you claim is true.
so what? Is a fast internet connection a natural right listed in Bill of Rights? Naturally you don't get lots of galleries or swimming pools in sparsely populated areas. Guess why - it makes no economic sense.
i cannot agree with that statement. Market (as it is a natural force) despises monopolies and generally excess profits attract competition, it is only by means of governments and its regulations that make of market entry less attractive or impossible or other tools that cement the wealthy in their status. Look at US today - socialist egalitarian wording and propaganda, but if you think of it more carefully - you'll find out that it's pure fascism.
completely agree, except it's not limited to the right, but generally applies to any government - all governments tend to turn into fascism and merge with upper class elitists and shield big businesses from market forces
oh yes, i certainly do reject universal "free" health care, because it's socialist, and because it's not free and because it does not work and never will.
Yet you'd be surprised, but it does not imply that the poor are condemned to sicken and die
i deliberately disagree with the part about no taxes paid. Everyone gets to pay VAT, everybody is bound to use poor government run services, everybody suffers poor services offered by private businesses in government regulated industries (e.g. fascist corporations), everybody suffers government induced inflation, everybody suffers from police abuse, and uneducated masses suffer from government induced unemployment. So at the end, it's mostly the supporters of welfare state that are hurt the most.
just 40% tax in return for poor education, poor health care and various other poor services that you would get more effectively should you instead keep those 40% for yourself. You get bunch of corrupt thieving cunts under under any system, however in free market system you can at least get them out of business with your $-votes.
here i corrected it for you
i'd say that most people simply don't get it, since you don't need to have a degree in economics to understand that government spending does not come from the tooth fairy. Or are masochistic in nature, since who else would oppose an idea of spending products of your labor on your own?
you need to consider taxation as a whole, since you don't have an option to selectively pay only for services you find useful for yourself. Should we have that option - no one would prefer government services to the ones provided by private businesses.
and thanks for that label, i take it as a compliment
government has no revenues other than those it forcibly removes from its subjects, so it won't come for free - you are going to pay for it anyway.
50% is just rough estimation of how much money UK government extorts from the productive sector. Easiest way to calculate this ratio is to compare treasury budget vs. GDP. I am not from UK, so 50% is just rough guess based on how things work in my country.
Perfect example how socialist welfare state works. They rob you off your hard earned money and spend it on your behalf (minus corruption fee), since they obviously don't consider you mature enough to decide for yourself how to address your needs. Now if anyone can explain to me, how can this be so massively applauded and supported by the public?
Slashdot Mirror
400 experts are having a good "conferency" time wasting taxpayer money on an event that has absolutely nothing to do with its proclaimed goals. I call this security drill a complete bullshit.
can only advise you all to read Lew Rockwell's Anti-environment manifesto http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/anti-enviro.html
evil
why the fuck should I be grateful for someone being a dairy farmer, my monetary votes for his produce are all the grace he needs
So government shields big businesses from competition in certain areas, enabling them to keep prices high and pocket amazing profits. Then the government steps in and forces the corporations to return the favor by giving free goodies to the public, thus winning government the popularity and votes. So it is in fact the population and consumers that pay for the broadband, but in indirect way, which is most likely more expensive than if they'd bear direct costs. This is another example of Bastiat's classic "What is seen and what is not seen".
yes - from the government. And where do you sir think does the government get its funds from?
in a free country, it should not bother you on what terms does subject A and subject B voluntarily agree upon. If this practice was aimed at artificially increasing the price of their products, the better for amd and its retail chain, since their competitive advantage would be much significant. Seriously - these anti-trust laws are pure fascism.
i have already provided an example above - america in 19th century. I can only be sorry, that you refuse to see it. It was the best place on the globe to be, even if you were poor. It was not lincoln or roosevelt that made the country great (i am not american btw), but the hard working people who were busy with their own enterprises trying to make a living and get rich at the same time and didn't have big government on their backs telling them what to do and claim half of their income and savings in taxes and inflation. And even an employment in a robber baron factory was voluntary, and if you didn't like it - you could start your own business and do whatever you like to earn yourself a living (starting a business was waaaay much easier those times). Or you could move to the west and claim some land, where you would be free of any opression.
In my country (a typical social-welfare state), we have strong pro-worker laws, minimum wage levels. Yet there is a large group of people, whose income is nominally much higher than it would be 100 years ago, but in real terms - all they can afford is food, clothing, housing bills and perhaps one vacation per year. You sure it's that much better now? Yes one can argument that they get free medical care and education now, but they could afford that all by themselves (in a laissez-faire system) should government not slash their salaries by 40% tax and subsequently tax all goods with 20% VAT.
But I have to admit, that I enjoyed debating with you. Time for some sleep now./P
Minimum wage fosters unemployment - that's a fact. Since wage cannot be set higher than is the product of labor contracted. You wouldn't do that yourself if you were a business owner. I was of course quite positive on that you would not send your child to work. But I hardly think those desperate enough to do so would be deferred by the weight of legislation. Furthermore, it is quite clear, that by disallowing regular businesses from hiring them, you force their miserable parents to send them to prostitute, beg or mug people on the streets. I apologise for my first fallacy. When one advocates liberty and freedom, he often finds etatism and socialism equally evil. However I am certain, that what you are utterly wrong about the second one. Regulation simply tilts the market forces towards ineffectiveness and irresponsibility. Free market is much more effective in delivering the social good than government planning. As a market is the only true democracy, where participants vote with their dollars on what is to be produced, how and in what volumes.
I am sorry to say this, but everything you list is typical socialist fallacy. Imagine that those regulations were dropped tomorrow. Would you send your child to work for those extra $200 it could possibly bring home? Or why don't businesses pay everyone only the minimum wage? They're not obliged to pay more by governments after all.
and I guess you credit government with improving their situation, ignoring the vast increases in productivity and hence rise in real wages. No mister, no one can create wealth by a decree.
Pure capitalism was not tried yet. Almost-pure capitalism was tried in 19th century in America and made it the richest and most productive country in the world. Poor from around the people were migrating to the US. I would expect it to be the other way around if what you claim is true.
so what? Is a fast internet connection a natural right listed in Bill of Rights? Naturally you don't get lots of galleries or swimming pools in sparsely populated areas. Guess why - it makes no economic sense.
i cannot agree with that statement. Market (as it is a natural force) despises monopolies and generally excess profits attract competition, it is only by means of governments and its regulations that make of market entry less attractive or impossible or other tools that cement the wealthy in their status. Look at US today - socialist egalitarian wording and propaganda, but if you think of it more carefully - you'll find out that it's pure fascism.
completely agree, except it's not limited to the right, but generally applies to any government - all governments tend to turn into fascism and merge with upper class elitists and shield big businesses from market forces
oh yes, i certainly do reject universal "free" health care, because it's socialist, and because it's not free and because it does not work and never will. Yet you'd be surprised, but it does not imply that the poor are condemned to sicken and die
i deliberately disagree with the part about no taxes paid. Everyone gets to pay VAT, everybody is bound to use poor government run services, everybody suffers poor services offered by private businesses in government regulated industries (e.g. fascist corporations), everybody suffers government induced inflation, everybody suffers from police abuse, and uneducated masses suffer from government induced unemployment. So at the end, it's mostly the supporters of welfare state that are hurt the most.
just 40% tax in return for poor education, poor health care and various other poor services that you would get more effectively should you instead keep those 40% for yourself. You get bunch of corrupt thieving cunts under under any system, however in free market system you can at least get them out of business with your $-votes. here i corrected it for you
i'd say that most people simply don't get it, since you don't need to have a degree in economics to understand that government spending does not come from the tooth fairy. Or are masochistic in nature, since who else would oppose an idea of spending products of your labor on your own?
you need to consider taxation as a whole, since you don't have an option to selectively pay only for services you find useful for yourself. Should we have that option - no one would prefer government services to the ones provided by private businesses. and thanks for that label, i take it as a compliment
government has no revenues other than those it forcibly removes from its subjects, so it won't come for free - you are going to pay for it anyway. 50% is just rough estimation of how much money UK government extorts from the productive sector. Easiest way to calculate this ratio is to compare treasury budget vs. GDP. I am not from UK, so 50% is just rough guess based on how things work in my country.
.. by giving up half of their income?
Perfect example how socialist welfare state works. They rob you off your hard earned money and spend it on your behalf (minus corruption fee), since they obviously don't consider you mature enough to decide for yourself how to address your needs. Now if anyone can explain to me, how can this be so massively applauded and supported by the public?
global fascism over the horizont
the problem is the state itself. Both wings follow the same agenda at the end.