What difference does it make what his motivations are?
If you want to get into ethics, it makes a huge difference. Not to mention that he's not actually saving the world -- in proportion to his wealth he's doing very little good and it hardly offsets the type of economic disparity pirates such as himself have created by plundering the American economy.
I normally don't care when people donate money to charities for third world countries -- I just think they're fools who lack perspective. But when a person spends an entire career damaging the American economy -- destroying many of its most innovative companies, ripping people off, and holding back progress -- I'm not going to put the blinders on and refrain from criticizing that person just because they found a profitable way to 'give to charity' that interestingly enough also strengthens his business interests.
Here third world country! Have Windows machines! Oh, what? You wanted long-term support? Oh, no, just the first taste is free.
Here third world country! Have this medicine! Oh, yeah, I'm heavily invested in the pharmaceutical that makes this. You want more? Here's their business card. Just the first taste is free.
If Bill Gates was actually attempting to do good for the world he would: 1) Actually do good for the world and 2) Stop making it a point to be publicly acknowledged for doing so. One of Bill Gates' lies in the reddit discussion was saying that only 1% of the government's budget goes to foreign aid. Every time Joe Schmoe or Angelina Jolie or Bill Gates donates money to a third world country and then writes it off on their taxes, that's the government paying for foreign aid. Charity is subsidized and it's a major problem with our tax code. Unlike Bill Gates, the American government doesn't profit from charity work. The American government doesn't have the money to spend on charity.
His foundation has already saved millions of lives
Saving a life is only a good thing if it's a life worth saving. Also, do you actually know his foundation has saved millions of lives or are you just saying that?
Ah well, It's likely better that he's taken his drive and his billions and put it towards a noble cause.
What cause would that be? Evading taxes? Attempting to buy a legacy? The best thing he's done is give money to Sal Khan and he didn't need a foundation to do that. Bill Gates is Lister Rosewater, not Eliot Rosewater.
What does vaccinating people in third world countries do? In one of his answers regarding the foundation he says it spends half its money (half the money it spends, not half the money in the foundation, which grows over time making it a profitable venture) on global health. It just keeps people who have no economic value alive for longer so they can consume more resources and contribute nothing back to the world. Maybe I'm being cynical and Gates actually has good intentions, but if that's the case, he's really incompetent at doing good and should probably just stick to evil.
If Gates wants to improve healthcare then start here in the U.S. Lobby for a single-payer system and actively advocate such a solution to the public. Buy out medical supply companies that consistently increase the prices of their goods at a much higher rate than inflation and exploit S.S./Medicare subsidies and end those practices. Buy out companies that provide lunch services in schools and only sell healthy food.
At the risk of sounding xenophobic, fuck third world countries. Why should Americans spend their resources feeding kids that will grow up to do nothing in third world countries while certain parts of our own country is devolving into a third world regions of their own because multinational American companies (like Microsoft) don't pay shit in taxes and all of our country's wealth is held by a tiny minority of assholes who 'spend' money on 'charity?' Feeding and vaccinating people in third world countries doesn't absolve a person of criticism.
When the typical American has a quality of life that equals the average Fin or Swede, then Americans can worry about saving the rest of the world. Until then, every dollar you spend donating to third world problems is just a dollar less in the U.S. economy (and, more importantly, less money in the treasury since, you know, the tax break and all).
Yeah, this issue really grinds my gears. If the government stopped subsidizing 'charity' it would do a world of good by doing less good for the world.
Well, personally, I like the taste of some alcohol-free beers and I indeed don't like getting drunk.
Do you really drink enough alcohol-free beer that, if it weren't alcohol-free, you'd be drunk?
Sometimes I drink beer to enjoy a tasty beverage -- usually Corona w/ lime or a wheat beer. Sometimes I drink beer to get drunk -- in this case it doesn't really matter what it is and I drink about 5-10x as much as I would if I were just enjoying a beverage.
Even if this is a good product (which I don't think it is -- have fun running Autodesk or ProE or whatever with a touchscreen, I don't envy the experience), it won't change my opinion that Ballmer is a moron.
There are a lot of smart people working for Microsoft. If it weren't for Ballmer, that would probably be much more apparent.
Why can they sell it to the "poor people" (your words) at a much cheaper price and still make a profit? But if you're "richer" they sell it to you for more. Does that make any sense at all?
It's no different than here, in America, where you can go into a convenience mart in the ghetto and get the same things you would in a convenience mart in a wealthy neighborhood except much cheaper. When I drive through the ghetto I fill up my tank b/c gas is always cheaper (along with everything else). It's called capitalism. Removing these inequities requires government intervention and there are often negative consequences that go along with that. I'm a socialist but I don't blindly support government intervention in all things -- if I were to do that I'd be the strawman conservatives love to attack.
No shit. No one was claiming otherwise. However, last time I checked the Australian government was pretty conservative and the country is pretty wealthy with an extremely low poverty rate. That makes it a goldmine.
Laissez-faire has its costs. This is what happens when you charge whatever the market can bear, a market that can handle a heavy load, such as Australia, will get charged a premium. In countries like China, where these companies have to compete with free pirated software and cheap bootleg hardware, prices are bound to be substantially lower (not to mention the fact that China is lacking in economic freedom, so their government would have a much easier time intervening if foreign companies were attempting to gouge their upper class).
Don't blame these companies for playing by the established rules. Here in America we get fucked by these same companies in a different way: for the most part, they don't pay taxes. But I blame the system that allows them to do it, not the companies themselves. If you think this is "bullshit" then you should take active measures to oppose laissez-faire capitalism -- don't cry like a little girl about it. Don't stonewall your mind to any logical arguments that may oppose your claim of "bullshit," at least make a cogent argument as to why it's bullshit.
Sony already makes an Android watch, the SmartWatch...
But this will be Apple's... Ooooh... Shiny...
The biggest difference is that I've heard of this non-existent iWatch but I've never heard of Sony's watch. Thanks for the link, though, I'd actually like to check on of those out, just out of curiosity.
Hideous digital watches never go out of fashion. That is to say, all digital watches look hideous. There's nothing stylish and/or attractive about black plastic rectangles on your wrist.
I agree. I remember during the '04 election I distinctly distrusted John Edwards for two reasons:
1) He was an ambulance chaser
2) He wore a digital watch
Anyone with that much money who doesn't realize how absurd a digital watch looks obviously lacks common sense. As we all know, a scandal revealed this to be true of Edwards.
A watch is piece of jewlery that happens to markt he time. Very few people buy a watch primarily to know the time. This was even before a phone was a more reliable time keeping device than a watch.
It would be funny if Apple went along with what their critics accuse them of -- selling fashion statements rather than technology -- and just put out a really nice watch that's purely mechanical. I'll admit, if they did it, I might buy one if it was elegant and well made.
I hope they do something other than put out a souped up nano with a strap. If they get real creative and do something unique it might pique my interest, but I'm not holding my breath.
The inevitable result of government itself is corruption.
The inevitable result of humans living socially is corruption. Therefore, people should cease to be social animals because somewhere along the line someone will screw someone else over.
The inevitable result of money is corruption. Therefore, we should abolish all monetary systems and the systems of distribution that depend on them.
The inevitable result of monogamy is corruption. Therefore, we should embrace Brave New World sexual practices and everyone should sleep with everyone so no one will be jealous.
English natives dont have a conception of masculine vs feminine words, and it honestly is a little confusing; Why must a word have a gender?
I'm not blonde! I'm blond! Don't call my canine a dog. She's a bitch. A ship is referred to using feminine pronouns. Okay, I'm nitpicking, but English speakers ought to have some conception of gender in language. Here in the states most high school graduates have to take a few years of a foreign language, usually Spanish/French.
Most student athletes aren't blue-chips who are going on to a career of professional sports. Most have an active interest in gaining a degree that will benefit them on the job market.
The doctrine of most Christian denominations requires that there was a literal Adam and Eve (in order for there to be Original Sin) and that these two people lived not more than a few thousand years ago.
I'm assuming you mean most Christian denominations in Mississippi.
Current? Here's the constitutional amendment Rand proposed: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade. .."
That means no safety regulations, no minimum wage, no antitrust legislation, no public roads, and no regulations on the financial markets. It means that if I sell you a product that is poisonous and it debilitates you for the rest of your life, you can sue me in civil court and that's the solution to keep things like lead paint off of products (and, of course, if you're too poor to sue me in civil court you're a worthless fuck who deserves lead poisoning; i.e., all low income housing would be painted with lead paint).
The current version of the libertarian party is the same version of 'libertarianism' that's existed since FDR was in office. It's a negative response to New Deal policies, which largely consisted of various subsidies and restraints on big institutions. While I agree with your post, there's nothing current about this view, and it's not a 'nutbag arm' of the libertarians -- the nutbag shit is what defines one as a libertarian. Libertarians are the opposite extreme as communists but they face the same problem: If only people would stop acting like human beings, their utopian paradises would be possible.
What about the politicians who set up this system? The biggest problem with this whole ordeal is that much of what these bankers did was legalized. It's such a cluster fuck and there are so many people responsible for this and that bit of it but no one is singularly responsible for the whole thing.
Do you blame the real estate agent for selling a house to someone who obviously can't afford it? Sure. How much time do they serve? How about the company that gave this poor family the mortgage? How much time do you put them in for? Let's keep going. The politicians who voted to drop the restrictions that prevented this in the past -- how long do we put them in the slammer for? What about the poor families that took out these mortgages knowing it would be difficult to make payments?
We haven't even gotten to the big bankers yet. What they did -- buy the CDOs from the mortgage companies -- is by far the least irresponsible action of all of these people. Many of those bankers were probably thinking, "If it weren't for damn Lehman Bros. starting a panic, these CDOs would still be sitting on our books looking nice and happy and we could slowly but surely write them down."
Anyway, here are our responsible parties: Real estate agents, bankers, various accountants for hedge funds and special purpose entities, congressmen (and lets not forget the lobbyists who bribe them), and people who buy things on credit they can't afford. Have fun with the executions, Robespierre. These problems aren't black and white and neither are the solutions. Go ahead, get rid of all the bankers. Then Goldman Sachs will be forced to hire unqualified liberal arts majors such as myself and trust me, you don't want me in charge of your money even if I mean well.
Investment bankers are sort of like lawyers. Everyone thinks they're scum, but no one wants to defend himself in court.
RMS wants software to be free, but is happy for people to be enslaved by the state. That's a massive contradiction. I would have thought his philosophy on software is very much aligned with libertarianism, yet his political discussions suggest otherwise.
How can you want software to be free and not people?
Considering that software and people are two very different things, I fail to see the contradiction. Are you suggesting that one who supports freedom must always support any form of freedom?
Should termites be free? How about viruses? How about serial killers?
btw, RMS's stance on software is anything but libertarian. If you want to relate it to politics, I'd compare it to communism. Not Chinese or Russian communism, but more of the Marxist ideal. A lack of ownership, communal collaboration that anyone can take advantage of. 'Free' is a complicated word and doesn't necessitate libertarianism. A libertarian would claim that ownership is a right, a freedom we enjoy. I don't know if RMS would agree with that. I'm pretty sure he thinks that information should be free but people should be restricted by laws that say you can't murder or steal and stuff like that. When people advocate freedom, they tend to be advocating the freedom to do the things they specifically want to do. Not even the libertarian advocates anarchy, which is freedom taken most literally.
'Free' is a fun term for philosophers because it can be turned on its head in all sorts of different ways.
Funnily, the "experts" who said "if we let Citibank/MorganStanley/etc fail society will turn into a Mad Maxian nightmare where we'll all be forced into cannibalism" are the exact same people who would have lost a lot of money without a bailout.
That may deter you from personally getting involved in the cocaine trade, but it certainly hasn't deterred others. If you already had a criminal record, if you weren't very intelligent, or if you were socially ostracized for some other reason, it may not seem like a bad risk. Furthermore, here's where your analogy really doesn't work: the reason cocaine is such a profitable product is because of its illegality. If cocaine was legal there would be razor-thin profit margins and it would be dirt cheap.
It's not really comparable to financial markets. The main reasons for white collar crime are that 1) oftentimes it's dubious whether they're committing crimes -- many of the actions taken may be considered immoral, but the actors don't bother to consider whether they are legal 2) we have a system in place that encourages such behavior 3) a lack of transparency when it comes to the books.
People in China commit far fewer crimes than Americans do. There are far more negative incentives. But does any sane American want to live in China?
One thing people overlook about Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, as they're distracted by the sex and violence and funny words, is the moral. To paraphrase, one should do good because it's good, not because they're compelled to. Prison sentences in the United States are much more harsh than in European countries, yet European countries have much less crime.
Your suggestion reminds me of child support. All the poor losers out there who go to prison because they didn't pay child support and then can't get a job to pay their child support when they get out of prison because they have a record. So then they turn to real crime or they just go back to prison for not paying child support. Brilliant system there.
As the Burgess' paraphrase indicates, I'm no fan of inflicting behavioral reinforcement on human beings, but if you do choose to go that route, isn't it Psychology 101 where you learn that positive reinforcement is much more effective than negative reinforcement?
Bail them out, save the economy, but jail the executives responsible. If your firm destabilizes the economy you go directly to jail.
Good idea. There aren't enough people in U.S. prisons.
On a serious note: Using the threat of imprisonment seems to be a poor deterrent for crime. The U.S. has a larger prison population than any country in the world yet we have the most crime among any first world nation. Putting people in prison is like sending them to crime school: They're now for the most part unemployable, they have to spend months/years surviving the prison lifestyle, and any fallback money they had before landing in prison was probably sucked away from legal fees and fines imposed by the court.
So now imagine this situation: You have a Harvard grad who was once the executive of a fortune 500 company. All his material possessions have been stripped away from him and the only things he has left are his mind (which is sharper than the average criminal's) and an intimate knowledge of American criminal culture. Do you really think that this person is rehabilitated? That he's learned his lesson and he'll go get a job at Taco Bell and live the rest of his life as a wage slave?
No. What you've done is create a new type of criminal. One who's educated, who's proven to have few moral concerns, and now has nothing to lose. The 'throw them in jail' solution is a short-sighted one. Look to the war on drugs as a prime example. Unnecessarily throwing people in jail begets more crime in the long run. If you want to recommend excessive and inhumane punishments for what basically amounts to negligence and fraud, why not just recommend execution and free society of these people forever?
Both are full of poisons. If you're going to consume psychoactive compounds, at least find a way to do it safely.
Psychoactive compounds aren't necessarily poisons. Please, show me one respectable study (with the methodology published) that even suggests that the psychoactive compounds in marijuana are in any way poisonous or cancerous. If you're about to run to Google, I'll give you a hint: You won't find one.
Slashdot Mirror
Coming soon to all computers near me: all linux, all the time.
Every year is the Year of Desktop Linux for someone.
It's interesting but it's not contradictory unless you buy into the bullshit that life is sacred.
What difference does it make what his motivations are?
If you want to get into ethics, it makes a huge difference. Not to mention that he's not actually saving the world -- in proportion to his wealth he's doing very little good and it hardly offsets the type of economic disparity pirates such as himself have created by plundering the American economy.
I normally don't care when people donate money to charities for third world countries -- I just think they're fools who lack perspective. But when a person spends an entire career damaging the American economy -- destroying many of its most innovative companies, ripping people off, and holding back progress -- I'm not going to put the blinders on and refrain from criticizing that person just because they found a profitable way to 'give to charity' that interestingly enough also strengthens his business interests.
Here third world country! Have Windows machines! Oh, what? You wanted long-term support? Oh, no, just the first taste is free.
Here third world country! Have this medicine! Oh, yeah, I'm heavily invested in the pharmaceutical that makes this. You want more? Here's their business card. Just the first taste is free.
If Bill Gates was actually attempting to do good for the world he would: 1) Actually do good for the world and 2) Stop making it a point to be publicly acknowledged for doing so. One of Bill Gates' lies in the reddit discussion was saying that only 1% of the government's budget goes to foreign aid. Every time Joe Schmoe or Angelina Jolie or Bill Gates donates money to a third world country and then writes it off on their taxes, that's the government paying for foreign aid. Charity is subsidized and it's a major problem with our tax code. Unlike Bill Gates, the American government doesn't profit from charity work. The American government doesn't have the money to spend on charity.
His foundation has already saved millions of lives
Saving a life is only a good thing if it's a life worth saving. Also, do you actually know his foundation has saved millions of lives or are you just saying that?
Here, learn something: http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique
Ah well, It's likely better that he's taken his drive and his billions and put it towards a noble cause.
What cause would that be? Evading taxes? Attempting to buy a legacy? The best thing he's done is give money to Sal Khan and he didn't need a foundation to do that. Bill Gates is Lister Rosewater, not Eliot Rosewater.
What does vaccinating people in third world countries do? In one of his answers regarding the foundation he says it spends half its money (half the money it spends, not half the money in the foundation, which grows over time making it a profitable venture) on global health. It just keeps people who have no economic value alive for longer so they can consume more resources and contribute nothing back to the world. Maybe I'm being cynical and Gates actually has good intentions, but if that's the case, he's really incompetent at doing good and should probably just stick to evil.
If Gates wants to improve healthcare then start here in the U.S. Lobby for a single-payer system and actively advocate such a solution to the public. Buy out medical supply companies that consistently increase the prices of their goods at a much higher rate than inflation and exploit S.S./Medicare subsidies and end those practices. Buy out companies that provide lunch services in schools and only sell healthy food.
At the risk of sounding xenophobic, fuck third world countries. Why should Americans spend their resources feeding kids that will grow up to do nothing in third world countries while certain parts of our own country is devolving into a third world regions of their own because multinational American companies (like Microsoft) don't pay shit in taxes and all of our country's wealth is held by a tiny minority of assholes who 'spend' money on 'charity?' Feeding and vaccinating people in third world countries doesn't absolve a person of criticism.
When the typical American has a quality of life that equals the average Fin or Swede, then Americans can worry about saving the rest of the world. Until then, every dollar you spend donating to third world problems is just a dollar less in the U.S. economy (and, more importantly, less money in the treasury since, you know, the tax break and all).
Yeah, this issue really grinds my gears. If the government stopped subsidizing 'charity' it would do a world of good by doing less good for the world.
Well, personally, I like the taste of some alcohol-free beers and I indeed don't like getting drunk.
Do you really drink enough alcohol-free beer that, if it weren't alcohol-free, you'd be drunk?
Sometimes I drink beer to enjoy a tasty beverage -- usually Corona w/ lime or a wheat beer. Sometimes I drink beer to get drunk -- in this case it doesn't really matter what it is and I drink about 5-10x as much as I would if I were just enjoying a beverage.
Even if this is a good product (which I don't think it is -- have fun running Autodesk or ProE or whatever with a touchscreen, I don't envy the experience), it won't change my opinion that Ballmer is a moron.
There are a lot of smart people working for Microsoft. If it weren't for Ballmer, that would probably be much more apparent.
Why can they sell it to the "poor people" (your words) at a much cheaper price and still make a profit? But if you're "richer" they sell it to you for more. Does that make any sense at all?
It's no different than here, in America, where you can go into a convenience mart in the ghetto and get the same things you would in a convenience mart in a wealthy neighborhood except much cheaper. When I drive through the ghetto I fill up my tank b/c gas is always cheaper (along with everything else). It's called capitalism. Removing these inequities requires government intervention and there are often negative consequences that go along with that. I'm a socialist but I don't blindly support government intervention in all things -- if I were to do that I'd be the strawman conservatives love to attack.
They are profiteering.
No shit. No one was claiming otherwise. However, last time I checked the Australian government was pretty conservative and the country is pretty wealthy with an extremely low poverty rate. That makes it a goldmine.
Laissez-faire has its costs. This is what happens when you charge whatever the market can bear, a market that can handle a heavy load, such as Australia, will get charged a premium. In countries like China, where these companies have to compete with free pirated software and cheap bootleg hardware, prices are bound to be substantially lower (not to mention the fact that China is lacking in economic freedom, so their government would have a much easier time intervening if foreign companies were attempting to gouge their upper class).
Don't blame these companies for playing by the established rules. Here in America we get fucked by these same companies in a different way: for the most part, they don't pay taxes. But I blame the system that allows them to do it, not the companies themselves. If you think this is "bullshit" then you should take active measures to oppose laissez-faire capitalism -- don't cry like a little girl about it. Don't stonewall your mind to any logical arguments that may oppose your claim of "bullshit," at least make a cogent argument as to why it's bullshit.
Sony already makes an Android watch, the SmartWatch ...
But this will be Apple's ... Ooooh ... Shiny ...
The biggest difference is that I've heard of this non-existent iWatch but I've never heard of Sony's watch. Thanks for the link, though, I'd actually like to check on of those out, just out of curiosity.
Hideous digital watches never go out of fashion. That is to say, all digital watches look hideous. There's nothing stylish and/or attractive about black plastic rectangles on your wrist.
I agree. I remember during the '04 election I distinctly distrusted John Edwards for two reasons:
1) He was an ambulance chaser
2) He wore a digital watch
Anyone with that much money who doesn't realize how absurd a digital watch looks obviously lacks common sense. As we all know, a scandal revealed this to be true of Edwards.
A watch is piece of jewlery that happens to markt he time. Very few people buy a watch primarily to know the time. This was even before a phone was a more reliable time keeping device than a watch.
It would be funny if Apple went along with what their critics accuse them of -- selling fashion statements rather than technology -- and just put out a really nice watch that's purely mechanical. I'll admit, if they did it, I might buy one if it was elegant and well made.
I hope they do something other than put out a souped up nano with a strap. If they get real creative and do something unique it might pique my interest, but I'm not holding my breath.
Meh, it wouldn't have been that big of a deal. Thirty years ago they were making similar jokes about Japan.
The inevitable result of government itself is corruption.
The inevitable result of humans living socially is corruption. Therefore, people should cease to be social animals because somewhere along the line someone will screw someone else over.
The inevitable result of money is corruption. Therefore, we should abolish all monetary systems and the systems of distribution that depend on them.
The inevitable result of monogamy is corruption. Therefore, we should embrace Brave New World sexual practices and everyone should sleep with everyone so no one will be jealous.
Do you see your fallacy now?
English natives dont have a conception of masculine vs feminine words, and it honestly is a little confusing; Why must a word have a gender?
I'm not blonde! I'm blond! Don't call my canine a dog. She's a bitch. A ship is referred to using feminine pronouns. Okay, I'm nitpicking, but English speakers ought to have some conception of gender in language. Here in the states most high school graduates have to take a few years of a foreign language, usually Spanish/French.
Most student athletes aren't blue-chips who are going on to a career of professional sports. Most have an active interest in gaining a degree that will benefit them on the job market.
The Ouya is little more than a toy
Are you implying that other game consoles are not toys?
The doctrine of most Christian denominations requires that there was a literal Adam and Eve (in order for there to be Original Sin) and that these two people lived not more than a few thousand years ago.
I'm assuming you mean most Christian denominations in Mississippi.
One thing sports does provide: thousands of scholarships every year to students who normally wouldn't be able to afford to go to college.
Current? Here's the constitutional amendment Rand proposed: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade. . ."
That means no safety regulations, no minimum wage, no antitrust legislation, no public roads, and no regulations on the financial markets. It means that if I sell you a product that is poisonous and it debilitates you for the rest of your life, you can sue me in civil court and that's the solution to keep things like lead paint off of products (and, of course, if you're too poor to sue me in civil court you're a worthless fuck who deserves lead poisoning; i.e., all low income housing would be painted with lead paint).
The current version of the libertarian party is the same version of 'libertarianism' that's existed since FDR was in office. It's a negative response to New Deal policies, which largely consisted of various subsidies and restraints on big institutions. While I agree with your post, there's nothing current about this view, and it's not a 'nutbag arm' of the libertarians -- the nutbag shit is what defines one as a libertarian. Libertarians are the opposite extreme as communists but they face the same problem: If only people would stop acting like human beings, their utopian paradises would be possible.
What about the politicians who set up this system? The biggest problem with this whole ordeal is that much of what these bankers did was legalized. It's such a cluster fuck and there are so many people responsible for this and that bit of it but no one is singularly responsible for the whole thing.
Do you blame the real estate agent for selling a house to someone who obviously can't afford it? Sure. How much time do they serve? How about the company that gave this poor family the mortgage? How much time do you put them in for? Let's keep going. The politicians who voted to drop the restrictions that prevented this in the past -- how long do we put them in the slammer for? What about the poor families that took out these mortgages knowing it would be difficult to make payments?
We haven't even gotten to the big bankers yet. What they did -- buy the CDOs from the mortgage companies -- is by far the least irresponsible action of all of these people. Many of those bankers were probably thinking, "If it weren't for damn Lehman Bros. starting a panic, these CDOs would still be sitting on our books looking nice and happy and we could slowly but surely write them down."
Anyway, here are our responsible parties: Real estate agents, bankers, various accountants for hedge funds and special purpose entities, congressmen (and lets not forget the lobbyists who bribe them), and people who buy things on credit they can't afford. Have fun with the executions, Robespierre. These problems aren't black and white and neither are the solutions. Go ahead, get rid of all the bankers. Then Goldman Sachs will be forced to hire unqualified liberal arts majors such as myself and trust me, you don't want me in charge of your money even if I mean well.
Investment bankers are sort of like lawyers. Everyone thinks they're scum, but no one wants to defend himself in court.
RMS wants software to be free, but is happy for people to be enslaved by the state. That's a massive contradiction. I would have thought his philosophy on software is very much aligned with libertarianism, yet his political discussions suggest otherwise.
How can you want software to be free and not people?
Considering that software and people are two very different things, I fail to see the contradiction. Are you suggesting that one who supports freedom must always support any form of freedom?
Should termites be free? How about viruses? How about serial killers?
btw, RMS's stance on software is anything but libertarian. If you want to relate it to politics, I'd compare it to communism. Not Chinese or Russian communism, but more of the Marxist ideal. A lack of ownership, communal collaboration that anyone can take advantage of. 'Free' is a complicated word and doesn't necessitate libertarianism. A libertarian would claim that ownership is a right, a freedom we enjoy. I don't know if RMS would agree with that. I'm pretty sure he thinks that information should be free but people should be restricted by laws that say you can't murder or steal and stuff like that. When people advocate freedom, they tend to be advocating the freedom to do the things they specifically want to do. Not even the libertarian advocates anarchy, which is freedom taken most literally.
'Free' is a fun term for philosophers because it can be turned on its head in all sorts of different ways.
Funnily, the "experts" who said "if we let Citibank/MorganStanley/etc fail society will turn into a Mad Maxian nightmare where we'll all be forced into cannibalism" are the exact same people who would have lost a lot of money without a bailout.
Maybe that was their contingency plan.
That may deter you from personally getting involved in the cocaine trade, but it certainly hasn't deterred others. If you already had a criminal record, if you weren't very intelligent, or if you were socially ostracized for some other reason, it may not seem like a bad risk. Furthermore, here's where your analogy really doesn't work: the reason cocaine is such a profitable product is because of its illegality. If cocaine was legal there would be razor-thin profit margins and it would be dirt cheap.
It's not really comparable to financial markets. The main reasons for white collar crime are that 1) oftentimes it's dubious whether they're committing crimes -- many of the actions taken may be considered immoral, but the actors don't bother to consider whether they are legal 2) we have a system in place that encourages such behavior 3) a lack of transparency when it comes to the books.
People in China commit far fewer crimes than Americans do. There are far more negative incentives. But does any sane American want to live in China?
One thing people overlook about Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, as they're distracted by the sex and violence and funny words, is the moral. To paraphrase, one should do good because it's good, not because they're compelled to. Prison sentences in the United States are much more harsh than in European countries, yet European countries have much less crime.
Your suggestion reminds me of child support. All the poor losers out there who go to prison because they didn't pay child support and then can't get a job to pay their child support when they get out of prison because they have a record. So then they turn to real crime or they just go back to prison for not paying child support. Brilliant system there.
As the Burgess' paraphrase indicates, I'm no fan of inflicting behavioral reinforcement on human beings, but if you do choose to go that route, isn't it Psychology 101 where you learn that positive reinforcement is much more effective than negative reinforcement?
Bail them out, save the economy, but jail the executives responsible. If your firm destabilizes the economy you go directly to jail.
Good idea. There aren't enough people in U.S. prisons.
On a serious note: Using the threat of imprisonment seems to be a poor deterrent for crime. The U.S. has a larger prison population than any country in the world yet we have the most crime among any first world nation. Putting people in prison is like sending them to crime school: They're now for the most part unemployable, they have to spend months/years surviving the prison lifestyle, and any fallback money they had before landing in prison was probably sucked away from legal fees and fines imposed by the court.
So now imagine this situation: You have a Harvard grad who was once the executive of a fortune 500 company. All his material possessions have been stripped away from him and the only things he has left are his mind (which is sharper than the average criminal's) and an intimate knowledge of American criminal culture. Do you really think that this person is rehabilitated? That he's learned his lesson and he'll go get a job at Taco Bell and live the rest of his life as a wage slave?
No. What you've done is create a new type of criminal. One who's educated, who's proven to have few moral concerns, and now has nothing to lose. The 'throw them in jail' solution is a short-sighted one. Look to the war on drugs as a prime example. Unnecessarily throwing people in jail begets more crime in the long run. If you want to recommend excessive and inhumane punishments for what basically amounts to negligence and fraud, why not just recommend execution and free society of these people forever?
Both are full of poisons. If you're going to consume psychoactive compounds, at least find a way to do it safely.
Psychoactive compounds aren't necessarily poisons. Please, show me one respectable study (with the methodology published) that even suggests that the psychoactive compounds in marijuana are in any way poisonous or cancerous. If you're about to run to Google, I'll give you a hint: You won't find one.