The deal is, copyrights are not workable in the information age and currently DRM is just a technological attempt to keep the same old system in place even though it is not tenable. IMHO, that attitude shows a mis-understanding of both free markets and the information age.
When they put artificial restrictions on what people can copy and manipulate for the sake of distribution profits or royalities, they are inhibiting others from getting the most value from that information and thus making themselves an obstacle to be knocked down rather than a service to be embraced. With content creation, the content market is not driven by publishers desire to make money, or even creators, it is driven by people's need or desire for given information. If that need can be satisfied without some distributers or creators locking in controll over profit, then that's just tough luck for the content industry. Times change.
For example, sure, maybe Gates is making more than Linus, but it would be a mistake to assume that will cause M$ to be on top. It would also be a mistake to assume that the profit from the M$ distribution monopoly is driving the software industry or the market place.
Contrary to popular belief, the information age demands releasing controll over how people use information once the cat's out of the bag and not micro-controling how everyone uses and gets every little piece. While DRM will have its places, one place it will not have is to lock in revenue streams for content distributors or creators. The future in that aera will be in services, not in control.
At Microsoft, we work to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential. This is our mission. Everything we do reflects this mission and the values that make it possible.
What the hell? If that is the case then why not make it so we can use source if needed, and copy os installs and information freely without fine, liability, threat of suit or going to jail by licensing their products to be have freedom (as in GPL freedom) and try makeing money from services and not from licensing.
I know I sound like a gold kook. But, truthfully I would really rather have my money in google or red hat stocks, but not with the way things are now ( and their P/E's). The truth is, gold doesn't do anything but sit there, but gold has one thing going for it that nothing else has, it can't be printed out of thin air, crash to nothing, or default.
A housing bubble is a lot different than a stock bubble. With stocks you typically don't own debt, and stocks remain liquid even when they drop huge amounts. But when housing crashes, it will bring down everything else with it, even banks, unless the fed prints up money - that's what I mean about gold.
In my opinion the economy is not doing well, but is being held up by loose money and easy home financing. Now the stock market has been betting on that loose money using derivatives, and consumers have been betting on that loose money by going outrageously into debt for housing. The notational value of derivatives is 270 trillion dollars while the GDP is only about 13 trillion. This is making the margin calls of 1929 look like tight wads, but at least money was backed by gold then. And it's making the inflation of the 80's look like a 50% off sale, but at least the US could absorb a lot more debt then. There is no easy way out this time.
That's just the federal debt, which is a real issue, but when you count all debt like credit cards, housing, other bonds, etc... it comes to about 44 trillion. That also doesn't include unfunded obligations like medicare, public education, for those add in another 40 trillion. That is too much to ever pay off, and this time we can't inflate our way out without causing the world to dump the dollar as the worlds default currency. There are also other obligations, like derivative contracts which have a notational value of 270 trillion. This is supposed to be a zero sum debt, but considering that the US GDP is 13 trillion.... I think that is very doubtfull. If you have just a fre defaults in the chain of obligations - the whole thing goes to hell.
I think you're right about Europe's economy, and about them not wanting to take military responsibility for protecting their own freedoms. The problem is that the US economy is proping up the rest of the world economy, and now the rest of the world is loaning to the US economy because when it goes they go. Well IMHO, the US now has more debt than it can absorb which means it's the beginning of the end.
Really, I don't like france and their socialist attitude as much as the next guy. But I don't think it's offtopic to say that HP is going to hell because the US economy is tanking like I said here ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161969&cid=135 41221 ) and here ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161969&cid=135 41377
). I'm sorry, these were not offtopic and the fact that they were marked so shows some people are very bitter, but it doesn't doesn't show they are offtopic at all.
Huh. I keep looking at your comment, and I can't find the affiliate marketing link to the as-seen-on-TV gold coin selling web site.
I'm not selling anything, or getting a commission. That's the whole point, there is a reason why I said that. Why in the hell did you say respond like that instead of countring like "you don't know what you're talking about.... the US economy is doing well because....". WTF, are you over leveraged in housing? stocks? debt? Don't shoot me, I'm just the messanger.
Why was this was this ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161969&cid=135 41221 ) just marked off topic? HP didn't just magically decide to bite the bullet one day. They are catching hell because the US economy is byting the bullet too. Sure some of their internal managment didn't help, but it's the fundamentals that are killing them (and GM and Ford, and Kodack who have also had layoffs) Don't tell me that's a cooncidence! Bottom line is that if people half to start choosing between their house payments and their PC payments, the PC will loose out every time. Bottom line, the US savings rate is the lowest since the great depression which means people have less money to buy PC's. And also, how come the notational bets on derivative outcomes are 270 trillion dollars while the US GDP is only 13 Trillion dollars? Sounds like a credit disaster to me.
I'm serious. The US has too much debt, and has put too much new money in circulation over the last few years. We were teetering on the edge of the cliff even before Katrina with a suverely over leveraged housing market. If I were you I would dump stocks, bonds, and dollars like it's doomsday (because it is) and start buying gold and silver (or maybe select gold, silver, and oil stocks) Don't buy futures though, there is a real risk of default. The US is heading full spead towards a hyperinflationary great depression worse than the 1930's and the 1980's combined. Watch out, all hell is about to break loose.
USA investors should get some and use them to create hydrogen from sea water, and sell it back to the mainland. This is the the only way we're gonna get arround the NIMBY additude, and costly irrational regulation, that makes it impossible to benefit from nuclear power on the mainland.
In times of chrises, freedoms need to be maximized, not minimized. For example, what if every airplaine seat had a 6 inch knife strapped to it, do you think for a minute there could be a repeat of 9/11? What if people were encouraged to posess guns resopnsibily for personal protection, do you think Columbine could have even started? What if peacfull people were able to cross borders freely, do you think it would be easier for terrorists to use established routes to smuggle themselves in thru the back country, in fact all our "security" didn't stop them from getting in with letitimate visas. What if drugs were legalized, do you think gangsters and drug lords would get the opportunity of making millions on the black market, while driving the problem underground?
The fact is, individuals can take measures to protect themselves from all these problems, but it is 1000 times harder to protect yourselves from a government that is out of controll. In times of chrises, freedoms need to be maximized, not minimized? Individuals don't need safety, they need controll - when the later happens, the former takes care of itself. Without the later, the former can be revoked at any time.
that by 2005, Linux would occupy about 1-2 % of all web servers, and would not even make it in the enterprise. This study can only mean that Linux has made it in the mainstream.
I completely agree, IMHO this study has nothing to do with the usability or adoption of Linux, but instead is about holding it back long enough for Longhorn to get a foothold for it's new release.
From what I recall, in 98 they released a report that Linux wasn't ready for the enterprise for at least 5 years as compaired to more "mature" opperating systems like SCO.
This change is inexorable, unstoppable. While global warming may, arguably, be influenced by people, solar warming, is not, and long term, no matter what we do, we can't stop it. As stars age, they get hotter...
I 2nd that. Every time the weather's off, or temperatures are higher, or any other anomily people go off screaming bloody murder that we need the government to control every last industrial and personal asset on the planet to save us from environmental doom.
The truth is that almost all of these environmental regulations are welcomed by the industries they regulate because they increase barriers to entry making it harder for competitors to enter the market with newer, cleaner, more competitive technologies. This is Business 101 found in any MBA text book.
From what I renember of history, Venice thrived from the free sharing of information - copyright there was nothing like copyright today and was not prevalent. Also there is a huge difference between copying a Madonna CD and saying I'm Madonna - for example. I don't think copyright does anything to stop plaguerisim (infact the big copyright industries plagerize and lie about it more than anybody), and very little reguarding tade-secret, trademark issues - which are totally different that copyright ones.
Historically we know that during the industrial revolution, many people believed that its entire meaning and purpose was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit. What the industrial revolution actually did was necissatate a mobile and educated workforce and made transportation easier than ever before. The plantation system responded by trying to micro-regulate the northern industries at great expense to them (as well as slaves in their home states). You could say that they pushed it too far, but what was really happening was that they were just bringing their belief in slavery to its logical conclusion.
Yesterday it was about control over labor, today it is control over information. Today many people believe that the entire meaning and purpose of the information age is to use inventions like the internet to leverage copyright holdings for unlimited growth and profit. Unfortunately, to do that requires a control infrastructure over everyone else that uses things like DRM imposed at their expense. Yes, they have pushed it way too far, but I think you should seriously consider if they're not just pushing a poor belief system to it's logical conclusion...
I should have said, "controlling how people use information", because it's not about controlling information but instead about controlling people once the cats out of the bag. And yes, I know the "party line", the one we have all had shoved down our throats since grade school.
The reality is that most the entire Renissance happened without controlls on who can copy information, the notion that copy monopolies incentivize usefull creation is a crock. copy"rights" were devised by kings who granted publishers a monopoly on the works they print in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. It was about Kings controlling dissamation then, it's about publishers controlling distribution now.
While copyrights have failed to benefit all but 1% of 1% of creators financially, they have benefited governments who wish to censor and publishers who wish to monopolize distribution enorumously as well as companies who wish to engage in anti-trust behavior. IP rights? Just because someone calls something a property right doesn't mean that it is.
the basic premise of IP is I make something available to the public that I could otherwise have kept to myself and if the public wants to enjoy it they pay for the privilege through roylaties implied licence to use a patented product etc.
The basic premise of the information age is that information can not be controled. If that makes you want to keep it to yourself, fine that is your problem, not societies.
The notion that a government can give a "right" to controll how people use information at their disposal, copyrights, is whimsical poppycock.
No, you should loose that constitutional right because the "right" to restrict what people copy was never a just right to begin with. New technology is just bringing that problem to the surface. It is a phony property right. The same thing happened to peoples "right" to own slaves when the industrial revolution forced open the labor market. [scarcasim=on] What? Don't you believe in property rights? Don't you believe in capitalisim in America? You commie. Stealing is wrong! [scarcasim=off]
If the people who copy are blatent freeloaders, then the people who sit on their ass and collect royalities are blatent bums.
When a "freeloader" copies something I create, I am not deprived use of that creation, but if a lazy bum sits on their ass and collects royalities while suing everybody over how they use information at their disposal then we are all deprived use and liberty.
Also, since when is copying things a violation of civil liberties? It would be more accurate to say that the right to copy things is a right that exists above government, like free speech, and free religion. Nobody is against the rule of law here, but laws that punish people for copying things are simply unjust, and that's all there is to it. FYI, anarchy and overbearing government tend to give the same results.
If there is one thing that history teaches us, it is that the technology that always wins in the market place is always among the least proprietary. Not the fastest, not the best, not the prettiest, and not the most well engineered.
This is because the free market is 10000 times bigger than even the biggest company. And now that the 3rd world is getting into the picture it is making that even more true.
The truth is, many of these companies don't want convergence, what they want is a proprietary lock in of the masses. Sadly, it shows that many of them couldn't understand a free market if it beat them to a bloody pulp (which it soon will). Many of these companies believe that some magical force is driving the convergence which they intend to expolit for unlimited profit, just wait till they find out that that magical force IS ADVANCES IN NON PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY what will doom them and lock them out.
I don't think people understand that the imposision of copyrights is quickly becomming impossible. Even if the law required you to shoot anybody on site without trial for the meere thought of copyright infringement. It is still quickly becomming impossible. Even if it shuts down the economic prospects of 100 million people and they suffer a New Orleans fate, it is still becomming impossibe. The bogus morality that tries treat controll over how people copy information as a property right is dead because it simply has no place in the information age any more than the bogus property right of slavery could survive the industrial revolution. Then it was about labor, today it is about information. The Lessig appeasers of the world who want the slave states to just get along with the free states will die in the trash heap of history.
I think everyone is thinking about this the wrong way. Software companies that try to controll and manipulate how people copy things are not workable in an internet information age world. The forces that they choose to hold themselves accountable to are not compatable with the ones we have held ourselves to. This is not a matter of "can't we all just get along", we can't - it's a matter of how long it will take till everything blows up in our face and forces us into a knock down drag out fight to the death.
That's a red herring. They charge less in sales because they charge more in other areas. When you rank states by ALL regulations and taxes, Massachusetts ranks in the worst 10 every time.
Notice how the liberal states have economic environments that are the most likely to screw poor people out of higer wages and opportunity. So it seems to me the sales tax rankings were selectively chosen to promote an dishonest liberal bias... well, what else is old?
BS, this is senator Kennedy's state we're talking about here. Nothing is for the good of the tax payers. I would read this to mean that Microsoft didn't offer enough bribe money to high ranking state officials.
It's not just about tax, it's about accountability and resources. When people pay directly, thay can make the rules directly, attack waste directly, reallocate money directly. Now people have none of that, and less to give because it's already been taken.
Maybe it is a culturial thing. Other cultures hate the poor and disaster ridden so much that they would rather pawn off those responsibilities on government to coerce those resources out of their neighbors rather then choose it out of themselves.
In all fairness, democracy is not the "ends" but a means, a tool, a method, to secure and preserve individual rights and liberties. Venezuela has more than enough resources to not be poor in the slightest, it is only policies that coerce controll over people for the sake of "social good" that cause the poverty. Incidently, these types of governments are by nature anti peace.
Slashdot Mirror
The deal is, copyrights are not workable in the information age and currently DRM is just a technological attempt to keep the same old system in place even though it is not tenable. IMHO, that attitude shows a mis-understanding of both free markets and the information age.
When they put artificial restrictions on what people can copy and manipulate for the sake of distribution profits or royalities, they are inhibiting others from getting the most value from that information and thus making themselves an obstacle to be knocked down rather than a service to be embraced. With content creation, the content market is not driven by publishers desire to make money, or even creators, it is driven by people's need or desire for given information. If that need can be satisfied without some distributers or creators locking in controll over profit, then that's just tough luck for the content industry. Times change.
For example, sure, maybe Gates is making more than Linus, but it would be a mistake to assume that will cause M$ to be on top. It would also be a mistake to assume that the profit from the M$ distribution monopoly is driving the software industry or the market place.
Contrary to popular belief, the information age demands releasing controll over how people use information once the cat's out of the bag and not micro-controling how everyone uses and gets every little piece. While DRM will have its places, one place it will not have is to lock in revenue streams for content distributors or creators. The future in that aera will be in services, not in control.
At Microsoft, we work to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential. This is our mission. Everything we do reflects this mission and the values that make it possible.
What the hell? If that is the case then why not make it so we can use source if needed, and copy os installs and information freely without fine, liability, threat of suit or going to jail by licensing their products to be have freedom (as in GPL freedom) and try makeing money from services and not from licensing.
I know I sound like a gold kook. But, truthfully I would really rather have my money in google or red hat stocks, but not with the way things are now ( and their P/E's). The truth is, gold doesn't do anything but sit there, but gold has one thing going for it that nothing else has, it can't be printed out of thin air, crash to nothing, or default.
A housing bubble is a lot different than a stock bubble. With stocks you typically don't own debt, and stocks remain liquid even when they drop huge amounts. But when housing crashes, it will bring down everything else with it, even banks, unless the fed prints up money - that's what I mean about gold.
In my opinion the economy is not doing well, but is being held up by loose money and easy home financing. Now the stock market has been betting on that loose money using derivatives, and consumers have been betting on that loose money by going outrageously into debt for housing. The notational value of derivatives is 270 trillion dollars while the GDP is only about 13 trillion. This is making the margin calls of 1929 look like tight wads, but at least money was backed by gold then. And it's making the inflation of the 80's look like a 50% off sale, but at least the US could absorb a lot more debt then. There is no easy way out this time.
That's just the federal debt, which is a real issue, but when you count all debt like credit cards, housing, other bonds, etc
I think you're right about Europe's economy, and about them not wanting to take military responsibility for protecting their own freedoms. The problem is that the US economy is proping up the rest of the world economy, and now the rest of the world is loaning to the US economy because when it goes they go. Well IMHO, the US now has more debt than it can absorb which means it's the beginning of the end.
Really, I don't like france and their socialist attitude as much as the next guy. But I don't think it's offtopic to say that HP is going to hell because the US economy is tanking like I said here (5 412215 41377
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161969&cid=13
) and here (
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161969&cid=13
). I'm sorry, these were not offtopic and the fact that they were marked so shows some people are very bitter, but it doesn't doesn't show they are offtopic at all.
Huh. I keep looking at your comment, and I can't find the affiliate marketing link to the as-seen-on-TV gold coin selling web site.
I'm not selling anything, or getting a commission. That's the whole point, there is a reason why I said that. Why in the hell did you say respond like that instead of countring like "you don't know what you're talking about .... the US economy is doing well because ....". WTF, are you over leveraged in housing? stocks? debt? Don't shoot me, I'm just the messanger.
Why was this was this ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161969&cid=135 41221 ) just marked off topic? HP didn't just magically decide to bite the bullet one day. They are catching hell because the US economy is byting the bullet too. Sure some of their internal managment didn't help, but it's the fundamentals that are killing them (and GM and Ford, and Kodack who have also had layoffs) Don't tell me that's a cooncidence! Bottom line is that if people half to start choosing between their house payments and their PC payments, the PC will loose out every time. Bottom line, the US savings rate is the lowest since the great depression which means people have less money to buy PC's. And also, how come the notational bets on derivative outcomes are 270 trillion dollars while the US GDP is only 13 Trillion dollars? Sounds like a credit disaster to me.
I'm serious. The US has too much debt, and has put too much new money in circulation over the last few years. We were teetering on the edge of the cliff even before Katrina with a suverely over leveraged housing market. If I were you I would dump stocks, bonds, and dollars like it's doomsday (because it is) and start buying gold and silver (or maybe select gold, silver, and oil stocks) Don't buy futures though, there is a real risk of default. The US is heading full spead towards a hyperinflationary great depression worse than the 1930's and the 1980's combined. Watch out, all hell is about to break loose.
USA investors should get some and use them to create hydrogen from sea water, and sell it back to the mainland. This is the the only way we're gonna get arround the NIMBY additude, and costly irrational regulation, that makes it impossible to benefit from nuclear power on the mainland.
In times of chrises, freedoms need to be maximized, not minimized. For example, what if every airplaine seat had a 6 inch knife strapped to it, do you think for a minute there could be a repeat of 9/11? What if people were encouraged to posess guns resopnsibily for personal protection, do you think Columbine could have even started? What if peacfull people were able to cross borders freely, do you think it would be easier for terrorists to use established routes to smuggle themselves in thru the back country, in fact all our "security" didn't stop them from getting in with letitimate visas. What if drugs were legalized, do you think gangsters and drug lords would get the opportunity of making millions on the black market, while driving the problem underground?
The fact is, individuals can take measures to protect themselves from all these problems, but it is 1000 times harder to protect yourselves from a government that is out of controll. In times of chrises, freedoms need to be maximized, not minimized? Individuals don't need safety, they need controll - when the later happens, the former takes care of itself. Without the later, the former can be revoked at any time.
that by 2005, Linux would occupy about 1-2 % of all web servers, and would not even make it in the enterprise. This study can only mean that Linux has made it in the mainstream.
I completely agree, IMHO this study has nothing to do with the usability or adoption of Linux, but instead is about holding it back long enough for Longhorn to get a foothold for it's new release.
From what I recall, in 98 they released a report that Linux wasn't ready for the enterprise for at least 5 years as compaired to more "mature" opperating systems like SCO.
This change is inexorable, unstoppable. While global warming may, arguably, be influenced by people, solar warming, is not, and long term, no matter what we do, we can't stop it. As stars age, they get hotter...
I 2nd that. Every time the weather's off, or temperatures are higher, or any other anomily people go off screaming bloody murder that we need the government to control every last industrial and personal asset on the planet to save us from environmental doom.
The truth is that almost all of these environmental regulations are welcomed by the industries they regulate because they increase barriers to entry making it harder for competitors to enter the market with newer, cleaner, more competitive technologies. This is Business 101 found in any MBA text book.
From what I renember of history, Venice thrived from the free sharing of information - copyright there was nothing like copyright today and was not prevalent. Also there is a huge difference between copying a Madonna CD and saying I'm Madonna - for example. I don't think copyright does anything to stop plaguerisim (infact the big copyright industries plagerize and lie about it more than anybody), and very little reguarding tade-secret, trademark issues - which are totally different that copyright ones.
Historically we know that during the industrial revolution, many people believed that its entire meaning and purpose was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit. What the industrial revolution actually did was necissatate a mobile and educated workforce and made transportation easier than ever before. The plantation system responded by trying to micro-regulate the northern industries at great expense to them (as well as slaves in their home states). You could say that they pushed it too far, but what was really happening was that they were just bringing their belief in slavery to its logical conclusion.
Yesterday it was about control over labor, today it is control over information. Today many people believe that the entire meaning and purpose of the information age is to use inventions like the internet to leverage copyright holdings for unlimited growth and profit. Unfortunately, to do that requires a control infrastructure over everyone else that uses things like DRM imposed at their expense. Yes, they have pushed it way too far, but I think you should seriously consider if they're not just pushing a poor belief system to it's logical conclusion...
I should have said, "controlling how people use information", because it's not about controlling information but instead about controlling people once the cats out of the bag. And yes, I know the "party line", the one we have all had shoved down our throats since grade school.
The reality is that most the entire Renissance happened without controlls on who can copy information, the notion that copy monopolies incentivize usefull creation is a crock. copy"rights" were devised by kings who granted publishers a monopoly on the works they print in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. It was about Kings controlling dissamation then, it's about publishers controlling distribution now.
While copyrights have failed to benefit all but 1% of 1% of creators financially, they have benefited governments who wish to censor and publishers who wish to monopolize distribution enorumously as well as companies who wish to engage in anti-trust behavior. IP rights? Just because someone calls something a property right doesn't mean that it is.
the basic premise of IP is I make something available to the public that I could otherwise have kept to myself and if the public wants to enjoy it they pay for the privilege through roylaties implied licence to use a patented product etc.
The basic premise of the information age is that information can not be controled. If that makes you want to keep it to yourself, fine that is your problem, not societies.
The notion that a government can give a "right" to controll how people use information at their disposal, copyrights, is whimsical poppycock.
No, you should loose that constitutional right because the "right" to restrict what people copy was never a just right to begin with. New technology is just bringing that problem to the surface. It is a phony property right. The same thing happened to peoples "right" to own slaves when the industrial revolution forced open the labor market. [scarcasim=on] What? Don't you believe in property rights? Don't you believe in capitalisim in America? You commie. Stealing is wrong! [scarcasim=off]
If the people who copy are blatent freeloaders, then the people who sit on their ass and collect royalities are blatent bums.
When a "freeloader" copies something I create, I am not deprived use of that creation, but if a lazy bum sits on their ass and collects royalities while suing everybody over how they use information at their disposal then we are all deprived use and liberty.
Also, since when is copying things a violation of civil liberties? It would be more accurate to say that the right to copy things is a right that exists above government, like free speech, and free religion. Nobody is against the rule of law here, but laws that punish people for copying things are simply unjust, and that's all there is to it. FYI, anarchy and overbearing government tend to give the same results.
If there is one thing that history teaches us, it is that the technology that always wins in the market place is always among the least proprietary. Not the fastest, not the best, not the prettiest, and not the most well engineered.
This is because the free market is 10000 times bigger than even the biggest company. And now that the 3rd world is getting into the picture it is making that even more true.
The truth is, many of these companies don't want convergence, what they want is a proprietary lock in of the masses. Sadly, it shows that many of them couldn't understand a free market if it beat them to a bloody pulp (which it soon will). Many of these companies believe that some magical force is driving the convergence which they intend to expolit for unlimited profit, just wait till they find out that that magical force IS ADVANCES IN NON PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY what will doom them and lock them out.
I don't think people understand that the imposision of copyrights is quickly becomming impossible. Even if the law required you to shoot anybody on site without trial for the meere thought of copyright infringement. It is still quickly becomming impossible. Even if it shuts down the economic prospects of 100 million people and they suffer a New Orleans fate, it is still becomming impossibe. The bogus morality that tries treat controll over how people copy information as a property right is dead because it simply has no place in the information age any more than the bogus property right of slavery could survive the industrial revolution. Then it was about labor, today it is about information. The Lessig appeasers of the world who want the slave states to just get along with the free states will die in the trash heap of history.
I think everyone is thinking about this the wrong way. Software companies that try to controll and manipulate how people copy things are not workable in an internet information age world. The forces that they choose to hold themselves accountable to are not compatable with the ones we have held ourselves to. This is not a matter of "can't we all just get along", we can't - it's a matter of how long it will take till everything blows up in our face and forces us into a knock down drag out fight to the death.
That's a red herring. They charge less in sales because they charge more in other areas. When you rank states by ALL regulations and taxes, Massachusetts ranks in the worst 10 every time.
4 /econ_freedom/freedom.html
... well, what else is old?
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/entrep/200
http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15303
Notice how the liberal states have economic environments that are the most likely to screw poor people out of higer wages and opportunity. So it seems to me the sales tax rankings were selectively chosen to promote an dishonest liberal bias
BS, this is senator Kennedy's state we're talking about here. Nothing is for the good of the tax payers. I would read this to mean that Microsoft didn't offer enough bribe money to high ranking state officials.
It's not just about tax, it's about accountability and resources. When people pay directly, thay can make the rules directly, attack waste directly, reallocate money directly. Now people have none of that, and less to give because it's already been taken.
Maybe it is a culturial thing. Other cultures hate the poor and disaster ridden so much that they would rather pawn off those responsibilities on government to coerce those resources out of their neighbors rather then choose it out of themselves.
In all fairness, democracy is not the "ends" but a means, a tool, a method, to secure and preserve individual rights and liberties. Venezuela has more than enough resources to not be poor in the slightest, it is only policies that coerce controll over people for the sake of "social good" that cause the poverty. Incidently, these types of governments are by nature anti peace.