We're talking about hte federal government here, which i fail to see why the federal goverment should be involved in any of those areas at all, excluding the military, which is clearly part of our federal government.
WHys is pure capitalism an utter joke? we've had almost pure capitalism in the technology sector, and look at all the great things that have happened. We've had a fair amount of government involvement in the medical industry and look what has happened to it.
His plan is MS pays out 1m for sites to basically become bing exclusive, which i can't see how that's bribery either. anymore than my job is bribery or usign coupons is bribery.
they are not "ultra capitalists". Capitalism would mean there's no goverment regulation or involvement, which neocons certainly are not about.
A little capitalism is all very well and good, but unrestrained capitalism is nothing but bad.
I strongly disagree. Most of the time when people cite the negatives of capitlism, they are doing just the opposite, they are pointing out why corruption, that is buisness in bed with the government, is bad. Which is certainly true.
Not that capitalism is perfect, so yes there are cases you can make against it, but, compared to the alternates, i'd take capitalism.
I think it was less than a month ago that you couldn't get anything beyond komo/kiro/king.. without seeing a nice picture from comcast saying you need a digital box. I had Comcast Cable Television package according to my bill.
My mom can't get FiOS either, i think she's looking at qwest now. I got lucky.
Well my building was wired, and there was anice faceplate the size of an outlet in my room that they put a verizon FIOS sticker on. I haven't looked into how it works exactly, so i dunno, maybe it's normal. Whatever the case, they said it would take that long so it's nto a big deal.
you and another commentered state that, no box was required for you guys. but it certainly was my case and my moms. we both live in the greater seattle area. 2 weeks ago no basic cable channels would come in at all, they just said you need a box on them.
yeah fios so far, is nice. only thing i dind't like is it took the guy 4 hours to install, when my apartment already had the wiring done. I dunno how it could take that long exactly, but whatever.
Honestly, until this year, i didn't have any problems with comcast. (though they would throttle me if i had bit torrent going for long). then this year i started getting a number of outages, which still wasn't so terrible, but then the last 2 months. blarh. oh well
comcast can suck it. maybe off topic, but i just ditched them.
* they advertise how customers will need to do nothing for the digital conversion. then we get boxes * they've lied to my mom about prices, she called up before she had somethign done, they insisted it was free of charge, then she got a bill with.. charges on it, now it's of course it's not free. * internet sucks, last few months during the evenings i had lag spikes all the time.
i've switched to verizon fios and so far i like it better, plus it's a few bucks cheaper. hoepfully i'll continue to liek it
This just shows the utter hypocrisy of the libertarians
What? This guy is opposed to regulation, as far as i can tell. And he doesn't want the FSF to create more. This seems fairly in line with libertarianism.
I've said all along that libertarians really want corporate feudalism
I consider myself a libertarian. And i want freedom. That does include freedom for the big corporations, and the little ones. That really makes that statement false.
Libertarians, in general, feel they are superior to everyone else. They also feel that it is a natural right for the elite to profit from the plebeians.
lol, well if the elite are profiting from the plebs, in a free market, it means the plebs are willing to make that exchange and thus also profiting. Just going to ignore your use of eltie/plebeians, because that is also contrary to libertarianism.
When anything threatens their real agenda, they will set aside their supposed ideals to destroy it.
Cite? I like milton friedman's response to this, which i'm paraphrasing, "it's my job to convince you, and if i can't, i still can't force you to do what i think is right"
Free software reduces the ability of the elite to profit off of the 'inferior people' of the world, and therefore it must be destroyed
Free software, as far as i can tell, was not what the article was about, it was about the free software movement. And again ignoring your flamebait terms.
Unions, even though they are a product of free association, also threaten libertarians ability to exploit others, and so you will never find a libertarian who is pro union, even though, according to their ideals, they should be.
Ron Paul is certainly pro union. He's also against any law that would favor unions. You gonna say he's not a libertarian?
The thing is, Libertarians always have such high levels of cognitive dissonance, they do not realize this is what they are doing.
What large group of people doesn't? and what is it they are doing exactly? voicing concern about a movement?
They firmly believe they are 'good' people, because being a 'good' person goes along with their image of themselves as vastly superior beings, so they will never look at all the ways their ideals and actions work to oppress the less fortunate. In their minds, they are helping the less fortunate by exploiting them.
I guess you got me there. I do believe i'm a good person. But, i certainly do not view myself as superior. In fact, i tend to undervalue myself. But let's look take the last part of your statement. You think that libertarianism hurts the less fortunate? letting people live their lives as they want to, hurts them? Letting people make their own choices hurts them? giving freedom to everyone hurts the less fortunate? In reality, giving the less fortunate freedom, empowers them. and is the best way to raise their standards of living. Let's take an example, of something people might not like, sweatshops (not talking about places that literally enslave employees). A large company decides itcan make something cheaper in a poor country. What do they do? they give people who have no other options, an option. They give these less fortunate people jobs. You would probably say they are exploiting them, but who's being exploited? If you ask the people who choose to work there, they are usually very happy. All of a sudden they have a job and can support their family, and thus increase their standard of living. ALl of this, not because of what you deem to be fair, but because people are allowed to make their own choices.
Higher education does ok because they have to have students/parents choose to go there. Unlike your typical public high school, they have to compete to survive. So it's a free market principal that makes them work. Even though they also get a lot of money from the government,
The thing is, we had all the intelligence to know what was going to happen, but didn't. I don't think clamping down on border control helps anyone. It hurts the tourism industry at home, and give people a worse impression of us. And it certainly would not have caught the terrorists. What we should have done is looked at why they attacked us and figured out why the intelligence failed. But instead we'll add on a huge bureaucracy that just complicates things and increase the policing of innocent people. Fuck the terrorists were all here legally for something like 5 years? they certainly could have passed just about any checkpoints we might put up.
i would agree, i have played mario 64 on a ds and a 42 inch screen. even tho the graphics aren't great, being on such a small screen for an immersive environment just doesn't do me much good.
You know in the 50's it was not hard to find health care, it was even cheap. But since then what have we done? we've added all sorts of regulations. now in our current state, we want to do what? add more regulations. Your solution is to have some government bureaucrat/bureaucracy who will likely have no incentive to do a good job, and will likely get lobbied by big insurance, to supervise?
But anyways, the main argument against socialized health care is not that it's going to kill off everyone immediatly. It's that it'll make things worse.
In the US we've had the government involved in health care for 40+ years and things have gotten worse in many respects.
Contrast with the computing industry where thigns have gotten much better and has been largely un regulated. hell the cases of regulation have hurt it, eg software patents.
But what I do want to know right now is where were you the past 8 years?
What the FUCK are you talking about? I would think you're a troll but your persistence makes that a little bit less likely.
Enlighten me on what sort of criticism free ride bush had during his 8 years? Excluding the few months after 9/11. And it's especially weird posting that on slashdot.
Where were you for 8 years? If you weren't submitting those stories or too busy stopping them to post, then go back under whatever rock you came from. The rest of us are trying to clean up that mess, and you're tracking it all over the floors.
You're trying to clean up the mess by giving the government more control or something? Because so far all I see is pretty much Bush 2.0, only Obama is better looking and charming and gives better speeches, which are pretty superficial reasons to like a guy, especially as our president. Let's go down a few points shall well?
- Iraq war policy? the same as Bush's - Afghanistan? pretty identical to me. Wait, now we need more troops? - Enemy combatants, can still be held indefinitely, but hey, we're closing down Gitmo!!! which changes nothing and is just a political maneuver. - Money to big corporations? Well, I don't think this is hard to follow. - Civil Liberties? The writing was on the wall before Obama was in office, he voted for that FISA bill or whatever the hell it was. - Torture? Obama has left enough loop holes for plenty of this.
My question is, why hasn't Obama received the kind of criticism Bush did? But, to be fair, I think he's starting to get it.
Destroying your competition by being better is ok, destroying by doing things like bribing the the governemnt has nothign to do with capitalism. Fraud is illegal. Partial capitalism? i think not, you may need some government regulation, but not a whole lot.
Most of our problems stem from government getting involved. The current economic mess as far more to do with the ability of fed to arbitrarily create money than any ponzi schemes. (Unless you consider the entire stock market the ponzi scheme, which maybe an argument can be made for)
as someone who tries to bike in to work atleast 3 days a week, biking sucks. Of course i live in seattle which is somewhat hilly so, YMMV. a 20 mile commute without any hills isn't that bad really.
Slashdot Mirror
google turns up nothing that i can see. So no clue what you're talking about.
We're talking about hte federal government here, which i fail to see why the federal goverment should be involved in any of those areas at all, excluding the military, which is clearly part of our federal government.
WHys is pure capitalism an utter joke? we've had almost pure capitalism in the technology sector, and look at all the great things that have happened. We've had a fair amount of government involvement in the medical industry and look what has happened to it.
His plan is MS pays out 1m for sites to basically become bing exclusive, which i can't see how that's bribery either. anymore than my job is bribery or usign coupons is bribery.
But I can't imagine this would work.
they are not "ultra capitalists". Capitalism would mean there's no goverment regulation or involvement, which neocons certainly are not about.
A little capitalism is all very well and good, but unrestrained capitalism is nothing but bad.
I strongly disagree. Most of the time when people cite the negatives of capitlism, they are doing just the opposite, they are pointing out why corruption, that is buisness in bed with the government, is bad. Which is certainly true.
Not that capitalism is perfect, so yes there are cases you can make against it, but, compared to the alternates, i'd take capitalism.
I think it was less than a month ago that you couldn't get anything beyond komo/kiro/king.. without seeing a nice picture from comcast saying you need a digital box. I had Comcast Cable Television package according to my bill.
My mom can't get FiOS either, i think she's looking at qwest now. I got lucky.
Well my building was wired, and there was anice faceplate the size of an outlet in my room that they put a verizon FIOS sticker on. I haven't looked into how it works exactly, so i dunno, maybe it's normal. Whatever the case, they said it would take that long so it's nto a big deal.
sorr y you're jealous, just so you can see what you're missing, http://www.speedtest.net/result/612733502.png
you and another commentered state that, no box was required for you guys. but it certainly was my case and my moms. we both live in the greater seattle area. 2 weeks ago no basic cable channels would come in at all, they just said you need a box on them.
yeah fios so far, is nice. only thing i dind't like is it took the guy 4 hours to install, when my apartment already had the wiring done. I dunno how it could take that long exactly, but whatever.
Honestly, until this year, i didn't have any problems with comcast. (though they would throttle me if i had bit torrent going for long). then this year i started getting a number of outages, which still wasn't so terrible, but then the last 2 months. blarh. oh well
comcast can suck it. maybe off topic, but i just ditched them.
* they advertise how customers will need to do nothing for the digital conversion. then we get boxes
* they've lied to my mom about prices, she called up before she had somethign done, they insisted it was free of charge, then she got a bill with.. charges on it, now it's of course it's not free.
* internet sucks, last few months during the evenings i had lag spikes all the time.
i've switched to verizon fios and so far i like it better, plus it's a few bucks cheaper. hoepfully i'll continue to liek it
do not confuse good intentions with good results.
This just shows the utter hypocrisy of the libertarians
What? This guy is opposed to regulation, as far as i can tell. And he doesn't want the FSF to create more. This seems fairly in line with libertarianism.
I've said all along that libertarians really want corporate feudalism
I consider myself a libertarian. And i want freedom. That does include freedom for the big corporations, and the little ones. That really makes that statement false.
Libertarians, in general, feel they are superior to everyone else. They also feel that it is a natural right for the elite to profit from the plebeians.
lol, well if the elite are profiting from the plebs, in a free market, it means the plebs are willing to make that exchange and thus also profiting. Just going to ignore your use of eltie/plebeians, because that is also contrary to libertarianism.
When anything threatens their real agenda, they will set aside their supposed ideals to destroy it.
Cite? I like milton friedman's response to this, which i'm paraphrasing, "it's my job to convince you, and if i can't, i still can't force you to do what i think is right"
Free software reduces the ability of the elite to profit off of the 'inferior people' of the world, and therefore it must be destroyed
Free software, as far as i can tell, was not what the article was about, it was about the free software movement. And again ignoring your flamebait terms.
Unions, even though they are a product of free association, also threaten libertarians ability to exploit others, and so you will never find a libertarian who is pro union, even though, according to their ideals, they should be.
Ron Paul is certainly pro union. He's also against any law that would favor unions. You gonna say he's not a libertarian?
The thing is, Libertarians always have such high levels of cognitive dissonance, they do not realize this is what they are doing.
What large group of people doesn't? and what is it they are doing exactly? voicing concern about a movement?
They firmly believe they are 'good' people, because being a 'good' person goes along with their image of themselves as vastly superior beings, so they will never look at all the ways their ideals and actions work to oppress the less fortunate. In their minds, they are helping the less fortunate by exploiting them.
I guess you got me there. I do believe i'm a good person. But, i certainly do not view myself as superior. In fact, i tend to undervalue myself. But let's look take the last part of your statement. You think that libertarianism hurts the less fortunate? letting people live their lives as they want to, hurts them? Letting people make their own choices hurts them? giving freedom to everyone hurts the less fortunate? In reality, giving the less fortunate freedom, empowers them. and is the best way to raise their standards of living. Let's take an example, of something people might not like, sweatshops (not talking about places that literally enslave employees). A large company decides itcan make something cheaper in a poor country. What do they do? they give people who have no other options, an option. They give these less fortunate people jobs. You would probably say they are exploiting them, but who's being exploited? If you ask the people who choose to work there, they are usually very happy. All of a sudden they have a job and can support their family, and thus increase their standard of living. ALl of this, not because of what you deem to be fair, but because people are allowed to make their own choices.
I really have never looked into, much, what the lp stands for. So what does it stand for that you object to?
Higher education does ok because they have to have students/parents choose to go there. Unlike your typical public high school, they have to compete to survive. So it's a free market principal that makes them work. Even though they also get a lot of money from the government,
The thing is, we had all the intelligence to know what was going to happen, but didn't. I don't think clamping down on border control helps anyone. It hurts the tourism industry at home, and give people a worse impression of us. And it certainly would not have caught the terrorists. What we should have done is looked at why they attacked us and figured out why the intelligence failed. But instead we'll add on a huge bureaucracy that just complicates things and increase the policing of innocent people. Fuck the terrorists were all here legally for something like 5 years? they certainly could have passed just about any checkpoints we might put up.
i would agree, i have played mario 64 on a ds and a 42 inch screen. even tho the graphics aren't great, being on such a small screen for an immersive environment just doesn't do me much good.
offtopic: undo moderation pretty please?
You know in the 50's it was not hard to find health care, it was even cheap. But since then what have we done? we've added all sorts of regulations. now in our current state, we want to do what? add more regulations. Your solution is to have some government bureaucrat/bureaucracy who will likely have no incentive to do a good job, and will likely get lobbied by big insurance, to supervise?
as I posted above, milton friedman has some thoughts on thalidomide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZL25NSLhEA much better stated than i could do.
Well first, you've gone off topic.
But anyways, the main argument against socialized health care is not that it's going to kill off everyone immediatly. It's that it'll make things worse.
In the US we've had the government involved in health care for 40+ years and things have gotten worse in many respects.
Contrast with the computing industry where thigns have gotten much better and has been largely un regulated. hell the cases of regulation have hurt it, eg software patents.
milton friedman's thoguhts on the FDA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZL25NSLhEA
all mathematicians i've ever met, had advanced calculators.
But what I do want to know right now is where were you the past 8 years?
What the FUCK are you talking about? I would think you're a troll but your persistence makes that a little bit less likely.
Enlighten me on what sort of criticism free ride bush had during his 8 years? Excluding the few months after 9/11. And it's especially weird posting that on slashdot.
Where were you for 8 years? If you weren't submitting those stories or too busy stopping them to post, then go back under whatever rock you came from. The rest of us are trying to clean up that mess, and you're tracking it all over the floors.
You're trying to clean up the mess by giving the government more control or something? Because so far all I see is pretty much Bush 2.0, only Obama is better looking and charming and gives better speeches, which are pretty superficial reasons to like a guy, especially as our president. Let's go down a few points shall well?
- Iraq war policy? the same as Bush's
- Afghanistan? pretty identical to me. Wait, now we need more troops?
- Enemy combatants, can still be held indefinitely, but hey, we're closing down Gitmo!!! which changes nothing and is just a political maneuver.
- Money to big corporations? Well, I don't think this is hard to follow.
- Civil Liberties? The writing was on the wall before Obama was in office, he voted for that FISA bill or whatever the hell it was.
- Torture? Obama has left enough loop holes for plenty of this.
My question is, why hasn't Obama received the kind of criticism Bush did? But, to be fair, I think he's starting to get it.
Destroying your competition by being better is ok, destroying by doing things like bribing the the governemnt has nothign to do with capitalism. Fraud is illegal. Partial capitalism? i think not, you may need some government regulation, but not a whole lot.
Most of our problems stem from government getting involved. The current economic mess as far more to do with the ability of fed to arbitrarily create money than any ponzi schemes. (Unless you consider the entire stock market the ponzi scheme, which maybe an argument can be made for)
And you must be new to the English language.
I kid, I kid.
i recall they said they couldn't do that for legal purposes.
also from a guy who just made over 100 million dollars by selling a company he founded to HP (Opsware).
yet the same people want to have the government run things like health care.
as someone who tries to bike in to work atleast 3 days a week, biking sucks. Of course i live in seattle which is somewhat hilly so, YMMV. a 20 mile commute without any hills isn't that bad really.