A capitalist provides for himself by producing something of value. When what he knows how to produce ceases to have value, he learns how to produce something that does rather than rely on others (government, union, etc.) to artificially prop him up.
He uses the value he creates to procure the other things he needs to survive.
The point is that encouraging able-bodied people to be reliant on anything other than themselves, be it their government, a union, etc. and passing it off as helping them is, in my opinion, the essence of socialism and it's oppressive.
Feel free to refute my point with actual facts rather than calling me a "fucking retard yank".
I'm not sure where you're going with that. I said absolutely nothing about intellectual property. I was referring to the attitude that everyone should have a job whether they deserve it or not at the cost of advancement.
This, to me, is the essence of socialism: A deep desire to stifle technological advancement so that the people who cannot or will not keep up can have an income that they normally could not have.
It may sound insensitive to touchy-feely types, but if they are obsolete, they must adapt. To encourage them otherwise, in any way, is a subtle, but in my opinion much more sinister type of oppression.
Agreed. To borrow a Fight Club concept, it's like the oxygen provided during a airborne emergency. It doesn't make you any safer, it just gets you high enough that you have a false sense of well-being.
The mere approval of a doctrine as official does not mean that it was "invented". It means that there is enough evidence to show that it does not contradict tradition, including scripture.
So as long as an idea doesn't contradict tradition or scripture, we're all good with it?
I don't care if you like Fox News or not, and I'm not going to defend it. My point could be better summed up as, "Oh, look. You replaced the word Fox with Faux. How cute!"
I think you're both over-thinking it. The bottom line is people like to talk about themselves. Conversely, people in general, do not like listening to someone talk about themselves too much. So, if you can make yourself someone who not only listens, but also encourages other people talk about themselves, people will like you.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm... That would be 2%. There's a 100-fold difference.
it's almost unheard of for non-emergency hams to fail to vacate a frequency in favor of emergency users.
Holy triple negative, Batman!
Self-interest is a powerful thing. A sense of common good, not as powerful. Like it or not, that's why capitalism works better than socialism.
You're purposely being disingenuous.
A capitalist provides for himself by producing something of value. When what he knows how to produce ceases to have value, he learns how to produce something that does rather than rely on others (government, union, etc.) to artificially prop him up.
He uses the value he creates to procure the other things he needs to survive.
It's only capitalists who think of jobs in terms of "deserving" a wage.
There's really no more to say than that.
In fact, if you are the same AC I was responding to, you stated yourself that Situation B above was "more social". I was simply re-wording it for you.
The point is that encouraging able-bodied people to be reliant on anything other than themselves, be it their government, a union, etc. and passing it off as helping them is, in my opinion, the essence of socialism and it's oppressive.
Feel free to refute my point with actual facts rather than calling me a "fucking retard yank".
Please. Enlighten me.
I'm not sure where you're going with that. I said absolutely nothing about intellectual property. I was referring to the attitude that everyone should have a job whether they deserve it or not at the cost of advancement.
http://xkcd.com/257/
(350K * $0.99) * 0.35 = $121,275 That was made in a little over two months. How does that not add up to more than $500K annually?
This, to me, is the essence of socialism: A deep desire to stifle technological advancement so that the people who cannot or will not keep up can have an income that they normally could not have.
It may sound insensitive to touchy-feely types, but if they are obsolete, they must adapt. To encourage them otherwise, in any way, is a subtle, but in my opinion much more sinister type of oppression.
Agreed. To borrow a Fight Club concept, it's like the oxygen provided during a airborne emergency. It doesn't make you any safer, it just gets you high enough that you have a false sense of well-being.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCfUm21BsI
organized religion does nothing but puts up barriers
Never were truer words spoken.
In Soviet Russia, device owns you!
The mere approval of a doctrine as official does not mean that it was "invented". It means that there is enough evidence to show that it does not contradict tradition, including scripture.
So as long as an idea doesn't contradict tradition or scripture, we're all good with it?
I just realized that you may have been poking fun at yourself as well which totally changes the tone of your comment. Hard to tell.
I don't care if you like Fox News or not, and I'm not going to defend it. My point could be better summed up as, "Oh, look. You replaced the word Fox with Faux. How cute!"
Might as well just get your news from Jon Stewart.
AC, meet the American left.
Faux news is faux
Yawn.
This is what you get for watching Faux News.
I see what you did there. How clever.
90% of those questions are purely subjective.
Whoosh.
Why stop there? Why not seed blogs, twitter and facebook and initiate a misinformation campaign?
Patience, Grasshopper.
I think you're both over-thinking it. The bottom line is people like to talk about themselves. Conversely, people in general, do not like listening to someone talk about themselves too much. So, if you can make yourself someone who not only listens, but also encourages other people talk about themselves, people will like you.