Why would someone who doesn't rely on their cell phone like I do even care if their number changes? If you print your number on your business card, then I am assuming you're using it for business, and paying $40 won't put you back that far. The fact that you will end up paying for the service anyway (maybe forever) shows that a $40 investment up front will save you more than that in the long run.
There is no need to "keep the market fair." Where is Congress' mandate in the Constitution to interfere in these affairs??
If they are going to force this issue to "keep the market fair" why don't they also go and force automobile manufacturers to use each other's engines? Maybe I want a Cadillac with a Honda engine, hey, it'll keep the market fair.
Or how about forcing all retail stores to accept whatever credit card I have? It'll keep the market fair -- I have a right to use my American Express anywhere even if the owner of a store doesn't want to accept it.
Maybe we should force every book manufacturer to publish their books in every language -- it's only keeping the market fair. I'm sure there are a number of Swedes residing in this country who don't speak English and want to read the latest Orson Scott Card novel. It is not fair that they can't, and we need a fair market.
The idea of a fair market is garbage -- manufacturers offer you a service, and if that service is what you want at a price you're willing to pay, you'll buy it. No one is forcing you to buy or use a cell phone.
If a manufacturer sees they can efficiently incorporate a feature, they will do it. And others will fall into line, or they will disappear, if it is a feature that is important to cell phone users.
It really bugs me that I am going to have to pay ANOTHER charge on my bill for a service I will never use. Even if it isn't a direct fee, it will be incorporated into higher rates, or even worse, it will take longer for rates to fall.
I'm a consultant and owner of a retail franchise on the side. People need to call me all the time. Even with that priority, I don't understand the fear of having to change my cell phone number.
I've changed services 3 times in 8 years. Each time I was given a new phone number. All I did was ask the previous cell phone company to cut my minutes to the bare minimum they could, and leave a message on my voice mail saying "I have changed this phone number. Please call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx. Do not leave a voice mail here."
After 30-60 days (around $20-$40 maximum) I ended the previous service. If someone didn't call me in 60 days, why should I care if they have my number or not? There are so many other ways to get a hold of me (e-mail, postal, even calling up one of my businesses), my cell phone number should NOT be an issue. If they only know my cell phone number and none of my other contact points, I honestly don't care all that much about them (or vice versa).
I have a few customers right now who are waiting for portability, but I've heard it may cost $3 to $8 a month to keep your old number. This is crazy! Keep the old number for a few months, pay the monthly charges, and do what I've done -- set up your own "new number information" message.
>"Use force"? I've never lived in Michigan but
>I find it hard to believe that they have tax
>stormtroopers going from door to door to hold
>a gun to your head while you fill out your
>1040.
Really? Try skipping on the 1040 for a year or two and ignoring the letters they write you. I can pretty much guarantee that they won't just say "well, he's a nice guy, we'll leave him alone."
>It was ELECTED representatives that did this.
Sure. But the powers of the state have long since overgrown the boundaries that should be in place in a free country and a free state. This is America -- where people are free to make choices for who they want to trade with, and government is there to make sure those trades go through legally using the rule of law. This is not communist China where government is supposed to provide for a citizen's every need.
>And I'm sure the impact on the families for
>this expenditure is more likely to prevent
>them from supersizing their BigMac rather than
>preventing them from sending a child to
>college or paying for that family vacation to
>DisneyWorld. Be reasonable.
I am being reasonable. Sure, this may only cost a family one Big Mac. But after you add up every welfare state enactment meant to help one person a the expense of another, you end up costing the average family 60% of their household income. And THAT affects paying for a family vacation to Disney World.
Salaries have nothing to do with ability. I say lower salaries significantly, and then offer merit pay to the teachers who are actually improving their students abilities. Even a teacher in the learning-disabled programs has the ability to improve the lives of the students -- and you can show improvements even amongst the worst students.
Honestly, why is it the state's job to purchase laptops for any reason, including education?
Shouldn't parents be responsible for their children's educational needs? When the state goes out and wastes these dollars on an education system that has already failed too often in the past, the tax payers will be the ones who pay this bill.
Each family in this state has better things to do with their money, probably. Maybe they would rather save for their child's college education. Maybe they need food. Maybe the car needs new brakes. Maybe the family would like to go on a vacation. Why should government use force to take what the family thinks is best and give it to bureaucrats who think they know better because the masses have decreed they should know better?
This is unbelievable. It amazes me that so many people even here would rather debate Apple versus Dell rather than debate the need for such excessive abuse of power.
Here! here! to the Namiki/Pilot Vanishing Point. I own 3. One medium nib, one fine nib, and one backup. I break pens, often. I used to use a $500+ fountain pen, but after the third break (lifetime warranties don't matter much when the turn around time is 10 weeks from Italy) I decided to get something that was "disposably cheap." These Namikis are killer looking pens too.
They're comfortable, able to be carried like a normal ballpoint (in your pocket), and they're smooth and silk after the first dozen pages of writing.
I would never go back to a ballpoint, except if I _HAD_ to do carbon copies. Luckily, I've found some flexible nibs out there and those allow me to push enough pressure through the carbons even.
Go out and read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson available at your local bookstore. Hazlitt (back in 1946) proved that "wealth creation" is a fallacy. Jobs are never destroyed, they are merely transformed. Sure, when you look at a single person, you may see them lose their job because of new technology, but its NEVER an overnight situation. Technology provides new products and new direction for entrepreneurs to offer new careers for even more people than the old technology "provided" for.
It is time to stop thinking of labor as production -- it is merely another form of sellable good. Supply and demand dictate whether or not a worker is needed, and "wealth" is just a useless term used to explain stored equity that was gained from past demand for your the goods which you have previously sold.
If you haven't read Hazlitt's book, you should. It'll actually explain in simple, understandable English why all the economists of yesterday and today are generally wrong, and why the "Austrian" School is very right.
This is why you can never rely in government to get anything accomplished. When people ("the market") have a need, even a very very very specific need, things get done.
Unfortunately, how many government laws and regulations have prevented the market from entering outer space? Does anyone even have an idea on the limitations of launching from the states?
Many times it isn't the technology that is a barrier -- its the silent hand of government that keeps so many doors closed.
Your reply was a good one, but it contains many fallacies that the leftists and rightists have used to subvert our rights. I'll try to expand on them as best I could, or if you are really interested, I could provide you with a book or two that really categorically refutes all your theories.
Could you imagine having to pay a toll for every single road you used?
If all the roads were paid for locally or privately, then I would not have a beef. But when the state or the feds get involved, its such a crazy patronage magnet that everyone gets hurt. Government can NEVER do anything cheaper than private industry (EVER) because they inevitably have to encounter red tape, cronism, nepotism, and other beaucratic problems. In the end, public roads are much costlier than private roads.
There are some semi-privatized roads in this country that function as turnpikes, pull a profit, and are run better. See John Stossel's 20/20 movie about it, very good examples there. As for bikes and pedestrians riding free, why? They should pay for their usage, and the free market would likely dictate lower rates for them.
You say that you would only have roads to places it was PROFITABLE to have roads, which is completely true, and I'd prefer that. Why should my gas dollars subsidize some road in Hicksville, Nebraska? If people want to live out there because it is cheaper, then they will probably have to pay a private company MORE for the roads. It makes sense -- people live closer together so they can assemble together as a mass buying power, providing lower costs for daily needs. The farther you live from others, the greater your burden should be on yourself!
The Interstate would probably be run on a cost basis dictating supply and demand. When the demand goes up (rush hour) the cost may go up significantly. When the travelers decrease, the price will go down for that time frame. This makes sense. Congestion would go way down (if there are too many people on the road slowing down everyone, raise the rates of travel so that fewer people travel at that time). If it costs me $10 to drive to another town, then I will either find what I need in my town, or utilize a shipping company to bring me what I want. The free market provides the answer.
Poor people may MORE in taxes than rich people do. They pay less in INCOME taxes, but because they have no write offs, you can not write off anything except from income tax, they still pay 15% of their income into social security, a few more % into unemployment and other deductions. They pay 5-10% into sales taxes, they pay a huge amount of their rent into the property owner's property tax (without getting the deduction), they pay cigarettes taxes, alcohol taxes, they pay gas taxes. They pay their utilities taxes (a huge portion of your cell phone, electric, and gas bill goes to taxes and regulatory fees). They pay the cost of regulation in food and drugs. The poor pay a much larger percentage of their income towards these taxes than the rich do. The average family making $35,000 a year of income pays close to $14,000 to $19,000 a year in taxes total. If they kept that money, and had to pay $10 a day to use the roads ($3000 a year lets say) they'd still have $11,000+ left over to care for their other needs, and they'd have a choice as to who would provide those needs.
Parks were ALWAYS provided by the wealthy as free land trusts. So were libraries. This was the case for 200 years in this country. It changed when we became more socialist and when we took away incentive for the wealthy to develop these programs. College wings were paid for by the wealthy, not public funds.
Honestly, the lot of this debate has been answered in numerous, simple books. As for Schaefer the "economist," which book did he write? I'm assuming he is a Keynesian economist, precisely the people who have time and again predicted wrongly about the economy and put us into the economic mess we are in. I'm a follower of the Austrian School of econonic theory, one that portrays the faults (the multitudes of faults) that the Keynesian system lies about.
Poor is not a state of finances to a libertarian, but a state of mind. Someone who is working hard and taking a risk to better themselves is definitely NOT poor by this definition, just temporarily in financial trouble. We need to withdraw the notions that poor people are struggling when it is our many laws and regulations and taxes that keep them in a position to stay lazy. Why work hard when you can have just enough to live handed to you on a plate?
The libertarians know we can HELP the "poor" and "defenseless" by removing bad laws and regulations, so that everyone can have a chance to suceed, or fail and learn from their mistakes and try again.
Wrong, but close! There is a tremendous difference between a Democratic Republic and a Democracy. We are still a Republic, bar none, but we have been run like a Democracy in recent years (past 90 or so).
erm. 60% in taxes, eh? just pulling that number out of your butt?
I wish that I did! After you consider the direct taxes like the Income Tax at all levels, Social Security (15%!), Unemployment, Medicare/Medicaid, and then the Sales Taxes (Gas, Food, Clothing, Utilities, Cigarettes, Alcohol, Tolls, etc), and then the hidden taxes (regulatory overhead) and then the tariffs (built into the prices you pay for goods), and THEN the property taxes we pay (whether indirectly through rent or increased cost of goods sold, directly through home ownership, it ends up that everyone pretty much hovers around the 60% area.
Even worse, the government inflates the dollar tremendously every year, which lowers the value of the dollars we have in our pocket and our bank accounts. This also makes costs of goods increase, which then makes it seem we're making more money, but really puts us in a tax bracket we shouldn't be in without inflation!
who builds and maintains the roads?
When this country first started, interstates were built by private developers who turned them into turn pikes. After local and state governments forced them out of commission through regulations, the local and state governments handled the roads. Then the federal government started to tax gas in order to turn around and pay for the roads, now giving us extremely expensive roadways (hidden through the gas and other taxes) that are always broken down.
who makes sure your drinking water is safe?
20/20 did a great special a few years ago with John Stossel about privatizing of local governments. He found instances where local governments privatized the drinking water, and amazingly enough in those cases the drinking water was cheaper, cleaner, healthier, and more readily available than it was through government's cronies. Wow, what an idea!
I generally don't reply to AC's, but your post actually has something that needs to be diligently debated and disposed of: false facts.
Freedom IS power, yes. But power is NOT freedom. Everyone born or brought into this country used to have the same rights (given by God or inherently granted from birth). These rights are not given by government, our Constitution prevents our governments from destroying or trampling those rights every man has at birth.
We are all equal in our rights -- Life (no one can harm your life, not even government), Liberty (no one can take away your rights granted to all men -- freedom of speech, freedom to protect yourself, freedom to be free of others intrusions), and the Pursuit of Happiness (the freedom to pursue what makes you happy). Those rights do not grant you happiness, you need to PURSUE IT YOURSELF.
Yes, the poor are lazy. My parents were both poor when they came to this country. Both worked hard, one succeed and is financially stable, the other did not work as hard and will probably never be financially stable. They both came with the same rights to try to pursue their happiness. All my friends who are poor are lazy. I have some friends who have no money but are not poor because they take risks and will benefit from working hard -- and eventually be rich. This is because they are not lazy.
Even worse, the desire to succeed has been removed from many of us because everyone, rich, poor, middle class, pays 60% of their money to government at every level. There is no incentive to be responsible, because the lazy/poor take from us more than we can keep for ourselves!
This is great for a democracy like the UK, but for a Republic like the US, this isn't the best idea.
Although long forgotten, our Constitution is the law of the land in only one way: it restricts government from infringing on the rights of the sovereign people and the States. This means we are NOT a democracy. As the famous quote goes, a democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
E-Voting is a great idea, but it has immense limitations. Our Republic was designed to protect the minority (as small as one person) from a crazy majority. It is only because we have forgotten about the Republic that such unconstitutional programs such as Social Security, Federal Education subsidies and control, and the Welfare State have come into existance (wholly socialist schemes that truly have no place in a free culture). I capitalized them because they should really be trademarked;)
I like the idea of E-Voting so long as the Supreme Court actually does the job intended, to protect the rights of the people by making sure ALL laws abide by the Constitutional restraints on government. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is handled by Socialists and Fascists, not Constitutionalists, so we would be at great risk of losing the country to both the Socialist left and the Fascist right, both of which feed each other's desires by giving in to bad schemes.
Why does government have to do this? Why can't charities do it, with a helluva lot less red tape and fraud and waste and cronyism?
Plus, government decides who can't afford food and basic necessities, but I don't always agree that the recipients DO need a cash infusion out of my pocket and into theirs. I'd rather pick and choose who I help, rather than government who is doing it to buy a vote for more government, not to help people!
I tend to agree -- except it is not Motorola's desire to have so many upper and middle level managers, it's the shareholders who are requiring it.
Once a company reaches a size such as Motorola, the company takes on a government-like structure. Those with power (the shareholders) are akin to the politicians, they want to watch over those that they control (the engineers, the citizens).
It'll be more and more obvious as time goes on that huge corporations DO NOT WORK well. As a libertarian, I'd like to see corporate welfare dismissed and repealed -- so smaller corporations DO have the ability to compete with the huge guys (who buy corporate welfare from the government to keep themselves from toppling).
Great article about the economic fallacies many so called "economic theorists" like to dictate -- especially talking heads such as the ones you find on the major news networks.
I've read so many economic fallacies that many/.'ers take as fact. "Government can offer stimulus to the economy" is one (fact: government only takes, rarely provides). "U.S. Businesses" are another -- many U.S. corporations are owned by off shore investors. How does any of this actually affect ME?
I'm a big fan of The Mises Institute which offers articles about the Austrian School of Economic Theory -- categorically disproving many of the myths about the economy today.
Mike Tarsala could learn a lot from these guys...
LINK to article on mercantilism.
on
NARAS vs. the RIAA
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There's a great article that speaks about mercantilism in an easy to read way. The entire time you'll be thinking "THIS is what the RIAA is about."
Re:It's all about the money. NOPE!
on
NARAS vs. the RIAA
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
This is not pro-capitalist, it is pro-mercantilist.
Capitalists (free market thinkers) are anti-government subsidies and regulations. Mercantilists are pro-subsidies and regulations. Do not get them confused!
I am a business owner, and I love competition -- it drives me harder to work to better meet my customers needs.
If I was the best in my business, I'd prove it by providing the best service possible at the price that my customers can afford. That is capitalism!
I don't want the government to subsidize my business and regulate my competitors' businesses. The RIAA is mercantilist. Do not allow these anti-business greenies steer you wrong. Capitalism = GOOD, Mercantilism = BAD.
My own reply to myself, regarding all the other replies:
I tend to agree that "consumer protection laws" can make sense today, but not because they are worthy. Consumer protection laws are only in place because they "balance" the "corporation protection laws."
The free market is a theory, indeed, but one that makes MUCH more sense than the Keynesian market theories we all live by today. If you haven't read any Austrian Economic articles at www.mises.org, I recommend you do right away. You'll understand more if you preface those articles with Rothbard's "What Has Government Done to our Money."
We have a ton of laws that supposedly help the "consumer" but how many of those laws are there to compensate for the bad laws that hurt the "consumer."
When you say that "consumers" are not equal to "providers" you're right -- because we have laws that allow that imbalance! EULA's? Copyright laws that make no sense? Corporate protection statutes? All of these and thousands of other laws make the free market ideas fall apart, because we don't come to the tables as equals.
And you don't need a lawyer to battle so-called Big Business. You need the most powerful weapon you have -- don't use or buy their products.
Why hasn't anyone commented on THAT? If you don't like what they're forcing you to do, then do not accept their product.
The market is ALWAYS a barter system. You are NEVER forced to cough up your money to take their product -- you are offering your money because their product has more value to you than your money does, this is why we do any trade in the world.
Stop believing the Keynesian economists, they're wrong. The system is simple, and it works. Read Rothbard, read Mises. You'll change your mind, more than you'd be willing to admit.
"There should be a law!!!" I hear it every day. I figure I'm in some socialist Green country, but then I realize I'm not. People are just unbelievable.
If someone gives you a contract in.001 font size, no it is not illegal. It is up to you to say "I won't sign this, and I won't use your product."
If someone decides to "hide" some options down a scroll list, or maybe on a back page, it is still your responsibility to see if there is more, before signing it.
If they ask you to "Accept" a 40 page long list of rules and rights you are relinquishing, it is not illegal -- its just lazy of you to scroll through it all haphazardly and click "Agree!" You don't need their product, so close the window and say screw it. Follow up with a letter to their management, and if enough people complain, maybe things will change.
If you enter a fake e-mail address in, THAT might be illegal. Check the text to see. If anything, entering "OK" and moving on just gives the companies the knowledge that you agree (which you do by accepting their terms). Don't regulate these guys with LAWS, regulate these guys with MARKET tactics.
There should never be "consumer rights." I hate that term. YOU are not a consumer, and THEY are not a producer. You are BOTH market exchangers. They are exchanging their product for either your money, your e-mail address, or your personal information. You feel that any of those items you are exchanging is worth less than their product. This is true of ANY market exchange. You produce your cash, or your address, or your information, they product an item or a service.
There are no magic "economic" theories behind any of this. This is common Austrian School of Economics theory. It works. Go check out http://www.mises.org/ to learn more.
Consumers don't exist. Producers don't exist. We're both just equal partners accepting one person's services or products for the bartered exchange for another.
What we need is COMPLETE de-regulation of a terribly over-regulated industry. It's regulated for the industry and it's regulated for the consumers -- regulations that often baffle the mind and battle each other!
If we could completely deregulate the industry, including the LOCAL regulations that decree that a cable company shall be a monopoly ("common carrier") and that satellite dishes could be placed on anyone's private property without regulations, I think you'd see many more providers popping up. Why should a town only have ONE cable company?
In a truly unregulated market, competition WOULD provide for what the MARKET wants. No, you can't just get HBO for $2.99 a month and EPSON for $1.99 a month because there are many fixed costs for cable. The premium packages are the best value because they subsidize the costs of smaller packages. Just like airplane companies make all their money off of first class full fare passengers, with coach passengers only giving them tiny incentives when the plane is full, cable carriers make their money off of the people who get the whole ball and chain.
Honestly, all these regulations "for the consumer" only end up making government have to offer incentives "for the provider." They don't work. The Austrian School of Economics shows time and again that there are no consumers and no providers -- we're both just trading items of value for what we think is more valuable. If you completely deregulate the markets (COMPLETELY) you'll allow competition in, and competition will ALWAYS offer what will make both sides happy at the lowest level.
If you think you can offer better service to people who want it, in a deregulated economy you can! But today, how can I offer cable to you a la carte, at a price you want, if the cable provider in your area is a government imposed monopoly?
Study the realities of further legislation -- you'll only see that more government introduced "rights" for the consumer will hurt us in the end.
Seeing the replies here really shows me that the disgust and contempt I have for the common American geek is justified. I desire a free market, most of you desire a socialist regime that enforces "equality."
While I am no Objectivist, has anyone read Atlas Shrugged and seen that a company's sole purpose is profit? When a company profits, it prospers. Prospering along with that company are its suppliers, its employees, its investors. Microsoft is not Bill Gates, but millions of people who rely on them.
Windows is no monopoly -- people are free to make a better product. Why have they not? Because Microsoft spends a fortune on Research and Development. They do it to stay ahead. They compete by offering customers (not consumers) what they want, at a price they are generally happy to pay.
You socialists make me sick, and it gives me great joy in seeing the market crash because of excessive government regulations and unjust lawsuits against corporations. That's when it all started -- Microsoft gets sued, and some of you lost your jobs. Good.
Eventually, it'll be on your backs and your consciences when the economy falls through the floor. With government increasing inflation every month, decreasing the value of our dollars (and our investments), and destroying any ability to make a profit by over-regulating and over-subsidizing industry upon industry, the day of Gault's Gulch should not be far, IMHO.
I just hope some of you wisen up and realize that Microsoft is one of the greatest things to happen to this country... And if you want to compete with them, you are free to do so. Get together with the millions of other programmers out there and make Linux work.
I've tried Linux. The interfaces are disgusting. The driver support is non-existant. The software available is terrible. Why? Because those who are working on it are generally unpaid, and that's what you get out of free labor: exactly what Russia got during communism -- NO PRODUCTION.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would someone who doesn't rely on their cell phone like I do even care if their number changes? If you print your number on your business card, then I am assuming you're using it for business, and paying $40 won't put you back that far. The fact that you will end up paying for the service anyway (maybe forever) shows that a $40 investment up front will save you more than that in the long run.
There is no need to "keep the market fair." Where is Congress' mandate in the Constitution to interfere in these affairs??
If they are going to force this issue to "keep the market fair" why don't they also go and force automobile manufacturers to use each other's engines? Maybe I want a Cadillac with a Honda engine, hey, it'll keep the market fair.
Or how about forcing all retail stores to accept whatever credit card I have? It'll keep the market fair -- I have a right to use my American Express anywhere even if the owner of a store doesn't want to accept it.
Maybe we should force every book manufacturer to publish their books in every language -- it's only keeping the market fair. I'm sure there are a number of Swedes residing in this country who don't speak English and want to read the latest Orson Scott Card novel. It is not fair that they can't, and we need a fair market.
The idea of a fair market is garbage -- manufacturers offer you a service, and if that service is what you want at a price you're willing to pay, you'll buy it. No one is forcing you to buy or use a cell phone.
If a manufacturer sees they can efficiently incorporate a feature, they will do it. And others will fall into line, or they will disappear, if it is a feature that is important to cell phone users.
It really bugs me that I am going to have to pay ANOTHER charge on my bill for a service I will never use. Even if it isn't a direct fee, it will be incorporated into higher rates, or even worse, it will take longer for rates to fall.
I'm a consultant and owner of a retail franchise on the side. People need to call me all the time. Even with that priority, I don't understand the fear of having to change my cell phone number.
I've changed services 3 times in 8 years. Each time I was given a new phone number. All I did was ask the previous cell phone company to cut my minutes to the bare minimum they could, and leave a message on my voice mail saying "I have changed this phone number. Please call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx. Do not leave a voice mail here."
After 30-60 days (around $20-$40 maximum) I ended the previous service. If someone didn't call me in 60 days, why should I care if they have my number or not? There are so many other ways to get a hold of me (e-mail, postal, even calling up one of my businesses), my cell phone number should NOT be an issue. If they only know my cell phone number and none of my other contact points, I honestly don't care all that much about them (or vice versa).
I have a few customers right now who are waiting for portability, but I've heard it may cost $3 to $8 a month to keep your old number. This is crazy! Keep the old number for a few months, pay the monthly charges, and do what I've done -- set up your own "new number information" message.
>"Use force"? I've never lived in Michigan but
>I find it hard to believe that they have tax
>stormtroopers going from door to door to hold
>a gun to your head while you fill out your
>1040.
Really? Try skipping on the 1040 for a year or two and ignoring the letters they write you. I can pretty much guarantee that they won't just say "well, he's a nice guy, we'll leave him alone."
>It was ELECTED representatives that did this.
Sure. But the powers of the state have long since overgrown the boundaries that should be in place in a free country and a free state. This is America -- where people are free to make choices for who they want to trade with, and government is there to make sure those trades go through legally using the rule of law. This is not communist China where government is supposed to provide for a citizen's every need.
>And I'm sure the impact on the families for
>this expenditure is more likely to prevent
>them from supersizing their BigMac rather than
>preventing them from sending a child to
>college or paying for that family vacation to
>DisneyWorld. Be reasonable.
I am being reasonable. Sure, this may only cost a family one Big Mac. But after you add up every welfare state enactment meant to help one person a the expense of another, you end up costing the average family 60% of their household income. And THAT affects paying for a family vacation to Disney World.
dada
Salaries have nothing to do with ability. I say lower salaries significantly, and then offer merit pay to the teachers who are actually improving their students abilities. Even a teacher in the learning-disabled programs has the ability to improve the lives of the students -- and you can show improvements even amongst the worst students.
Honestly, why is it the state's job to purchase laptops for any reason, including education?
Shouldn't parents be responsible for their children's educational needs? When the state goes out and wastes these dollars on an education system that has already failed too often in the past, the tax payers will be the ones who pay this bill.
Each family in this state has better things to do with their money, probably. Maybe they would rather save for their child's college education. Maybe they need food. Maybe the car needs new brakes. Maybe the family would like to go on a vacation. Why should government use force to take what the family thinks is best and give it to bureaucrats who think they know better because the masses have decreed they should know better?
This is unbelievable. It amazes me that so many people even here would rather debate Apple versus Dell rather than debate the need for such excessive abuse of power.
Here! here! to the Namiki/Pilot Vanishing Point. I own 3. One medium nib, one fine nib, and one backup. I break pens, often. I used to use a $500+ fountain pen, but after the third break (lifetime warranties don't matter much when the turn around time is 10 weeks from Italy) I decided to get something that was "disposably cheap." These Namikis are killer looking pens too.
They're comfortable, able to be carried like a normal ballpoint (in your pocket), and they're smooth and silk after the first dozen pages of writing.
I would never go back to a ballpoint, except if I _HAD_ to do carbon copies. Luckily, I've found some flexible nibs out there and those allow me to push enough pressure through the carbons even.
Go out and read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson available at your local bookstore. Hazlitt (back in 1946) proved that "wealth creation" is a fallacy. Jobs are never destroyed, they are merely transformed. Sure, when you look at a single person, you may see them lose their job because of new technology, but its NEVER an overnight situation. Technology provides new products and new direction for entrepreneurs to offer new careers for even more people than the old technology "provided" for.
It is time to stop thinking of labor as production -- it is merely another form of sellable good. Supply and demand dictate whether or not a worker is needed, and "wealth" is just a useless term used to explain stored equity that was gained from past demand for your the goods which you have previously sold.
If you haven't read Hazlitt's book, you should. It'll actually explain in simple, understandable English why all the economists of yesterday and today are generally wrong, and why the "Austrian" School is very right.
This is why you can never rely in government to get anything accomplished. When people ("the market") have a need, even a very very very specific need, things get done.
Unfortunately, how many government laws and regulations have prevented the market from entering outer space? Does anyone even have an idea on the limitations of launching from the states?
Many times it isn't the technology that is a barrier -- its the silent hand of government that keeps so many doors closed.
Your reply was a good one, but it contains many fallacies that the leftists and rightists have used to subvert our rights. I'll try to expand on them as best I could, or if you are really interested, I could provide you with a book or two that really categorically refutes all your theories.
Could you imagine having to pay a toll for every single road you used?
If all the roads were paid for locally or privately, then I would not have a beef. But when the state or the feds get involved, its such a crazy patronage magnet that everyone gets hurt. Government can NEVER do anything cheaper than private industry (EVER) because they inevitably have to encounter red tape, cronism, nepotism, and other beaucratic problems. In the end, public roads are much costlier than private roads.
There are some semi-privatized roads in this country that function as turnpikes, pull a profit, and are run better. See John Stossel's 20/20 movie about it, very good examples there. As for bikes and pedestrians riding free, why? They should pay for their usage, and the free market would likely dictate lower rates for them.
You say that you would only have roads to places it was PROFITABLE to have roads, which is completely true, and I'd prefer that. Why should my gas dollars subsidize some road in Hicksville, Nebraska? If people want to live out there because it is cheaper, then they will probably have to pay a private company MORE for the roads. It makes sense -- people live closer together so they can assemble together as a mass buying power, providing lower costs for daily needs. The farther you live from others, the greater your burden should be on yourself!
The Interstate would probably be run on a cost basis dictating supply and demand. When the demand goes up (rush hour) the cost may go up significantly. When the travelers decrease, the price will go down for that time frame. This makes sense. Congestion would go way down (if there are too many people on the road slowing down everyone, raise the rates of travel so that fewer people travel at that time). If it costs me $10 to drive to another town, then I will either find what I need in my town, or utilize a shipping company to bring me what I want. The free market provides the answer.
Poor people may MORE in taxes than rich people do. They pay less in INCOME taxes, but because they have no write offs, you can not write off anything except from income tax, they still pay 15% of their income into social security, a few more % into unemployment and other deductions. They pay 5-10% into sales taxes, they pay a huge amount of their rent into the property owner's property tax (without getting the deduction), they pay cigarettes taxes, alcohol taxes, they pay gas taxes. They pay their utilities taxes (a huge portion of your cell phone, electric, and gas bill goes to taxes and regulatory fees). They pay the cost of regulation in food and drugs. The poor pay a much larger percentage of their income towards these taxes than the rich do. The average family making $35,000 a year of income pays close to $14,000 to $19,000 a year in taxes total. If they kept that money, and had to pay $10 a day to use the roads ($3000 a year lets say) they'd still have $11,000+ left over to care for their other needs, and they'd have a choice as to who would provide those needs.
Parks were ALWAYS provided by the wealthy as free land trusts. So were libraries. This was the case for 200 years in this country. It changed when we became more socialist and when we took away incentive for the wealthy to develop these programs. College wings were paid for by the wealthy, not public funds.
Honestly, the lot of this debate has been answered in numerous, simple books. As for Schaefer the "economist," which book did he write? I'm assuming he is a Keynesian economist, precisely the people who have time and again predicted wrongly about the economy and put us into the economic mess we are in. I'm a follower of the Austrian School of econonic theory, one that portrays the faults (the multitudes of faults) that the Keynesian system lies about.
Poor is not a state of finances to a libertarian, but a state of mind. Someone who is working hard and taking a risk to better themselves is definitely NOT poor by this definition, just temporarily in financial trouble. We need to withdraw the notions that poor people are struggling when it is our many laws and regulations and taxes that keep them in a position to stay lazy. Why work hard when you can have just enough to live handed to you on a plate?
The libertarians know we can HELP the "poor" and "defenseless" by removing bad laws and regulations, so that everyone can have a chance to suceed, or fail and learn from their mistakes and try again.
Wrong, but close! There is a tremendous difference between a Democratic Republic and a Democracy. We are still a Republic, bar none, but we have been run like a Democracy in recent years (past 90 or so).
erm. 60% in taxes, eh? just pulling that number out of your butt?
I wish that I did! After you consider the direct taxes like the Income Tax at all levels, Social Security (15%!), Unemployment, Medicare/Medicaid, and then the Sales Taxes (Gas, Food, Clothing, Utilities, Cigarettes, Alcohol, Tolls, etc), and then the hidden taxes (regulatory overhead) and then the tariffs (built into the prices you pay for goods), and THEN the property taxes we pay (whether indirectly through rent or increased cost of goods sold, directly through home ownership, it ends up that everyone pretty much hovers around the 60% area.
Even worse, the government inflates the dollar tremendously every year, which lowers the value of the dollars we have in our pocket and our bank accounts. This also makes costs of goods increase, which then makes it seem we're making more money, but really puts us in a tax bracket we shouldn't be in without inflation!
who builds and maintains the roads?
When this country first started, interstates were built by private developers who turned them into turn pikes. After local and state governments forced them out of commission through regulations, the local and state governments handled the roads. Then the federal government started to tax gas in order to turn around and pay for the roads, now giving us extremely expensive roadways (hidden through the gas and other taxes) that are always broken down.
who makes sure your drinking water is safe?
20/20 did a great special a few years ago with John Stossel about privatizing of local governments. He found instances where local governments privatized the drinking water, and amazingly enough in those cases the drinking water was cheaper, cleaner, healthier, and more readily available than it was through government's cronies. Wow, what an idea!
Ah the socialists, destroyers of our time.
I generally don't reply to AC's, but your post actually has something that needs to be diligently debated and disposed of: false facts.
Freedom IS power, yes. But power is NOT freedom. Everyone born or brought into this country used to have the same rights (given by God or inherently granted from birth). These rights are not given by government, our Constitution prevents our governments from destroying or trampling those rights every man has at birth.
We are all equal in our rights -- Life (no one can harm your life, not even government), Liberty (no one can take away your rights granted to all men -- freedom of speech, freedom to protect yourself, freedom to be free of others intrusions), and the Pursuit of Happiness (the freedom to pursue what makes you happy). Those rights do not grant you happiness, you need to PURSUE IT YOURSELF.
Yes, the poor are lazy. My parents were both poor when they came to this country. Both worked hard, one succeed and is financially stable, the other did not work as hard and will probably never be financially stable. They both came with the same rights to try to pursue their happiness. All my friends who are poor are lazy. I have some friends who have no money but are not poor because they take risks and will benefit from working hard -- and eventually be rich. This is because they are not lazy.
Even worse, the desire to succeed has been removed from many of us because everyone, rich, poor, middle class, pays 60% of their money to government at every level. There is no incentive to be responsible, because the lazy/poor take from us more than we can keep for ourselves!
This is great for a democracy like the UK, but for a Republic like the US, this isn't the best idea.
;)
Although long forgotten, our Constitution is the law of the land in only one way: it restricts government from infringing on the rights of the sovereign people and the States. This means we are NOT a democracy. As the famous quote goes, a democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
E-Voting is a great idea, but it has immense limitations. Our Republic was designed to protect the minority (as small as one person) from a crazy majority. It is only because we have forgotten about the Republic that such unconstitutional programs such as Social Security, Federal Education subsidies and control, and the Welfare State have come into existance (wholly socialist schemes that truly have no place in a free culture). I capitalized them because they should really be trademarked
I like the idea of E-Voting so long as the Supreme Court actually does the job intended, to protect the rights of the people by making sure ALL laws abide by the Constitutional restraints on government. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is handled by Socialists and Fascists, not Constitutionalists, so we would be at great risk of losing the country to both the Socialist left and the Fascist right, both of which feed each other's desires by giving in to bad schemes.
Why does government have to do this? Why can't charities do it, with a helluva lot less red tape and fraud and waste and cronyism?
Plus, government decides who can't afford food and basic necessities, but I don't always agree that the recipients DO need a cash infusion out of my pocket and into theirs. I'd rather pick and choose who I help, rather than government who is doing it to buy a vote for more government, not to help people!
I tend to agree -- except it is not Motorola's desire to have so many upper and middle level managers, it's the shareholders who are requiring it.
Once a company reaches a size such as Motorola, the company takes on a government-like structure. Those with power (the shareholders) are akin to the politicians, they want to watch over those that they control (the engineers, the citizens).
It'll be more and more obvious as time goes on that huge corporations DO NOT WORK well. As a libertarian, I'd like to see corporate welfare dismissed and repealed -- so smaller corporations DO have the ability to compete with the huge guys (who buy corporate welfare from the government to keep themselves from toppling).
Great article about the economic fallacies many so called "economic theorists" like to dictate -- especially talking heads such as the ones you find on the major news networks.
Economic Fallacies link
I've read so many economic fallacies that many /.'ers take as fact. "Government can offer stimulus to the economy" is one (fact: government only takes, rarely provides). "U.S. Businesses" are another -- many U.S. corporations are owned by off shore investors. How does any of this actually affect ME?
I'm a big fan of The Mises Institute which offers articles about the Austrian School of Economic Theory -- categorically disproving many of the myths about the economy today.
Mike Tarsala could learn a lot from these guys...
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=152&mo nth=5
There's a great article that speaks about mercantilism in an easy to read way. The entire time you'll be thinking "THIS is what the RIAA is about."
This is not pro-capitalist, it is pro-mercantilist.
Capitalists (free market thinkers) are anti-government subsidies and regulations. Mercantilists are pro-subsidies and regulations. Do not get them confused!
I am a business owner, and I love competition -- it drives me harder to work to better meet my customers needs.
If I was the best in my business, I'd prove it by providing the best service possible at the price that my customers can afford. That is capitalism!
I don't want the government to subsidize my business and regulate my competitors' businesses. The RIAA is mercantilist. Do not allow these anti-business greenies steer you wrong. Capitalism = GOOD, Mercantilism = BAD.
My own reply to myself, regarding all the other replies:
I tend to agree that "consumer protection laws" can make sense today, but not because they are worthy. Consumer protection laws are only in place because they "balance" the "corporation protection laws."
The free market is a theory, indeed, but one that makes MUCH more sense than the Keynesian market theories we all live by today. If you haven't read any Austrian Economic articles at www.mises.org, I recommend you do right away. You'll understand more if you preface those articles with Rothbard's "What Has Government Done to our Money."
We have a ton of laws that supposedly help the "consumer" but how many of those laws are there to compensate for the bad laws that hurt the "consumer."
When you say that "consumers" are not equal to "providers" you're right -- because we have laws that allow that imbalance! EULA's? Copyright laws that make no sense? Corporate protection statutes? All of these and thousands of other laws make the free market ideas fall apart, because we don't come to the tables as equals.
And you don't need a lawyer to battle so-called Big Business. You need the most powerful weapon you have -- don't use or buy their products.
Why hasn't anyone commented on THAT? If you don't like what they're forcing you to do, then do not accept their product.
The market is ALWAYS a barter system. You are NEVER forced to cough up your money to take their product -- you are offering your money because their product has more value to you than your money does, this is why we do any trade in the world.
Stop believing the Keynesian economists, they're wrong. The system is simple, and it works. Read Rothbard, read Mises. You'll change your mind, more than you'd be willing to admit.
"There should be a law!!!" I hear it every day. I figure I'm in some socialist Green country, but then I realize I'm not. People are just unbelievable.
.001 font size, no it is not illegal. It is up to you to say "I won't sign this, and I won't use your product."
If someone gives you a contract in
If someone decides to "hide" some options down a scroll list, or maybe on a back page, it is still your responsibility to see if there is more, before signing it.
If they ask you to "Accept" a 40 page long list of rules and rights you are relinquishing, it is not illegal -- its just lazy of you to scroll through it all haphazardly and click "Agree!" You don't need their product, so close the window and say screw it. Follow up with a letter to their management, and if enough people complain, maybe things will change.
If you enter a fake e-mail address in, THAT might be illegal. Check the text to see. If anything, entering "OK" and moving on just gives the companies the knowledge that you agree (which you do by accepting their terms). Don't regulate these guys with LAWS, regulate these guys with MARKET tactics.
There should never be "consumer rights." I hate that term. YOU are not a consumer, and THEY are not a producer. You are BOTH market exchangers. They are exchanging their product for either your money, your e-mail address, or your personal information. You feel that any of those items you are exchanging is worth less than their product. This is true of ANY market exchange. You produce your cash, or your address, or your information, they product an item or a service.
There are no magic "economic" theories behind any of this. This is common Austrian School of Economics theory. It works. Go check out http://www.mises.org/ to learn more.
Consumers don't exist. Producers don't exist. We're both just equal partners accepting one person's services or products for the bartered exchange for another.
Keep the government out of it.
Libertarians are not Republicans, NOR Democrats. We are close to neither.
We are like OLD SCHOOL Republicans in some ways: End government business intervention, end social reform programs, PRO-propert rights.
We are like OLD SCHOOL Democrats in some ways:
Decriminalize drugs, end social barriers.
Don't get us confused with conservatives, which we are not.
dada
What we need is COMPLETE de-regulation of a terribly over-regulated industry. It's regulated for the industry and it's regulated for the consumers -- regulations that often baffle the mind and battle each other!
If we could completely deregulate the industry, including the LOCAL regulations that decree that a cable company shall be a monopoly ("common carrier") and that satellite dishes could be placed on anyone's private property without regulations, I think you'd see many more providers popping up. Why should a town only have ONE cable company?
In a truly unregulated market, competition WOULD provide for what the MARKET wants. No, you can't just get HBO for $2.99 a month and EPSON for $1.99 a month because there are many fixed costs for cable. The premium packages are the best value because they subsidize the costs of smaller packages. Just like airplane companies make all their money off of first class full fare passengers, with coach passengers only giving them tiny incentives when the plane is full, cable carriers make their money off of the people who get the whole ball and chain.
Honestly, all these regulations "for the consumer" only end up making government have to offer incentives "for the provider." They don't work. The Austrian School of Economics shows time and again that there are no consumers and no providers -- we're both just trading items of value for what we think is more valuable. If you completely deregulate the markets (COMPLETELY) you'll allow competition in, and competition will ALWAYS offer what will make both sides happy at the lowest level.
If you think you can offer better service to people who want it, in a deregulated economy you can! But today, how can I offer cable to you a la carte, at a price you want, if the cable provider in your area is a government imposed monopoly?
Study the realities of further legislation -- you'll only see that more government introduced "rights" for the consumer will hurt us in the end.
dada
Seeing the replies here really shows me that the disgust and contempt I have for the common American geek is justified. I desire a free market, most of you desire a socialist regime that enforces "equality."
While I am no Objectivist, has anyone read Atlas Shrugged and seen that a company's sole purpose is profit? When a company profits, it prospers. Prospering along with that company are its suppliers, its employees, its investors. Microsoft is not Bill Gates, but millions of people who rely on them.
Windows is no monopoly -- people are free to make a better product. Why have they not? Because Microsoft spends a fortune on Research and Development. They do it to stay ahead. They compete by offering customers (not consumers) what they want, at a price they are generally happy to pay.
You socialists make me sick, and it gives me great joy in seeing the market crash because of excessive government regulations and unjust lawsuits against corporations. That's when it all started -- Microsoft gets sued, and some of you lost your jobs. Good.
Eventually, it'll be on your backs and your consciences when the economy falls through the floor. With government increasing inflation every month, decreasing the value of our dollars (and our investments), and destroying any ability to make a profit by over-regulating and over-subsidizing industry upon industry, the day of Gault's Gulch should not be far, IMHO.
I just hope some of you wisen up and realize that Microsoft is one of the greatest things to happen to this country... And if you want to compete with them, you are free to do so. Get together with the millions of other programmers out there and make Linux work.
I've tried Linux. The interfaces are disgusting. The driver support is non-existant. The software available is terrible. Why? Because those who are working on it are generally unpaid, and that's what you get out of free labor: exactly what Russia got during communism -- NO PRODUCTION.