No victim, no crime. Find me the victim that is hurt because of bad parking, on a public road or public property, (private property is different) and I might change my mind.
Lot's of quoting of Churchill on here without any real thought behind the meaning of the words. Lots of talk elsewhere about how things are bad, people aren't being heard, etc. and trying to come up with ways to change it. Tea Party candidates got elected to try to reform government along a similar vein of thought.
Hot tip Quincies, it's all pointless.
Government doesn't exist to serve you, it exists to serve itself. What is the difference between a monarchy and what we in the US have right now? We have illusion of choice in our master.
But the simple fact is being able to pick a different master every few years makes you no less a slave.
One of the comments here said "Bringing back serfdom" I don't believe it ever left. When 35-50% of your labor is stolen, how are you not a serf already? Property taxes ensure we all pay tribute to mighty government, else men with guns will evict you from the land. That means you don't really own it, you are merely renting it from the government.
The problem is not government, it never has been. The problem is when individuals believe in authority. They believe that someone, for whatever reason, has dominion over their actions even to a small extent.
People must learn to reject this idea. Any involuntary authority over another human being is unethical. To tell someone they must submit to your speed limit because you have more friends than them that wrote it down on a piece of paper is no different than telling them they don't have the right to live because you decree it so.
If you want to truly be free, then you must learn to reject the very idea of authority.
So does this mean that anything that can be converted into real currency or be used to buy goods and services is subject to SEC oversight? What about in-game currencies that can be converted to real money like Guild Wars 2 crystals, EVE Plex, or the Diablo 3 Auction House? When you use these in-game currencies, which are theoretically just as good as real money according to this judge, are you not buying a good/service? Technically, when you execute a courier contract in EVE, you are paying ISK for a service by another person...and that ISK can then be used to buy PLEX which can be traded for real money. This opens a whole can of worms I think and just another avenue for government to seize as much control as it can.
"Let us control the money of a nation, and we care not who makes its laws"
If I run a business, I should have the freedom to hire or fire whoever I like, for whatever reason I like. Discrimination is how society functions on the most basic. Not every reason is considered "logical", there's times I don't associate with someone or buy something simply because I don't have a good feeling about it. Is that discrimination? Absolutely. We all discriminate all the time. It happens every time we make a choice.
Who are you to tell me who I may hire to work in my business? Who am I to tell you who you can hire? Discrimination laws do precisely this. If society as a whole disagrees with the practice of a business, for example a business that hires only whites, then people can choose to not invest, frequent, or promote that business and it will quickly go out of business without anyone lifting a finger.
You are confusing industry standards with government regulations. There is no government regulation that says all Internet traffic must be handled through TCP/IP or that the only way to connect certain devices is a USB cable. USB may be patented, yes, but it did not become successful because of any government mandate...it became successful because it works great.
Don't claim unregulated 'independent' safety certifications as an answer either, they tend to be beholden to the manufacturers they are supposed to certify.
And government regulatory agencies are somehow different? Even if they both are functionally just as accurate and screw up just as much, I'd much rather have the option that doesn't involve thieving and violence to propagate the organization.
You're going to 'voluntarily pay' a company to check on the safetly of a power plant? Yeah, right. Who, exactly, is going to select this company? Is every individual living near a plant going to hire their own company to do that? What if they don't? Does that mean that if there is an accident only the people who didn't pay are going to be affected, while those that did will be perfecly safe? What about the people who live 300 miles from the plant but use the electricty generated by the plant - why would they care to pay to have the plant inspected?
So because you can't come up with a solution to an incredibly complex problem in 5 minutes you dismiss that any solution at all can be found and instead say "fuck it, I'm willing to use violence" through government force?
I can't tell you how it would be solved, no one can tell you that and anyone that claims they can is lying. If the problem cannot be solved, well then maybe nuclear power is just too damned dangerous? Ever stop to think that without government forcibly making way for nuclear plants they might not exist at all?
But our modern world is too complex to have people weighing every decision. I don't have time to make sure that every restaurant I eat at has clean facilities. Are we all supposed to inspect the kitchen ourselves? I can't personally verify that the apartment building I live in was properly built, or that the airbags in my car will work properly and only when they are needed, or that the taxi I'm riding in has been properly maintained, or that the medicines I'm taking are safe and effective. And if I find that any of these are not the case, I don't have the resources to correct them. I can take my money elsewhere, but that's not incredibly effective; I'm a drop in the bucket.
Never said you should do it yourself. But what you are doing is showing the limitation of your imagination and your faith in others to solve complex problems. What is the fundamental difference between a company that inspects kitchens and a government that does the same? Simple, the government only inspects kitchens because it stole money by force from others to pay for the inspectors. The company on the other hand had voluntary investors and customers. Restaurants would pay to be inspected and good ratings from the most reputable inspection company. All you would need to know is the name of the inspection company and look for their sticker on the window. That's just 1 example, I can't tell the future so I can't tell you how complex problems would be solved. What I can tell you is that without violence in the equation, the method of solution will be far more efficient and beneficial for society as a whole.
If you spend all your time worrying about "what if" scenarios, and believing these problems simply cannot be solved without violent coercion to make people do it, then you are fundamentally no different than those 300 years ago that could not fathom a world without slavery. The end doesn't matter, what matters is that we stop beating each other over the head (literally) in order to get our way and instead communicate and negotiate in non-violent means to accomplish our own, individual goals.
It must be nice in libertarian la-la-land. Do you guys ever talk to the communists? I hear they had a plan that was predicated upon similar naivete about human nature, and how we can all just band together to accomplish an awesome society, because nobody is too selfish to do something that benefits them at the expense of the common good, right?
Quite the contrary, I acknowledge the flaws and imperfections in every person. That is why I think we cannot trust a government. If you feel that people are inherently greedy, and you create an organization that has monopolistic and violent authority over all other people, where do you think those greedy people will center themselves?
I do not expect everyone to act in the best interest of the common good. I expect everyone to act in their own best interest. If I have something you want, and you have something I want, and we make a mutual exchange, then we are both better off. Multiply this hundreds of millions of times a day, and you have the aggregate effect of 300 million people working in their own self interest, not for the common good. The key is just take violence (i.e. government) out of the equation.
It's the will of enough of the people that democracy (please, no semantic pedantry) has decreed it. The problem with voluntary associations is that the people who don't like the regulations--typically the people who would be found in violation of them--will just opt out. The fact that a vocal minority feels that regulation impinges on their profits is a good indication that it's still necessary.
So you favor mob rule? Majority rule? If 60% want to put the other 40% in jail for no reason at all other than disagreeing that's okay with you? You seem to ignore the gun in the room. It's not just that people like myself disagree. It's that if we act on the disagreement, if we willfully disobey the ruling authority, even in a way that doesn't actually harm anyone, we go to jail...and if we resist the cage we are killed. Is that the society you value?
As for Friedman, I don't know what Friedman you're talking about, but the one I know actually opposed the Federal Reserve system. The only reason he said anything about positive about was more like "well it already exists, I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon, so let's at least manage it." Again, disagreement without the ability to act. The Fed can print all the money it wants...if I do the same thing I go to jail.
Please read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons carefully before dismissing all government regulation.
I'm well aware of the tragedy of the commons, I never suggested I supported communal land or ownership, in fact quite the opposite. When everything is private land, owned by someone, then they have a vested interest in making sure that land is in some way productive or useful, and in general free of toxic waste.
But when the resources I need are controlled by only three companies, or a rail line or pipeline or fertilizer plant is built right near where I live I want the government to impose regulations to keep my family and my property safe.
First, the limitations on your choice of companies is not because of capitalism or free markets, it is because of government. Governments around the world enable and protect corporations, government today is really just a violent extension of what corporations want to accomplish. The Wal-Marts and Halliburtons of the world know they cannot achieve success in their business model by getting people to voluntarily give them money for a product, so instead they fashion government rules that give them an advantage and force out competition.
You also say you support government regulations in this instance...does this mean you are willing to take a gun to the home of every worker of that company and threaten their life in order to enact this regulation? If not, then you cannot reasonably hire others to do it in your place (government agents).
Take safety belts for example. I don't see the point in ticketing adults who have made their own decision. Not wearing that safety belt will only lead to their own harm, and will not harm others. But I do think that securing children should be enforced, as I do not believe that parents have exclusive life and death rights over their offspring.
I'm with you on most of this. I agree that children are not an exclusive right and must be cared for, however if you wish to remain consistent in your treatment of others, then you would not enact violence against another unless they have done something to warrant it. Not buckling in their own kid is hardly an example of an instance in which violent recourse is allowable.
Third party private certification agencies are good example of free market mechanisms. You have UL and similar listings for electrical products, ABS product approval for the international shipping industry, AKC registration for dogs, Verisign for SSL Certificates, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, etc.
Exactly, so why can this model not work for every product? There is no difference between the market for SSL certificates and the market for, say roads, or any other service, except the arbitrary distinction drawn by those in government. If such services are truly desired by the masses, they will organize them on their own and develop like mechanisms for keeping them in check.
I've seen the "reasonable regulations" comment repeated over and over, here and elsewhere. The fact is, if the power exists to create regulation, then the power exists to create any regulation. Then you get into the whole "who will watch the watchers" dilemma. The fact is, you can't, no one can. The watchers cannot be watched, they cannot be trusted, for every time they are trusted with power they abuse it. So rather the only option is hold the watchers accountable to the only people that can...their direct funders and source of income, i.e. a base of customers by turning the service of the watchers into a desired commodity.
I'm pretty sick of hearing the same old tired bullshit from conservatives and libertarians about how regulations, unions, and taxes are so awful.
You can always find some instance of where a given regulation is bad, a union is over-reaching, or taxation is burdensome. But these three things, regulations, unions, and taxes, define civilization as we know it in the contemporary U.S.
My issue is not with regulations per se, rules are the way of life in a civilized society. My issue is with the fact that regulations (laws) are enforced at gun point against those that have committed no crime, aggressed against no person or property. If there is a universal respect for property rights, i.e. I own my land, effects, and body, and I get to hold you accountable if you destroy them, then no government is necessary.
Regulations (laws) and the regulatory agencies were demanded by the people and put into place to protect citizenry from consistently ethics-challenged business world. Likewise unions.
Ah yes, the will of the people. Of course it's the will of the people, that's why it has to be enacted through government violence, right? Or....if it was actually the will of the people they would have formed a voluntary association to accomplish the same goal minus the violence and theft.
Business, it turns out, cares more about turning a profit than the health, safety, and welfare of you, your family, employees, and the environment we all live in. If you don't threaten to throw 'em in jail, or subject them to penny ante fines and public humiliation, businesses will happily bait and switch your ass to death. They'll pay you starvation wages to work in situations as dangerous as the most dangerous situation you can imagine. And dock your pay if you're late.
But I care about my health, safety, welfare, family, and environment. Why would I pay money to a company that damages these things if given the choice? And if others join me in not paying this company to do damage...then they don't make money. Profit incentives at work. As for slave wages...look up the Federal Reserve. By the end of the 19th century prices were actually lower and wages were higher than at the beginning of the centrury (even after a completely unnecessary civil war that killed off 600,000 productive people). Governments do destructive things to economies.
For every bad regulation you come up with, there are a thousand that have saved your life in the last week. For every non-union shop that you claim is fair and treats its employees fairly and looks out for their safety there are a thousand people on disability from preventable industrial accidents.
And taxes help pay for those life-saving regulations. And roads. And bridges. And schools. And police and fire departments, health departments, public parks, libraries, universities, basic research, the arts, THE MILITARY... Need I go on?
And for every onerous tax you mention, there are a thousand benefits you've personally reaped in services and infrastructure paid for by our taxes.
So I don't want to hear about how bad government regulation is, or that unions're bad, mmm'kay? Or that we shouldn't pay taxes. If you don't want to participate in our society and partake of the benefits, fucking move someplace where you don't have to suffer those "burdens".
I hear Somalia doesn't have personal income tax...
So because I have benefited from the things paid for with my stolen property, I should allow it to continue? If you're ever robbed, ask the thief to buy you a Starbucks with the stolen money and see if that makes up for it.
"who will buld the roads?!" Probably the same damned people that build the buildings, and the cars, and the houses, and the parks, and everything else in society. They don't appear mysteriously, they are built by people working for a living, working for their own self interest. The difference is
I don't say this often, or lightly, but this is stupid idea. This is free-market libertarianism taken to the (il)logical extreme. Are you arguing that regulations are never good or necessary? What if someone wants to build a nuclear power plant near a highly populated area? Near a large water source for easy cooling, eg Fukushima? What if they are using a design that has known flaws?
So long as the regulations are enforced at the point of a gun through government, and not through voluntary association, then yes regulations are bad. How do you think a power plant gets built, it just magically appears? If someone wants to build something as expensive as a nuclear power plant, they are going to need investors, buy-ins, the support of the community (someone has to work there after all), and the land space to do it. All of those partners are going to want assurance that the plant is safe. The customers that will be purchasing the power from the plant will want assurance that it is safe, nothing in the business world happens in a vacuum. That leads into:
You mention auditing and inspection but what good are these if there are no regulations? Would the inspectors just make strong suggestions?
So profits are great at driving people to be evil, but not at driving them to be good? Ah yes, capitalism is to blame for all the ills of the world, I forgot. You know, profit can drive people to do good things too. If there were no government regulators, there would be a profitable business to be had in the safety inspection and auditing of all kinds of industries. And they would have the profit incentive to make sure they were damned good at it. If they find anything amiss, they inform the residents/customers.
But oh no! You only have 1 option in power plants! It's a monopoly! Well yes, it's a GOVERNMENT monopoly. Power providers today only exist because governments give them monopoly control over geographic areas. In a truly free market, no monopoly can exist for very long, if ever. There will always be an upstart to compete, someone that offers something the big guy doesn't, someone that offers it cheaper, or faster, or more friendly. A free market is about choice, and all governments do is strangle choice.
Even with the best intentions, things go wrong-- see what is happening with the San Onofre nuclear plant that is being permanently shut down due to leakage problems. Estimations are that decommissioning will take years and nearly $3B. Whats to keep those responsible from cutting corners to make a fast buck and when things go south, declaring bankruptcy and just walking away?
Again, you are blaming capitalism for problems created by government. Bankruptcy is a government creation, it allows people to walk away from their obligations. This problem goes beyond regulations, the problem is government itself.
Do you honestly think a strong sense of personal/corporate responsibility will help in this situation? Wouldn't it be nice if the nuclear power plant operators were required to have a fund that would be used when a plant closes so that the responsible parties can't just walk away? Fortunately, the operators of San Onofre do have $2.7B in a decommissioning fund-- because of regulations.
Sometimes it is OK to have a lot of experiments to find out what works best-- I think having a lot of smaller financial institutions is preferable to having a few "too big to fail" ones. With regard to nuclear power plants, are you going to let people/corporations do 100s of experiments to find out what works best? Some failures leading in meltdown causing Chernobyl type contamination zones? No. Sometimes regulations are a good thing.
And who makes the decision on what is allowable for experimentation and what is not? You with a gun? Me with a gun? Or all of us, by the effect of our voluntary interaction and pursuit of goals? If you don't want to see hundr
I would be happy to see nuclear power regulations repealed, so long as those that build and run nuclear power plants are actually accountable for any incidents that occur as a result of preventable actions on their part. This goes to the heart of statism: the protection of corporations. Corporations are an invention of government, allowing them to esacpe culpability when their interests at risk. If I run a power plant, and I neglect to have proper safety precautions and something happens, I should be held accountable for those actions. It also opens up a whole market of 3rd party companies that would take payment from individuals in order to specifically audit and inspect these facilities. I certainly would not live anywhere near a nuclear power plant where no one was checking up on the safety of it. And I'd much rather voluntarily pay a company to do that for me, with the understanding that if they suck at it they don't get my money anymore, than have my money STOLEN from me to pay some insider that used to work for the company give them a free pass because they are buddies with no consequence for screwing it all up.
The same goes to your concerns about safety regulations...if an airline's planes crash a lot, who's going to fly with them? Who eats food that has poison in it? We eat McDonald's and such en masse precisely because people THINK it's safe, because it's blessed by the FDA. In reality, it's one of the most unhealthy things you can put in your body. I would argue that in that sense regulation has aided death, rather than hindering it (these foods are also ridiculously cheap, again a function of government and subsidies, everything from sugar and corn subsidies to the welfare that allows these businesses to underpay their workers).
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm using the term "regulation" in this post to mean "government regulation". Private entities impose regulations on member companies all the time, and I have no issue with it. This response is a rebuttal only to the idea of "government regulation".
Is there regulation that specifies network architectures? Is there regulation that says TCP/IP is the backbone of the Internet? Is there regulation that says USB is the standard method of connection for a whole slew of devices?
Information Technology is the most UNregulated industry in the world....it also happens to be the fastest growing (for decades now) and the most diverse in terms of job opportunities and applications to customers.
Regulations are ALWAYS about protecting a preferred interest, never about safety. The old addage is "you get what you pay for". If you pay for something that has an inherent lack of safety, but it's cheaper, and you get more customers than the guy that charges a higher price for the safe product...who do you think is going to demand the regulation? The customers certainly aren't, they are obviously happy with the less safe product, else they wouldn't buy it. The only person that would scream for safety regulation is the one knows he can drive his competition if his competitor were FORCED to meet the same standards.
You cite air-bags, lighting, road markers, etc. as regulations you "benefit" from. Are you telling me that if not for regulations cars would wander aimlessly through the dark on dirt paths? This is absolutely ludicrous and is simply a "who will build the roads?" argument. It stems from a belief that without forced coercion at the point of a gun that people would not provide a quality product (and if roads and general safety were products to be sold instead of given away after stealing from others, they would be quality...to those that purchase them). Life is about risk management. No one can be 100% safe all the time. It is incumbent upon the individual to take the various risks in their own life and weigh those against the resources available to them. Some people don't trust elevators, they simply don't ride them, they take the stairs instead. It takes longer, thus it consumes their time. That is resource and risk management, and if you don't do it for yourself you're simply helpless and reliant on others to make decisions for you.
That defies economic logic. If your competitor steals your idea and then is able to copy your idea for cheaper...doesn't that mean you just lost and SHOULD go out of business? They improved upon your idea, right or else how would they sell it for less? Or it means you were charging too much in the first place? And if your competitor steals your idea and then sells it so cheap they don't profit...well then they go out of business. I really fail to see how the basic laws of economics are not at play here.
And Google is not a monopoly, they are just ubiquitous. Plenty of people are using Bing and other search engines. And this whole NSA thing has given everyone in the world a pause when thinking about whether or not to do business with any US tech companies.
I find it interesting that author opposes monopolies and then cries for help from the most eggregious monopoly of all....government. How else do patent laws exist without the government to enforce them? If the government did not exist at all, do you really think Myriad would be sending armed thugs to the doorstep of every one of their competitors claiming stolen property? That's not a winning business proposition to investors.
He cries about the corportism that is rampant, completely ignoring the fact that corporations are an invention of government and only survive because of government protections.
Clear case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Properly identified the problem but came to the conclusion that is guaranteed to simply propogate the problem further.
Actually, the F-35 being cancelled would be seen as a blessing to many of our allies that promised to buy them. Because then they could jump ship to Boeing and buy the new F-15SE (Silent Eagle) which is being marketed by Boeing as an alternative to the F-35. They are selling it as a stealth version of an already proven and extremely capable airframe with a lower cost. Dropping F-35 development would allow the countries that promised to buy F-35s to back out and buy the F-15SE without pissing off the US or Lockheed.
By that explanation, then WOW should have failed long ago because the first couple hours of WOW are extremely underwhelming. The intro areas are full of weak, uninteresting creatures of which you are constantly assigned to killing a set number of them and upon turning in the quest, you will receive X amount of experience and X item. Cataclysm has changed this slightly with the new cut scenes, but it's still essentially the same. Bioware is at least trying to change this up by throwing in player choice to the mix in these initial tutorial quests, and the choices you make could have profound effects later on. They could just affect the reward you get. You don't really know and there's no reloading to see the other outcome and that's part of the whole appeal. If someone buys a MMORPG and only gives it an hour, they weren't going to give it a chance in the first place.
By that logic, Halo and Call of Duty are "only different in presentation". They are both FPSs, they have you throwing grenades, shooting pistols, sniper rifles, machine guns, etc. They have team deathmatch, free for all, capture the flag, etc. game modes. The single player has set pieces that you have manning equipment to support allies and when you're not, you're a 1-man show against the world. By your explanation, the only difference between the games is the way you're dressed, who you're killing, and in Halo you shoot lasers instead of bullets. Explain to me how, if Halo and Call of Duty are different games, that STORO and WOW are the same? Every MMORPG is going to be like every other MMORPG in some form or another, just like every FPS is the same as another in some fashion and every RTS is the same as another. That's exactly WHY presentation and storyline can make an impressive difference, and that's what Bioware is aiming for. CAN you zip through quests in STORO? I'm sure you can, but it would completely defeat the purpose of the game, the same way that blowing through just the storyline of Dragon Age or Mass Effect cheapens you're own experience (even these games have "go kill X number of enemies at X location" but I don't see anyone complaining about that). If that's all you play, then yes it will feel like a lackluster game.
I caveated that with "once you have a couple hours to play it". Actually there was a lot of a negative feedback on the game back at E3 last year and throughout the year coming from any reviewer that only had 30-60 minutes to play it. But within the last few months, Bioware has been letting reviewers sit down and play for hours at a time, which is having them come away with better perceptions of the game. And this person obviously either didn't care or didn't play for the length of time others have been.
Star Wars Galaxies, until the introduction of the Jedi class, was a perfect example of a successful Star Wars MMO without having everyone running around as a Jedi. It could have continued that way as well had Sony not f'ed it up. I say "until the introduction of Jedi" in a way not to demean the Jedi class itself, but the way Sony implemented it. If balanced properly, the only appeal to being a Jedi in STORO will be the look and feel of the character, not the actual power of the class which should be balanced against all the others. As for Jedi running all over the place, given the timeline of the universe that Bioware has chosen to present the game in, it is completely acceptable to have Jedi running around everywhere. That's why they picked it. Not to mention there are plenty of people (myself included) excited about playing a NON-Jedi in the Star Wars universe again. Every Star Wars game out there(limited exceptions such as SWG and EAW) has you playing as a Jedi in some form or another, it's refreshing to experience the Star Wars universe from a different angle. And your complaint about big badguys respawning in a few minutes for someone else to kill...ever played a little game called WOW? That happens all the time, you can kill the Lich King as many times as you want. It's just the nature of the beast in MMOs. If enemies stayed dead, there would be nothing to do.
Anyone stop to think "hey, WOW and STORO are 2 completely different genres". One is fantasy, one is sci-fi. Saying they are both MMOs is like saying that Halo and Call of Duty are both FPSs. They appeal to completely different audiences. Sure, there may be a good chunk of people that play both, but chances if someone likes 1 of them, they don't like/play the other nearly as much. And as for this 'reviewer', I think he's just bitter against Bioware and/or a Blizzard fanboy because EVERY other thing I've read about STORO has been how about amazing the initial impression is once you have a couple hours to play it. Plus there's one thing that I haven't seen anyone mention that completely differentiates this from WOW....dynamic storylines. Anyone that has played Dragon Age: Origins or Mass Effect (2 other games that are as similar as night and day, made by the same company) knows that the choices you make in interacting with NPCs in a Bioware game can have profound effects on your gameplay experience. This will encourage people to make multiple characters of multiple classes and multiple races and even genders. Because the entire experience will be different dependent upon those factors as well as the choices one makes along the way. This fact alone multiplies the replay value many times, leaving Bioware with plenty of time to push out endgame content, even if the game doesn't release with it readily available.
I for one am a WOW player, really only playing for the Cataclysm content and as soon as STORO comes out, I'm jumping ship. I've been following this game since the day it was announced and am stoked for it's release. I don't expect, nor necessarily want, STORO to be a WOW killer. I just want it to be fun and be congruent with the Star Wars universe.
Oh, and anyone that says "Look at how good Star Wars Galaxies turned out"...either pull your head out of your arse and go read something about WHY it's failed so badly or just shut up because you have no clue what you're talking about (coming from someone that played SWG for 4 years).
Slashdot Mirror
Hey now, that's not fair. They are very good at convicting Amanda Knox.
No victim, no crime. Find me the victim that is hurt because of bad parking, on a public road or public property, (private property is different) and I might change my mind.
Lot's of quoting of Churchill on here without any real thought behind the meaning of the words. Lots of talk elsewhere about how things are bad, people aren't being heard, etc. and trying to come up with ways to change it. Tea Party candidates got elected to try to reform government along a similar vein of thought.
Hot tip Quincies, it's all pointless.
Government doesn't exist to serve you, it exists to serve itself. What is the difference between a monarchy and what we in the US have right now? We have illusion of choice in our master.
But the simple fact is being able to pick a different master every few years makes you no less a slave.
One of the comments here said "Bringing back serfdom" I don't believe it ever left. When 35-50% of your labor is stolen, how are you not a serf already? Property taxes ensure we all pay tribute to mighty government, else men with guns will evict you from the land. That means you don't really own it, you are merely renting it from the government.
The problem is not government, it never has been. The problem is when individuals believe in authority. They believe that someone, for whatever reason, has dominion over their actions even to a small extent.
People must learn to reject this idea. Any involuntary authority over another human being is unethical. To tell someone they must submit to your speed limit because you have more friends than them that wrote it down on a piece of paper is no different than telling them they don't have the right to live because you decree it so.
If you want to truly be free, then you must learn to reject the very idea of authority.
The Most Dangerous Superstition - Larken Rose
So does this mean that anything that can be converted into real currency or be used to buy goods and services is subject to SEC oversight? What about in-game currencies that can be converted to real money like Guild Wars 2 crystals, EVE Plex, or the Diablo 3 Auction House? When you use these in-game currencies, which are theoretically just as good as real money according to this judge, are you not buying a good/service? Technically, when you execute a courier contract in EVE, you are paying ISK for a service by another person...and that ISK can then be used to buy PLEX which can be traded for real money. This opens a whole can of worms I think and just another avenue for government to seize as much control as it can.
"Let us control the money of a nation, and we care not who makes its laws"
If I run a business, I should have the freedom to hire or fire whoever I like, for whatever reason I like. Discrimination is how society functions on the most basic. Not every reason is considered "logical", there's times I don't associate with someone or buy something simply because I don't have a good feeling about it. Is that discrimination? Absolutely. We all discriminate all the time. It happens every time we make a choice.
Who are you to tell me who I may hire to work in my business? Who am I to tell you who you can hire? Discrimination laws do precisely this. If society as a whole disagrees with the practice of a business, for example a business that hires only whites, then people can choose to not invest, frequent, or promote that business and it will quickly go out of business without anyone lifting a finger.
You are confusing industry standards with government regulations. There is no government regulation that says all Internet traffic must be handled through TCP/IP or that the only way to connect certain devices is a USB cable. USB may be patented, yes, but it did not become successful because of any government mandate...it became successful because it works great.
Don't claim unregulated 'independent' safety certifications as an answer either, they tend to be beholden to the manufacturers they are supposed to certify.
And government regulatory agencies are somehow different? Even if they both are functionally just as accurate and screw up just as much, I'd much rather have the option that doesn't involve thieving and violence to propagate the organization.
You're going to 'voluntarily pay' a company to check on the safetly of a power plant? Yeah, right. Who, exactly, is going to select this company? Is every individual living near a plant going to hire their own company to do that? What if they don't? Does that mean that if there is an accident only the people who didn't pay are going to be affected, while those that did will be perfecly safe? What about the people who live 300 miles from the plant but use the electricty generated by the plant - why would they care to pay to have the plant inspected?
So because you can't come up with a solution to an incredibly complex problem in 5 minutes you dismiss that any solution at all can be found and instead say "fuck it, I'm willing to use violence" through government force?
I can't tell you how it would be solved, no one can tell you that and anyone that claims they can is lying. If the problem cannot be solved, well then maybe nuclear power is just too damned dangerous? Ever stop to think that without government forcibly making way for nuclear plants they might not exist at all?
But our modern world is too complex to have people weighing every decision. I don't have time to make sure that every restaurant I eat at has clean facilities. Are we all supposed to inspect the kitchen ourselves? I can't personally verify that the apartment building I live in was properly built, or that the airbags in my car will work properly and only when they are needed, or that the taxi I'm riding in has been properly maintained, or that the medicines I'm taking are safe and effective. And if I find that any of these are not the case, I don't have the resources to correct them. I can take my money elsewhere, but that's not incredibly effective; I'm a drop in the bucket.
Never said you should do it yourself. But what you are doing is showing the limitation of your imagination and your faith in others to solve complex problems. What is the fundamental difference between a company that inspects kitchens and a government that does the same? Simple, the government only inspects kitchens because it stole money by force from others to pay for the inspectors. The company on the other hand had voluntary investors and customers. Restaurants would pay to be inspected and good ratings from the most reputable inspection company. All you would need to know is the name of the inspection company and look for their sticker on the window. That's just 1 example, I can't tell the future so I can't tell you how complex problems would be solved. What I can tell you is that without violence in the equation, the method of solution will be far more efficient and beneficial for society as a whole.
If you spend all your time worrying about "what if" scenarios, and believing these problems simply cannot be solved without violent coercion to make people do it, then you are fundamentally no different than those 300 years ago that could not fathom a world without slavery. The end doesn't matter, what matters is that we stop beating each other over the head (literally) in order to get our way and instead communicate and negotiate in non-violent means to accomplish our own, individual goals.
It must be nice in libertarian la-la-land. Do you guys ever talk to the communists? I hear they had a plan that was predicated upon similar naivete about human nature, and how we can all just band together to accomplish an awesome society, because nobody is too selfish to do something that benefits them at the expense of the common good, right?
Quite the contrary, I acknowledge the flaws and imperfections in every person. That is why I think we cannot trust a government. If you feel that people are inherently greedy, and you create an organization that has monopolistic and violent authority over all other people, where do you think those greedy people will center themselves?
I do not expect everyone to act in the best interest of the common good. I expect everyone to act in their own best interest. If I have something you want, and you have something I want, and we make a mutual exchange, then we are both better off. Multiply this hundreds of millions of times a day, and you have the aggregate effect of 300 million people working in their own self interest, not for the common good. The key is just take violence (i.e. government) out of the equation.
It's the will of enough of the people that democracy (please, no semantic pedantry) has decreed it. The problem with voluntary associations is that the people who don't like the regulations--typically the people who would be found in violation of them--will just opt out. The fact that a vocal minority feels that regulation impinges on their profits is a good indication that it's still necessary.
So you favor mob rule? Majority rule? If 60% want to put the other 40% in jail for no reason at all other than disagreeing that's okay with you? You seem to ignore the gun in the room. It's not just that people like myself disagree. It's that if we act on the disagreement, if we willfully disobey the ruling authority, even in a way that doesn't actually harm anyone, we go to jail...and if we resist the cage we are killed. Is that the society you value?
As for Friedman, I don't know what Friedman you're talking about, but the one I know actually opposed the Federal Reserve system. The only reason he said anything about positive about was more like "well it already exists, I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon, so let's at least manage it." Again, disagreement without the ability to act. The Fed can print all the money it wants...if I do the same thing I go to jail.
Please read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons carefully before dismissing all government regulation.
I'm well aware of the tragedy of the commons, I never suggested I supported communal land or ownership, in fact quite the opposite. When everything is private land, owned by someone, then they have a vested interest in making sure that land is in some way productive or useful, and in general free of toxic waste.
But when the resources I need are controlled by only three companies, or a rail line or pipeline or fertilizer plant is built right near where I live I want the government to impose regulations to keep my family and my property safe.
First, the limitations on your choice of companies is not because of capitalism or free markets, it is because of government. Governments around the world enable and protect corporations, government today is really just a violent extension of what corporations want to accomplish. The Wal-Marts and Halliburtons of the world know they cannot achieve success in their business model by getting people to voluntarily give them money for a product, so instead they fashion government rules that give them an advantage and force out competition.
You also say you support government regulations in this instance...does this mean you are willing to take a gun to the home of every worker of that company and threaten their life in order to enact this regulation? If not, then you cannot reasonably hire others to do it in your place (government agents).
Take safety belts for example. I don't see the point in ticketing adults who have made their own decision. Not wearing that safety belt will only lead to their own harm, and will not harm others. But I do think that securing children should be enforced, as I do not believe that parents have exclusive life and death rights over their offspring.
I'm with you on most of this. I agree that children are not an exclusive right and must be cared for, however if you wish to remain consistent in your treatment of others, then you would not enact violence against another unless they have done something to warrant it. Not buckling in their own kid is hardly an example of an instance in which violent recourse is allowable.
Third party private certification agencies are good example of free market mechanisms. You have UL and similar listings for electrical products, ABS product approval for the international shipping industry, AKC registration for dogs, Verisign for SSL Certificates, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, etc.
Exactly, so why can this model not work for every product? There is no difference between the market for SSL certificates and the market for, say roads, or any other service, except the arbitrary distinction drawn by those in government. If such services are truly desired by the masses, they will organize them on their own and develop like mechanisms for keeping them in check.
I've seen the "reasonable regulations" comment repeated over and over, here and elsewhere. The fact is, if the power exists to create regulation, then the power exists to create any regulation. Then you get into the whole "who will watch the watchers" dilemma. The fact is, you can't, no one can. The watchers cannot be watched, they cannot be trusted, for every time they are trusted with power they abuse it. So rather the only option is hold the watchers accountable to the only people that can...their direct funders and source of income, i.e. a base of customers by turning the service of the watchers into a desired commodity.
I'm pretty sick of hearing the same old tired bullshit from conservatives and libertarians about how regulations, unions, and taxes are so awful.
You can always find some instance of where a given regulation is bad, a union is over-reaching, or taxation is burdensome. But these three things, regulations, unions, and taxes, define civilization as we know it in the contemporary U.S.
My issue is not with regulations per se, rules are the way of life in a civilized society. My issue is with the fact that regulations (laws) are enforced at gun point against those that have committed no crime, aggressed against no person or property. If there is a universal respect for property rights, i.e. I own my land, effects, and body, and I get to hold you accountable if you destroy them, then no government is necessary.
Regulations (laws) and the regulatory agencies were demanded by the people and put into place to protect citizenry from consistently ethics-challenged business world. Likewise unions.
Ah yes, the will of the people. Of course it's the will of the people, that's why it has to be enacted through government violence, right? Or....if it was actually the will of the people they would have formed a voluntary association to accomplish the same goal minus the violence and theft.
Business, it turns out, cares more about turning a profit than the health, safety, and welfare of you, your family, employees, and the environment we all live in. If you don't threaten to throw 'em in jail, or subject them to penny ante fines and public humiliation, businesses will happily bait and switch your ass to death. They'll pay you starvation wages to work in situations as dangerous as the most dangerous situation you can imagine. And dock your pay if you're late.
But I care about my health, safety, welfare, family, and environment. Why would I pay money to a company that damages these things if given the choice? And if others join me in not paying this company to do damage...then they don't make money. Profit incentives at work. As for slave wages...look up the Federal Reserve. By the end of the 19th century prices were actually lower and wages were higher than at the beginning of the centrury (even after a completely unnecessary civil war that killed off 600,000 productive people). Governments do destructive things to economies.
For every bad regulation you come up with, there are a thousand that have saved your life in the last week. For every non-union shop that you claim is fair and treats its employees fairly and looks out for their safety there are a thousand people on disability from preventable industrial accidents.
And taxes help pay for those life-saving regulations. And roads. And bridges. And schools. And police and fire departments, health departments, public parks, libraries, universities, basic research, the arts, THE MILITARY... Need I go on?
And for every onerous tax you mention, there are a thousand benefits you've personally reaped in services and infrastructure paid for by our taxes.
So I don't want to hear about how bad government regulation is, or that unions're bad, mmm'kay? Or that we shouldn't pay taxes. If you don't want to participate in our society and partake of the benefits, fucking move someplace where you don't have to suffer those "burdens".
I hear Somalia doesn't have personal income tax...
So because I have benefited from the things paid for with my stolen property, I should allow it to continue? If you're ever robbed, ask the thief to buy you a Starbucks with the stolen money and see if that makes up for it.
"who will buld the roads?!" Probably the same damned people that build the buildings, and the cars, and the houses, and the parks, and everything else in society. They don't appear mysteriously, they are built by people working for a living, working for their own self interest. The difference is
I don't say this often, or lightly, but this is stupid idea. This is free-market libertarianism taken to the (il)logical extreme. Are you arguing that regulations are never good or necessary? What if someone wants to build a nuclear power plant near a highly populated area? Near a large water source for easy cooling, eg Fukushima? What if they are using a design that has known flaws?
So long as the regulations are enforced at the point of a gun through government, and not through voluntary association, then yes regulations are bad. How do you think a power plant gets built, it just magically appears? If someone wants to build something as expensive as a nuclear power plant, they are going to need investors, buy-ins, the support of the community (someone has to work there after all), and the land space to do it. All of those partners are going to want assurance that the plant is safe. The customers that will be purchasing the power from the plant will want assurance that it is safe, nothing in the business world happens in a vacuum. That leads into:
You mention auditing and inspection but what good are these if there are no regulations? Would the inspectors just make strong suggestions?
So profits are great at driving people to be evil, but not at driving them to be good? Ah yes, capitalism is to blame for all the ills of the world, I forgot. You know, profit can drive people to do good things too. If there were no government regulators, there would be a profitable business to be had in the safety inspection and auditing of all kinds of industries. And they would have the profit incentive to make sure they were damned good at it. If they find anything amiss, they inform the residents/customers.
But oh no! You only have 1 option in power plants! It's a monopoly! Well yes, it's a GOVERNMENT monopoly. Power providers today only exist because governments give them monopoly control over geographic areas. In a truly free market, no monopoly can exist for very long, if ever. There will always be an upstart to compete, someone that offers something the big guy doesn't, someone that offers it cheaper, or faster, or more friendly. A free market is about choice, and all governments do is strangle choice.
Even with the best intentions, things go wrong-- see what is happening with the San Onofre nuclear plant that is being permanently shut down due to leakage problems. Estimations are that decommissioning will take years and nearly $3B. Whats to keep those responsible from cutting corners to make a fast buck and when things go south, declaring bankruptcy and just walking away?
Again, you are blaming capitalism for problems created by government. Bankruptcy is a government creation, it allows people to walk away from their obligations. This problem goes beyond regulations, the problem is government itself.
Do you honestly think a strong sense of personal/corporate responsibility will help in this situation? Wouldn't it be nice if the nuclear power plant operators were required to have a fund that would be used when a plant closes so that the responsible parties can't just walk away? Fortunately, the operators of San Onofre do have $2.7B in a decommissioning fund-- because of regulations.
Sometimes it is OK to have a lot of experiments to find out what works best-- I think having a lot of smaller financial institutions is preferable to having a few "too big to fail" ones. With regard to nuclear power plants, are you going to let people/corporations do 100s of experiments to find out what works best? Some failures leading in meltdown causing Chernobyl type contamination zones? No. Sometimes regulations are a good thing.
And who makes the decision on what is allowable for experimentation and what is not? You with a gun? Me with a gun? Or all of us, by the effect of our voluntary interaction and pursuit of goals? If you don't want to see hundr
I would be happy to see nuclear power regulations repealed, so long as those that build and run nuclear power plants are actually accountable for any incidents that occur as a result of preventable actions on their part. This goes to the heart of statism: the protection of corporations. Corporations are an invention of government, allowing them to esacpe culpability when their interests at risk. If I run a power plant, and I neglect to have proper safety precautions and something happens, I should be held accountable for those actions. It also opens up a whole market of 3rd party companies that would take payment from individuals in order to specifically audit and inspect these facilities. I certainly would not live anywhere near a nuclear power plant where no one was checking up on the safety of it. And I'd much rather voluntarily pay a company to do that for me, with the understanding that if they suck at it they don't get my money anymore, than have my money STOLEN from me to pay some insider that used to work for the company give them a free pass because they are buddies with no consequence for screwing it all up. The same goes to your concerns about safety regulations...if an airline's planes crash a lot, who's going to fly with them? Who eats food that has poison in it? We eat McDonald's and such en masse precisely because people THINK it's safe, because it's blessed by the FDA. In reality, it's one of the most unhealthy things you can put in your body. I would argue that in that sense regulation has aided death, rather than hindering it (these foods are also ridiculously cheap, again a function of government and subsidies, everything from sugar and corn subsidies to the welfare that allows these businesses to underpay their workers).
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm using the term "regulation" in this post to mean "government regulation". Private entities impose regulations on member companies all the time, and I have no issue with it. This response is a rebuttal only to the idea of "government regulation". Is there regulation that specifies network architectures? Is there regulation that says TCP/IP is the backbone of the Internet? Is there regulation that says USB is the standard method of connection for a whole slew of devices? Information Technology is the most UNregulated industry in the world....it also happens to be the fastest growing (for decades now) and the most diverse in terms of job opportunities and applications to customers. Regulations are ALWAYS about protecting a preferred interest, never about safety. The old addage is "you get what you pay for". If you pay for something that has an inherent lack of safety, but it's cheaper, and you get more customers than the guy that charges a higher price for the safe product...who do you think is going to demand the regulation? The customers certainly aren't, they are obviously happy with the less safe product, else they wouldn't buy it. The only person that would scream for safety regulation is the one knows he can drive his competition if his competitor were FORCED to meet the same standards. You cite air-bags, lighting, road markers, etc. as regulations you "benefit" from. Are you telling me that if not for regulations cars would wander aimlessly through the dark on dirt paths? This is absolutely ludicrous and is simply a "who will build the roads?" argument. It stems from a belief that without forced coercion at the point of a gun that people would not provide a quality product (and if roads and general safety were products to be sold instead of given away after stealing from others, they would be quality...to those that purchase them). Life is about risk management. No one can be 100% safe all the time. It is incumbent upon the individual to take the various risks in their own life and weigh those against the resources available to them. Some people don't trust elevators, they simply don't ride them, they take the stairs instead. It takes longer, thus it consumes their time. That is resource and risk management, and if you don't do it for yourself you're simply helpless and reliant on others to make decisions for you.
That defies economic logic. If your competitor steals your idea and then is able to copy your idea for cheaper...doesn't that mean you just lost and SHOULD go out of business? They improved upon your idea, right or else how would they sell it for less? Or it means you were charging too much in the first place? And if your competitor steals your idea and then sells it so cheap they don't profit...well then they go out of business. I really fail to see how the basic laws of economics are not at play here. And Google is not a monopoly, they are just ubiquitous. Plenty of people are using Bing and other search engines. And this whole NSA thing has given everyone in the world a pause when thinking about whether or not to do business with any US tech companies.
I find it interesting that author opposes monopolies and then cries for help from the most eggregious monopoly of all....government. How else do patent laws exist without the government to enforce them? If the government did not exist at all, do you really think Myriad would be sending armed thugs to the doorstep of every one of their competitors claiming stolen property? That's not a winning business proposition to investors. He cries about the corportism that is rampant, completely ignoring the fact that corporations are an invention of government and only survive because of government protections. Clear case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Properly identified the problem but came to the conclusion that is guaranteed to simply propogate the problem further.
Actually, the F-35 being cancelled would be seen as a blessing to many of our allies that promised to buy them. Because then they could jump ship to Boeing and buy the new F-15SE (Silent Eagle) which is being marketed by Boeing as an alternative to the F-35. They are selling it as a stealth version of an already proven and extremely capable airframe with a lower cost. Dropping F-35 development would allow the countries that promised to buy F-35s to back out and buy the F-15SE without pissing off the US or Lockheed.
By that explanation, then WOW should have failed long ago because the first couple hours of WOW are extremely underwhelming. The intro areas are full of weak, uninteresting creatures of which you are constantly assigned to killing a set number of them and upon turning in the quest, you will receive X amount of experience and X item. Cataclysm has changed this slightly with the new cut scenes, but it's still essentially the same. Bioware is at least trying to change this up by throwing in player choice to the mix in these initial tutorial quests, and the choices you make could have profound effects later on. They could just affect the reward you get. You don't really know and there's no reloading to see the other outcome and that's part of the whole appeal. If someone buys a MMORPG and only gives it an hour, they weren't going to give it a chance in the first place.
By that logic, Halo and Call of Duty are "only different in presentation". They are both FPSs, they have you throwing grenades, shooting pistols, sniper rifles, machine guns, etc. They have team deathmatch, free for all, capture the flag, etc. game modes. The single player has set pieces that you have manning equipment to support allies and when you're not, you're a 1-man show against the world. By your explanation, the only difference between the games is the way you're dressed, who you're killing, and in Halo you shoot lasers instead of bullets. Explain to me how, if Halo and Call of Duty are different games, that STORO and WOW are the same? Every MMORPG is going to be like every other MMORPG in some form or another, just like every FPS is the same as another in some fashion and every RTS is the same as another. That's exactly WHY presentation and storyline can make an impressive difference, and that's what Bioware is aiming for. CAN you zip through quests in STORO? I'm sure you can, but it would completely defeat the purpose of the game, the same way that blowing through just the storyline of Dragon Age or Mass Effect cheapens you're own experience (even these games have "go kill X number of enemies at X location" but I don't see anyone complaining about that). If that's all you play, then yes it will feel like a lackluster game.
I caveated that with "once you have a couple hours to play it". Actually there was a lot of a negative feedback on the game back at E3 last year and throughout the year coming from any reviewer that only had 30-60 minutes to play it. But within the last few months, Bioware has been letting reviewers sit down and play for hours at a time, which is having them come away with better perceptions of the game. And this person obviously either didn't care or didn't play for the length of time others have been.
Star Wars Galaxies, until the introduction of the Jedi class, was a perfect example of a successful Star Wars MMO without having everyone running around as a Jedi. It could have continued that way as well had Sony not f'ed it up. I say "until the introduction of Jedi" in a way not to demean the Jedi class itself, but the way Sony implemented it. If balanced properly, the only appeal to being a Jedi in STORO will be the look and feel of the character, not the actual power of the class which should be balanced against all the others. As for Jedi running all over the place, given the timeline of the universe that Bioware has chosen to present the game in, it is completely acceptable to have Jedi running around everywhere. That's why they picked it. Not to mention there are plenty of people (myself included) excited about playing a NON-Jedi in the Star Wars universe again. Every Star Wars game out there(limited exceptions such as SWG and EAW) has you playing as a Jedi in some form or another, it's refreshing to experience the Star Wars universe from a different angle. And your complaint about big badguys respawning in a few minutes for someone else to kill...ever played a little game called WOW? That happens all the time, you can kill the Lich King as many times as you want. It's just the nature of the beast in MMOs. If enemies stayed dead, there would be nothing to do.
Anyone stop to think "hey, WOW and STORO are 2 completely different genres". One is fantasy, one is sci-fi. Saying they are both MMOs is like saying that Halo and Call of Duty are both FPSs. They appeal to completely different audiences. Sure, there may be a good chunk of people that play both, but chances if someone likes 1 of them, they don't like/play the other nearly as much. And as for this 'reviewer', I think he's just bitter against Bioware and/or a Blizzard fanboy because EVERY other thing I've read about STORO has been how about amazing the initial impression is once you have a couple hours to play it. Plus there's one thing that I haven't seen anyone mention that completely differentiates this from WOW....dynamic storylines. Anyone that has played Dragon Age: Origins or Mass Effect (2 other games that are as similar as night and day, made by the same company) knows that the choices you make in interacting with NPCs in a Bioware game can have profound effects on your gameplay experience. This will encourage people to make multiple characters of multiple classes and multiple races and even genders. Because the entire experience will be different dependent upon those factors as well as the choices one makes along the way. This fact alone multiplies the replay value many times, leaving Bioware with plenty of time to push out endgame content, even if the game doesn't release with it readily available. I for one am a WOW player, really only playing for the Cataclysm content and as soon as STORO comes out, I'm jumping ship. I've been following this game since the day it was announced and am stoked for it's release. I don't expect, nor necessarily want, STORO to be a WOW killer. I just want it to be fun and be congruent with the Star Wars universe. Oh, and anyone that says "Look at how good Star Wars Galaxies turned out"...either pull your head out of your arse and go read something about WHY it's failed so badly or just shut up because you have no clue what you're talking about (coming from someone that played SWG for 4 years).