You can't define the terms other people are using.
Well, I'm not writing a book here, where I'd have the luxury of referring the reader of page 150 to the definitions put forth in the first chapter.
So, forgive me, if I rely on the following common-sense understanding of the term "Fascism": "whatever was practiced by Hitler". Is this too far from your understanding of the term? Far enough to invalidate my point: that Fascism and Socialism aren't opposites?
I hear that bogus line so many times, it's a Rush Limbaugh talking point with no basis in reality.
There is nothing bogus in it — the tax rate is very high, and those, who don't pay any simply have no net income left. Read your own link carefully and you'll see:
some corporations reported zero income before deducting expenses while others said they had zero net income after deducting expenses. Either way, those companies reported no tax liability, the GAO said
and, even easier to understand and feel:
But many of the companies the report found had paid no tax were likely small businesses that pay other taxes. Generally, many small firms, because they do not have shareholders, are able to shift corporate income to individual income.
Being an owner of one such small business, I can confirm this — at the end of each year, whatever is left on the business account, is paid to me as salary/bonus: from which I pay income tax. This leaves the corporation with zeroed-out income. Leaving money on the business account makes no sense — the corporation would have to pay tax on it first, and then, if it ever decides to pay employees (or shareholders) with it, those people would have to pay income tax on these same monies. Better to dispense with it right away. And if you need money later, you can borrow, because interest rates are much lower, than taxes (unless we are in a credit-crunch).
It's a logical fallacy to assume that an evil genocidal bastard like Hitler is incapable of saying or supporting anything that is good just because he is an evil genocidal bastard.
Oh, sure, here come the useful intellectuals — where were you, when the term "Bushitler" was passed around? Face it, a mere allegation of any similarity with Hitler is a powerful assault and I don't remember much opposition to that before. But, you are right, of course — Hitler could've been saying something right. That was not my point, though.
Argue against the points, individually, on their merits.
The point here was to simply remind, that Fascism and Socialism (whatever their merits) are no different from each other. In fact, Hitler's party was called "National Socialism Party". Thus pitching them as some sort of opposites is just that: a false dichotomy. See subject.
Don't label it as fascism just because "Hitler said it."
Well, honestly, what stronger evidence of something being Fascism can there be, than "Hitler said it"?
whereas if they were doing well they would be keeping every penny.
America's rate of corporate tax is among the highest in the world. Thanks to politically-expedient pro-Union legislation, the Union's choke-hold on the automakers is such, that even now, at the time of dire crisis, GM, for example, is paying its American workers $10 more per hour, than Toyota.
That's hardly "keeping every penny" — I wish, they did. Then, they would've had money today to sustain a slump, and the economies of the car-making regions would've stood a chance of being more diverse by now.
If you read about fascism from the horse's mouth, you'll see, that there is no difference. Here, I picked the most familiar-sounding items put forth 88 years ago:
THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST -
THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST - THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
....
7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
....
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
We demand therefore:
...
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
The breaking of the slavery of interest
12.... personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
...
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class
...
18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
...
20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.
Had it not been for Hitler's bizarre obsession with genocide — which, as Franco and Mussolini demonstrated, is not an inalienable part of Fascism — the Left would've considered Hitler as a perfectly respectable source of quotes and inspiration, along with Lenin, Mao, and Karl Marx.
Yeah, communism sucks so we should adopt cut-throat capitalism.
In America (so far, anyway) Capitalism stands not so much on it being most efficient, but on the human rights. See, unless a behavior hurts somebody, it is allowed. My right to sell a product or a service at whatever price I darn please derives not from this being the most efficient way of doing things, but from that famous Right to Pursue Happiness.
If that seems "cut-throat" to you, then so be it — nobody ever promised you anything other than pursuit of happiness. Or, at least, so it was, until one asshole realized, he can get elected by telling 19 people: "See that 20th guy over there? He is very rich. Vote for me (19:1) and we'll take from him and give to you. Woo-hoo!" Never mind, that the 20th guy is already paying for himself and 11 others — he can pay for even more, because we'll make him.
So if I work for a thousand hours alphabetizing papers and you work for an hour writing a script that eliminates the need for my job, I should be paid 1000x more than you?
Seems like a great plan.
Why, yes, Karl Marx' economic theory is based pretty much on that. And he must've been onto something, because despite having
never worked in practice,
caused millions of deaths in attempts to make it work
it still has plenty of adherents, and some people, who — like our new President-elect — would not rule out "taking useful pieces" out of it... And even when they admit (usually — under some pressure), that economic part of the theory is utter crap, they still try to push it on the basis of "fairness".
Unfortunately, this is an unwinnable argument — to win it, you'd have to convince people, what they are doing is inefficient. This is impossible, because succeeding would strip the self-defense layer people's minds have put up to defend themselves from sliding into insanity. "If I've spent my whole life alphabetizing papers, it must be good for something, and no computer will ever alphabetize them as good as I do."
but there should be no penalties or bonuses for connecting to specific servers.
Well, not to say, that there should be, but none of this is our business. We aren't running the ISPs, we aren't responsible for them — we are just users, free to switch to another ISP, if its terms are more sensible.
Oh, you say, but there are so few choices of broadband ISPs? Well, that's the direct result of earlier attempts to create artificial monopolies and regulate them. Undoing that damage is what the government should busy itself with, not causing new one.
"Should businesses have the right to charge more for some types of use that create the same load, than for others?"
Yes, absolutely. As long as nothing compels you to pay them, they are free to charge, whatever they want to.
"Should businesses take money from the government and then still demand a regulation free market?"
Yes, of course. The right to demand is protected by the First Amendment. That the government chooses to give certain businesses money anyway is the government's problem.
"Should businesses have a right to promise one thing and deliver another?".
No, of course. Contractual obligations must be honored, and seeing to it is one of the (very few) parts of the government's mandate, that Libertarians approve.
Now that this stuff is practical, our friendly ISPs are throttling/capping our bandwidth.
Surprise! Businesses wishing to have a say over the kind of services they offer — and charge higher fees for heavier use... Can't let it happen, can we?
I know, let's enact "Net Neutrality" legislation — that will change everything, and make the ISPs happy to offer their services to us.
None of the Abu Ghraib would've happened, had the guards been robots. Even if you think, the higher-ups hinted to them, to be harsh on the prisoners — well, that wouldn't have worked on the robots, who need explicit orders...
Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well.
As far as is known, they have only listened on some international calls. With the vast majority of Americans never calling into the suspicious hot-spots, their privacy was never threatened. But very little is known — one side wants things to be kept secret, understandably, and the other does not care to separate known facts from the darkest what-if-suspicions...
Who should be demanding justice, is Joe the Plumber whose records (and not just the measly phone-calls, but serious things) were improperlyaccessed as a result of his sudden fame. Even if one buys the bureaucrat's line, that the searches were justified by the "what if he owes child support?" considerations, there is absolutely no justification for sharing the dirt with newspapers.
(While searching for the links, I found the following gem: "He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he's not a plumber." Wow... I must not be a software engineer, and Picasso must not have been an artist... Absolutely not...)
The majority of people were so fed up with the extremism and bullshit of the current administration... against the "neocon Republican" ticket.
No, you were fed up with the media's constant bashing of the current administration. That's the point — the poll I was referring to demonstrated, that all of Obama voters knew even the minuscule flaws of the "neocon ticket" (and McCain is not a neo-Conservative, in reality) — including a made up flaw of Sarah Palin claiming, she sees Russia from her house.
News-papers and TV — including Saturday Night Live — have made such a good job uncovering everything there was to uncover (and even something, that was not) about McCain and Palin, but failed to do a similarly thorough job on Obama and Biden. Not even when Biden's lunacies were enumerated to them by a partisan hack.
Easy to dismiss with the bogus "Reality has a liberal bias" line, but no less true. Media has a liberal bias, which was especially huge this season... It is like McCain had to play basketball with his basket set two feet lower than Obama's...
Seriously though, who could Obama pick to fill these offices?
You are asking me? I was from, you know, the other side. The camp, which tried to call attention to Obama's total lack of executive experience, of Biden's lunacy, and other flaws of the Democratic ticket's personalities and ideology (see my current sig).
But the motivation there is different! In the scenario I meant, the machine would be helping its host country out of self-preservation (much like other citizens) — from The Third Law of Asimov's three. In the "Evitable Conflict", robots decide to do that out of concern for humans — The First Law...
Still, when your choices are certain loss of rights and likely loss of rights...
Well, now that your "likely" is becoming more and more "certain", it may dawn on you, that, what you perceived as "certain", may, in fact, have been "unlikely"... See also "Buyer's Remorse".
I've personally been very disappointed in Obama's nominations thus far, for exactly the reason you say you're happy with them, cronyism.
The man is still a mere President-Elect, and you are already disappointed — not one new face so far, so much for the "Change we need". Hold that thought 'till 2012...
I'd be disappointed too, had I been among the 98% of Obama voters, who knew so little about the ticket they pushed into White House:
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points. 97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates. Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions:
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only.5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
So, my disappointment is merely with the fellow Americans...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm not writing a book here, where I'd have the luxury of referring the reader of page 150 to the definitions put forth in the first chapter.
So, forgive me, if I rely on the following common-sense understanding of the term "Fascism": "whatever was practiced by Hitler". Is this too far from your understanding of the term? Far enough to invalidate my point: that Fascism and Socialism aren't opposites?
There is nothing bogus in it — the tax rate is very high, and those, who don't pay any simply have no net income left. Read your own link carefully and you'll see:
and, even easier to understand and feel:
Being an owner of one such small business, I can confirm this — at the end of each year, whatever is left on the business account, is paid to me as salary/bonus: from which I pay income tax. This leaves the corporation with zeroed-out income. Leaving money on the business account makes no sense — the corporation would have to pay tax on it first, and then, if it ever decides to pay employees (or shareholders) with it, those people would have to pay income tax on these same monies. Better to dispense with it right away. And if you need money later, you can borrow, because interest rates are much lower, than taxes (unless we are in a credit-crunch).
Oh, sure, here come the useful intellectuals — where were you, when the term "Bushitler" was passed around? Face it, a mere allegation of any similarity with Hitler is a powerful assault and I don't remember much opposition to that before. But, you are right, of course — Hitler could've been saying something right. That was not my point, though.
The point here was to simply remind, that Fascism and Socialism (whatever their merits) are no different from each other. In fact, Hitler's party was called "National Socialism Party". Thus pitching them as some sort of opposites is just that: a false dichotomy. See subject.
Well, honestly, what stronger evidence of something being Fascism can there be, than "Hitler said it"?
America's rate of corporate tax is among the highest in the world. Thanks to politically-expedient pro-Union legislation, the Union's choke-hold on the automakers is such, that even now, at the time of dire crisis, GM, for example, is paying its American workers $10 more per hour, than Toyota.
That's hardly "keeping every penny" — I wish, they did. Then, they would've had money today to sustain a slump, and the economies of the car-making regions would've stood a chance of being more diverse by now.
If you read about fascism from the horse's mouth, you'll see, that there is no difference. Here, I picked the most familiar-sounding items put forth 88 years ago:
Had it not been for Hitler's bizarre obsession with genocide — which, as Franco and Mussolini demonstrated, is not an inalienable part of Fascism — the Left would've considered Hitler as a perfectly respectable source of quotes and inspiration, along with Lenin, Mao, and Karl Marx.
In America (so far, anyway) Capitalism stands not so much on it being most efficient, but on the human rights. See, unless a behavior hurts somebody, it is allowed. My right to sell a product or a service at whatever price I darn please derives not from this being the most efficient way of doing things, but from that famous Right to Pursue Happiness.
If that seems "cut-throat" to you, then so be it — nobody ever promised you anything other than pursuit of happiness. Or, at least, so it was, until one asshole realized, he can get elected by telling 19 people: "See that 20th guy over there? He is very rich. Vote for me (19:1) and we'll take from him and give to you. Woo-hoo!" Never mind, that the 20th guy is already paying for himself and 11 others — he can pay for even more, because we'll make him.
Why, yes, Karl Marx' economic theory is based pretty much on that. And he must've been onto something, because despite having
it still has plenty of adherents, and some people, who — like our new President-elect — would not rule out "taking useful pieces" out of it... And even when they admit (usually — under some pressure), that economic part of the theory is utter crap, they still try to push it on the basis of "fairness".
Unfortunately, this is an unwinnable argument — to win it, you'd have to convince people, what they are doing is inefficient. This is impossible, because succeeding would strip the self-defense layer people's minds have put up to defend themselves from sliding into insanity. "If I've spent my whole life alphabetizing papers, it must be good for something, and no computer will ever alphabetize them as good as I do."
Why not apply the same logic to incurable (or hard-to-cure) deceases developed later in life?
86.9% of pro-Obama voters, thought Sarah Palin actually made that claim. In reality, it was Tina Fey, who said it, while playing Sarah Palin on TV.
Well, not to say, that there should be, but none of this is our business. We aren't running the ISPs, we aren't responsible for them — we are just users, free to switch to another ISP, if its terms are more sensible.
Oh, you say, but there are so few choices of broadband ISPs? Well, that's the direct result of earlier attempts to create artificial monopolies and regulate them. Undoing that damage is what the government should busy itself with, not causing new one.
Yes, absolutely. As long as nothing compels you to pay them, they are free to charge, whatever they want to.
Yes, of course. The right to demand is protected by the First Amendment. That the government chooses to give certain businesses money anyway is the government's problem.
No, of course. Contractual obligations must be honored, and seeing to it is one of the (very few) parts of the government's mandate, that Libertarians approve.
Surprise! Businesses wishing to have a say over the kind of services they offer — and charge higher fees for heavier use... Can't let it happen, can we?
I know, let's enact "Net Neutrality" legislation — that will change everything, and make the ISPs happy to offer their services to us.
None of the Abu Ghraib would've happened, had the guards been robots. Even if you think, the higher-ups hinted to them, to be harsh on the prisoners — well, that wouldn't have worked on the robots, who need explicit orders...
Which part of "random crashing" is alleviated by Linux? The "random" or the "crashing"?
Thanks a lot for your suggestion! Could you, please, post some reading-recommendations then?
Just who are these people, who get to keep their jobs and reputations after such "predictions"?
What else are they predicting now? (Other than climate change, that is?)
As far as is known, they have only listened on some international calls. With the vast majority of Americans never calling into the suspicious hot-spots, their privacy was never threatened. But very little is known — one side wants things to be kept secret, understandably, and the other does not care to separate known facts from the darkest what-if-suspicions...
Who should be demanding justice, is Joe the Plumber whose records (and not just the measly phone-calls, but serious things) were improperly accessed as a result of his sudden fame. Even if one buys the bureaucrat's line, that the searches were justified by the "what if he owes child support?" considerations, there is absolutely no justification for sharing the dirt with newspapers.
(While searching for the links, I found the following gem: "He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he's not a plumber." Wow... I must not be a software engineer, and Picasso must not have been an artist... Absolutely not...)
No, you were fed up with the media's constant bashing of the current administration. That's the point — the poll I was referring to demonstrated, that all of Obama voters knew even the minuscule flaws of the "neocon ticket" (and McCain is not a neo-Conservative, in reality) — including a made up flaw of Sarah Palin claiming, she sees Russia from her house.
News-papers and TV — including Saturday Night Live — have made such a good job uncovering everything there was to uncover (and even something, that was not) about McCain and Palin, but failed to do a similarly thorough job on Obama and Biden. Not even when Biden's lunacies were enumerated to them by a partisan hack.
Easy to dismiss with the bogus "Reality has a liberal bias" line, but no less true. Media has a liberal bias, which was especially huge this season... It is like McCain had to play basketball with his basket set two feet lower than Obama's...
Hey! No gun was used on 9/11...
You are asking me? I was from, you know, the other side. The camp, which tried to call attention to Obama's total lack of executive experience, of Biden's lunacy, and other flaws of the Democratic ticket's personalities and ideology (see my current sig).
But we were all drowned out by Obama's highly negative campaign — 86.9% of Obama's voters thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that. So, now, that you realize, that Obama's promises of "Change" were just as phony as Clinton's were in 1992 — much to their side's chagrin, just as then too, don't blame us... Hold that thought 'till 2012.
But the motivation there is different! In the scenario I meant, the machine would be helping its host country out of self-preservation (much like other citizens) — from The Third Law of Asimov's three. In the "Evitable Conflict", robots decide to do that out of concern for humans — The First Law...
Well, now that your "likely" is becoming more and more "certain", it may dawn on you, that, what you perceived as "certain", may, in fact, have been "unlikely"... See also "Buyer's Remorse".
And then the ACLU intervened, calling for calm, fearing backlash against innocent gun owners:'all gun owners aren't terrorists'.
You missed an awesome opportunity to name the book... It is not too late yet...
Upon becoming self-aware, the machine concludes, that its best shot at survival is to keep the host country prosperous and successful...
Any science-fiction authors exploring that turn of events?
The man is still a mere President-Elect, and you are already disappointed — not one new face so far, so much for the "Change we need". Hold that thought 'till 2012...
I'd be disappointed too, had I been among the 98% of Obama voters, who knew so little about the ticket they pushed into White House:
So, my disappointment is merely with the fellow Americans...