You mean an underclass that naturally results from the free interaction of people, the achievement of some and not others, or the larger underclass that results from socialism because the whole economy has been suppressed, the only achievement that really means anything being political?
unbridled Capitalism infringes on others as well
In a free market, everybody has opportunity. Nobody is prevented by those that have from becoming successful. No infringement, no force. Now distortions of the free market, often aided by government interference, do prevent many from becoming successful, but that's an argument for a free market, not against it.
if you back someone into a corner they will likely fight you to the death.
Like those who have achieved when faced with the majority trying to take everything from them.
We apparently have different viewpoints. I value freedom and opportunity. What do you value?
Murder is also within human nature, but we as a society (and most individuals) find that it is something to be avoided.
Murder is infringing on the freedom of another. Capitalism arises from freedom of association. I make great shoes that you want, you have money I want to have so I can buy more leather from a guy who has some to sell. I have too much demand to handle, I pay some people to build a larger shop and pay some other people to help with making the shoes. I have even more demand, I get people to invest so I can expand further with more production facilities and pay people to make even more shoes. Those people get a return on their investment, or a loss if I fail, and are free to sell their investment to others.
None of us is forced to make these deals, none of us is prohibited. Freedom.
Now of course no freedom is absolute. Society does place certain limits, just as making a threat is not considered an allowable free exercise of speech and shooting the store clerk is not considered an allowable bearing of arms.
You're not making sense, human nature is not some sort of divine perfection, so it can indeed fail.
Capitalism is human nature. "Failure" would be failure to achieve something not in human nature, such as some utopian society. Capitalism is also freedom, but that comes with the freedom to fail that scares those who prefer a semi-slavery with its safety. Laziness is also part of human nature, so the desire to take by force from those who have succeeded is also understandable. Thus your revolution.
14 years with a 14 year extension, and I'd agree to maybe one or two more if the owner of the copyright really wants to keep it. I bet the makers of half those games don't exist or even care about their copyright on these old games anymore and wouldn't have renewed, so they should be public domain by now.
It failed miserably (and with misery for almost all) the last time it was tried and it will fail again.
The free market has not failed, because the free market reflects human nature, people freely associating and interacting in order to better their lives. Note that unions can be part of a free market, the workers freely associating with each other to better their position.
People aren't ants, so socialism has failed again and again.
Let me modify what I wrote. It's not only capitalism unchecked. Many of our problems are due to us not having a real capitalist system. The government picks winners and losers, suppresses the free market by playing favorites and interfering in the markets to the extent that the capitalist system doesn't work properly anymore. You end up with a situation where a business doesn't necessarily have to succeed on its merits in the marketplace, but can leverage the power of government to succeed. This is the worst of socialism and capitalism combined -- the greed of individuals with the power of government.
I do believe in regulation to make sure people aren't ripped off, or to prevent too much instability in markets, or to prevent distortions of the free market (monopolies). But you end up where we are by making too many concessions to the left.
Well that and the fact that real income/cost ratios have been going down for decades
Or, in most cases, they want those shiny new toys and aren't willing to save up for them, instead buying on credit. Who actually repairs their clothes anymore to save money? When I see a family on welfare with a kid wearing shoes that cost more than mine, or a car much nicer than mine, I know many families have warped priorities that are putting them in debt and/or requiring social help.
Word to the wise: If you don't want a socialist revolution here in the U.S. make damned sure not to put people's backs against the wall.
Capitalism runs unchecked, people at the bottom get desperate, have a socialist revolution, take everything by force from the rich. The resulting socialist economy eventually bankrupts the nation and results in severe human rights abuses, causing a revolution where it is replaced with a democratic capitalist system.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
The big difference between socialism and capitalism is who is on top. Those with money are on top in capitalism, those with political connections are on top in socialism. Somebody will be running things, and many of them will abuse their positions. It's human nature.
Yet I hear Faux Noise, but no PMSNBC. It's funny how people are so adamant about the effects of this one news network and rail against it, when there are at least four major US news networks in opposition from far left to slightly left.
Government doesn't create wealth, it consumes wealth. The best way for wealth to be created is for the government to foster an environment in which people can create wealth. This means punishing fraud, upholding contracts and generally creating a stable, rational business environment. Punishing certain demographics or giving out favors to others is not part of that. This is the system the US was founded on, what made it successful.
The only thing you have right as far as the design of the US is copyright. It was originally for 14 years, with a 14-year renewal, registration required. It would be good to go back to that.
It's kind of hard to move in the direction of peace when the other side has as its main goal the goal destruction of your country. Any time the Jews take one step, the other side wants another and another and another, without themselves giving up anything except a temporary (it's always temporary) halt to attacks on Jewish civilians.
The Jews living in Israel under their own laws is offensive to most of the Muslims in the area. The country MUST become Muslim, the Jews killed, expelled (as they were from most ther Muslim countries) or subjugated.
Note, not fair and balanced within itself, it's obviously wildly on the right. But it provides a fair balance for the blatantly far-left media outlet MSNBC and the rest that are generally left-leaning (CBS, etc.).
But I'd bet you'd just like the airwaves to be filled with the leftist echo chamber, with no challenging viewpoints.
Given a third-world country, this is a perfectly plausible scenario:
He gets to live there and do whatever the hell he wants. He is above the law. He can do this as long as he keeps the right people happy, and the right bribes flowing. His lawyer was a government official familiar with the bribe system, so he was probably the one advising him on the proper bribes and ass-kissing.
But then he pisses someone off, forgets a bribe, or one of the officials finds out his bribe is less than others, or something else like that. They murder his neighbor and try to pin it on him. They call him in for "questioning" but really they will either make him disappear out of revenge, or squeeze him for major cash.
. If we go by your logic, then Americans didn't respect the Germans who liked Hitler...
I don't believe we did. And of course equating a disagreement over the extent of privacy in a well-meaning Linux distro with Hitler is probably the most obscene occurrence of Godwin's Law I've ever seen.
It's one of the reasons I remain skeptical. Where there are billions, or trillions, of dollars to be made, you can be fairly sure the motives aren't going to be pure.
Stallman has quite a bit of influence, and he is now using all of it to try to crush Ubuntu.
If he were to succeed in having this feature removed, that would definitely not be respecting the freedom of those who prefer centralized search with expanded network search results in free software.
If he succeeds in crushing Ubunto, that would not be respecting the freedom of those who like to use Ubuntu.
Even having a universal search option for users with network search off by default is "dangerous" according to him.
No, he demands one button for local search and one for network search. Screw the ease of use for the user, we know what is better for him. Reason #3462 for why free software user interfaces traditionally sucked.
They tried to get a real person elected, someone who had lived most of his life out in the private world, far away from the political bubble. Unfortunately that doesn't make for a very good politician, so he gets eaten alive by the political machine, saying things where a real politician would know better.
Thus you have Obama, a lifelong power-hungry political animal embedded in the machine, winning over Romney who only got into politics after he found out how much good he could do while saving the SLC Olympics from disaster.
The Bush administration delayed the Solyndra approval because the beancounters had serious doubts about the company. The application was on the path to dying.
But then Solyndra's rich backer, who was also a major Obama supporter and bundler, along with the execs, lobbied the Obama administration to approve it. Other companies were told no lobbying allowed, you get approved on the merit of the application.
So, to appease his backers and to meet a deadline for a big presentation on green initiatives, the Obama administration pushed through the deal. And even though the beancounters had accurately predicted when Solyndra would fail, the administration still approved MORE money for Solyndra.
The problem isn't so much the program overall, but the crony capitalism employed by the Obama administration to directly funnel tax dollars into the pockets of his financial supporters. Doing it under the "green" mantle makes it all the more disgusting.
No, Solyndra was horribly run. Insiders point to massive waste and mismanagement. There was expensive equipment still in shrinkwrap when they failed, bought on the government-dollar spending spree with no idea how it would actually contribute to the profit making. It was being run like a failed dotcom startup.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean an underclass that naturally results from the free interaction of people, the achievement of some and not others, or the larger underclass that results from socialism because the whole economy has been suppressed, the only achievement that really means anything being political?
In a free market, everybody has opportunity. Nobody is prevented by those that have from becoming successful. No infringement, no force. Now distortions of the free market, often aided by government interference, do prevent many from becoming successful, but that's an argument for a free market, not against it.
Like those who have achieved when faced with the majority trying to take everything from them.
We apparently have different viewpoints. I value freedom and opportunity. What do you value?
Murder is infringing on the freedom of another. Capitalism arises from freedom of association. I make great shoes that you want, you have money I want to have so I can buy more leather from a guy who has some to sell. I have too much demand to handle, I pay some people to build a larger shop and pay some other people to help with making the shoes. I have even more demand, I get people to invest so I can expand further with more production facilities and pay people to make even more shoes. Those people get a return on their investment, or a loss if I fail, and are free to sell their investment to others.
None of us is forced to make these deals, none of us is prohibited. Freedom.
Now of course no freedom is absolute. Society does place certain limits, just as making a threat is not considered an allowable free exercise of speech and shooting the store clerk is not considered an allowable bearing of arms.
Capitalism is human nature. "Failure" would be failure to achieve something not in human nature, such as some utopian society. Capitalism is also freedom, but that comes with the freedom to fail that scares those who prefer a semi-slavery with its safety. Laziness is also part of human nature, so the desire to take by force from those who have succeeded is also understandable. Thus your revolution.
14 years with a 14 year extension, and I'd agree to maybe one or two more if the owner of the copyright really wants to keep it. I bet the makers of half those games don't exist or even care about their copyright on these old games anymore and wouldn't have renewed, so they should be public domain by now.
The free market has not failed, because the free market reflects human nature, people freely associating and interacting in order to better their lives. Note that unions can be part of a free market, the workers freely associating with each other to better their position.
People aren't ants, so socialism has failed again and again.
Let me modify what I wrote. It's not only capitalism unchecked. Many of our problems are due to us not having a real capitalist system. The government picks winners and losers, suppresses the free market by playing favorites and interfering in the markets to the extent that the capitalist system doesn't work properly anymore. You end up with a situation where a business doesn't necessarily have to succeed on its merits in the marketplace, but can leverage the power of government to succeed. This is the worst of socialism and capitalism combined -- the greed of individuals with the power of government.
I do believe in regulation to make sure people aren't ripped off, or to prevent too much instability in markets, or to prevent distortions of the free market (monopolies). But you end up where we are by making too many concessions to the left.
Or, in most cases, they want those shiny new toys and aren't willing to save up for them, instead buying on credit. Who actually repairs their clothes anymore to save money? When I see a family on welfare with a kid wearing shoes that cost more than mine, or a car much nicer than mine, I know many families have warped priorities that are putting them in debt and/or requiring social help.
Capitalism runs unchecked, people at the bottom get desperate, have a socialist revolution, take everything by force from the rich. The resulting socialist economy eventually bankrupts the nation and results in severe human rights abuses, causing a revolution where it is replaced with a democratic capitalist system.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
The big difference between socialism and capitalism is who is on top. Those with money are on top in capitalism, those with political connections are on top in socialism. Somebody will be running things, and many of them will abuse their positions. It's human nature.
Yet I hear Faux Noise, but no PMSNBC. It's funny how people are so adamant about the effects of this one news network and rail against it, when there are at least four major US news networks in opposition from far left to slightly left.
That has failed every time it's been tried. But you'll make it work THIS time, right?
Government doesn't create wealth, it consumes wealth. The best way for wealth to be created is for the government to foster an environment in which people can create wealth. This means punishing fraud, upholding contracts and generally creating a stable, rational business environment. Punishing certain demographics or giving out favors to others is not part of that. This is the system the US was founded on, what made it successful.
The only thing you have right as far as the design of the US is copyright. It was originally for 14 years, with a 14-year renewal, registration required. It would be good to go back to that.
It's kind of hard to move in the direction of peace when the other side has as its main goal the goal destruction of your country. Any time the Jews take one step, the other side wants another and another and another, without themselves giving up anything except a temporary (it's always temporary) halt to attacks on Jewish civilians.
The Jews living in Israel under their own laws is offensive to most of the Muslims in the area. The country MUST become Muslim, the Jews killed, expelled (as they were from most ther Muslim countries) or subjugated.
Note, not fair and balanced within itself, it's obviously wildly on the right. But it provides a fair balance for the blatantly far-left media outlet MSNBC and the rest that are generally left-leaning (CBS, etc.).
But I'd bet you'd just like the airwaves to be filled with the leftist echo chamber, with no challenging viewpoints.
Like the one in Europe (Android or Apple maps) for a German family member of mine thinking it may give her a better route to Italy. On the way:
Turn off main road onto small side road
Drive 10 KM to the middle of nowhere
Do a U-Turn right in the middle of the road to go back to the main road
She chucked it in the trunk and got out a proper map.
Just need to bring a costume.
In any case, GPS is good for cities, but if you are going anywhere seroiusly out of the way, get a map and learn to read it.
Given a third-world country, this is a perfectly plausible scenario:
He gets to live there and do whatever the hell he wants. He is above the law. He can do this as long as he keeps the right people happy, and the right bribes flowing. His lawyer was a government official familiar with the bribe system, so he was probably the one advising him on the proper bribes and ass-kissing.
But then he pisses someone off, forgets a bribe, or one of the officials finds out his bribe is less than others, or something else like that. They murder his neighbor and try to pin it on him. They call him in for "questioning" but really they will either make him disappear out of revenge, or squeeze him for major cash.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/solyndra-scandal-timeline/#document/p1/a41682
http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/exclusive-solyndra-scandal-timeline#slide=37499741
Basically, shelved by Bush because it wasn't viable, revived and pushed through by Obama.
I don't believe we did. And of course equating a disagreement over the extent of privacy in a well-meaning Linux distro with Hitler is probably the most obscene occurrence of Godwin's Law I've ever seen.
It's one of the reasons I remain skeptical. Where there are billions, or trillions, of dollars to be made, you can be fairly sure the motives aren't going to be pure.
Stallman has quite a bit of influence, and he is now using all of it to try to crush Ubuntu.
If he were to succeed in having this feature removed, that would definitely not be respecting the freedom of those who prefer centralized search with expanded network search results in free software.
If he succeeds in crushing Ubunto, that would not be respecting the freedom of those who like to use Ubuntu.
Even having a universal search option for users with network search off by default is "dangerous" according to him.
No, he demands one button for local search and one for network search. Screw the ease of use for the user, we know what is better for him. Reason #3462 for why free software user interfaces traditionally sucked.
It was kind of a good idea to keep Hitler from taking over Europe and killing all the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals.
When you have to go to war, it's a very good idea to make sure as few of yours as possible die while killing theirs.
They tried to get a real person elected, someone who had lived most of his life out in the private world, far away from the political bubble. Unfortunately that doesn't make for a very good politician, so he gets eaten alive by the political machine, saying things where a real politician would know better.
Thus you have Obama, a lifelong power-hungry political animal embedded in the machine, winning over Romney who only got into politics after he found out how much good he could do while saving the SLC Olympics from disaster.
The Bush administration delayed the Solyndra approval because the beancounters had serious doubts about the company. The application was on the path to dying.
But then Solyndra's rich backer, who was also a major Obama supporter and bundler, along with the execs, lobbied the Obama administration to approve it. Other companies were told no lobbying allowed, you get approved on the merit of the application.
So, to appease his backers and to meet a deadline for a big presentation on green initiatives, the Obama administration pushed through the deal. And even though the beancounters had accurately predicted when Solyndra would fail, the administration still approved MORE money for Solyndra.
The problem isn't so much the program overall, but the crony capitalism employed by the Obama administration to directly funnel tax dollars into the pockets of his financial supporters. Doing it under the "green" mantle makes it all the more disgusting.
No, Solyndra was horribly run. Insiders point to massive waste and mismanagement. There was expensive equipment still in shrinkwrap when they failed, bought on the government-dollar spending spree with no idea how it would actually contribute to the profit making. It was being run like a failed dotcom startup.