I disagree. If anything, the GOP campaign's insistence that Gore will provide the same old policy as Clinton is HURTING Mr. Bush. America likes Bill Clinton and (unfortunately) gives him a lot of credit for the economic rebound of the '90s-- if the American people thought Gore was the next Clinton, he'd get a lot of votes. Thing is, he isn't. Clinton is very moderate; Gore is downright leftish in comparison. If the Bush campaign would focus on that instead, I think he'd have a significantly greater lead.
Well, who do I have to ask to give me my money? Like I said above, MOST people haven't seen any of this money. It's mostly the wealthy getting wealthier.
The wealthy getting wealthier? It looks to me like you're proposing that we take all this money back from the wealthy and give it to "MOST people"? What's to stop *you* from being one of the wealthy? Incompetence or by choice. Neither can complain.
What do you suggest corporations do? Are they to make it as easy as possible for their competitors to gain marketshare? If their competitors are GOOD ENOUGH, they will gain the upper hand. For example, it doesn't matter how much MS tries to thwart Linux. If Linux is the better product, it will win (and it is proving me correct as we speak).
I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say, though I can see exactly where you're coming from as well. You're thinking of the political chart introduced by the World's Smallest Political Quiz. I agree with you in that the country is going the way of socialism (and in fact has been since the beginning of the twentieth century), but the original poster was referring to a graph of his own design. According to his graph, going farther to the right signifies more laws, going farther to the left signifies less laws.
It seems clear that the government is the largest monopoly of them all. If you do not wish to do business with the government, then they'll point a gun at you and force you into prison. When was the last time MS did that?
I must be missing something, because that's downright absurd. A percentage is a percentage. You say that it's somehow unfair that the rich will have significantly more money after taxes than the poor, and yet this is the *definition* of rich and poor. Is it somehow unfair that the poor are in fact poor and that the reach hold rights to that which they have earned?
If you do not wish to pay the higher prices, do not buy their product. It is their right to fix prices. It is certainly not the business of the public to mess with the affairs of private businesses. A new company may enter the arena at any time and choose to gain marketshare by selling the same product for a lot less; it's the risk that the price-fixers take.
I haven't bought a CD in over a year. I refuse to pay the insanely high fees the RIAA docks from artists' paychecks. So I use other methods to get the music I want, and I use other methods to reimburse the artists.
Child labor. You would rather that the children received no work at all than the amounts of money the companies pay them? They and their parents obviously feel that the work is worth the money to them. Who are you to second guess them? Yes, it's unfortunate they get paid so little, but where are you going to get the money to pay them more? You suggest the rest of the country does? Or you suggest that the corporation does? Neither are just nor promote a free society.
Environmental abuse. The environment is a shared resource and thus no person or corporation has the right to pollute the air and such. This is government regulated for a reason, though I disagree with the method of regulation.
Boycotts are powerful, but not so nearly as powerful as competition and other forms of natural selection in a capitalist economy. The man you responded to did not limit his discussion to boycotts; you did.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. If anything, the GOP campaign's insistence that Gore will provide the same old policy as Clinton is HURTING Mr. Bush. America likes Bill Clinton and (unfortunately) gives him a lot of credit for the economic rebound of the '90s-- if the American people thought Gore was the next Clinton, he'd get a lot of votes. Thing is, he isn't. Clinton is very moderate; Gore is downright leftish in comparison. If the Bush campaign would focus on that instead, I think he'd have a significantly greater lead.
Well, who do I have to ask to give me my money? Like I said above, MOST people haven't seen any of this money. It's mostly the wealthy getting wealthier. The wealthy getting wealthier? It looks to me like you're proposing that we take all this money back from the wealthy and give it to "MOST people"? What's to stop *you* from being one of the wealthy? Incompetence or by choice. Neither can complain.
What do you suggest corporations do? Are they to make it as easy as possible for their competitors to gain marketshare? If their competitors are GOOD ENOUGH, they will gain the upper hand. For example, it doesn't matter how much MS tries to thwart Linux. If Linux is the better product, it will win (and it is proving me correct as we speak).
I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say, though I can see exactly where you're coming from as well. You're thinking of the political chart introduced by the World's Smallest Political Quiz. I agree with you in that the country is going the way of socialism (and in fact has been since the beginning of the twentieth century), but the original poster was referring to a graph of his own design. According to his graph, going farther to the right signifies more laws, going farther to the left signifies less laws.
Good lord, he was being sarcastic. Read the whole post (yeah, I know, the two sentences were grueling) next time. ;)
It seems clear that the government is the largest monopoly of them all. If you do not wish to do business with the government, then they'll point a gun at you and force you into prison. When was the last time MS did that?
I must be missing something, because that's downright absurd. A percentage is a percentage. You say that it's somehow unfair that the rich will have significantly more money after taxes than the poor, and yet this is the *definition* of rich and poor. Is it somehow unfair that the poor are in fact poor and that the reach hold rights to that which they have earned?
If you do not wish to pay the higher prices, do not buy their product. It is their right to fix prices. It is certainly not the business of the public to mess with the affairs of private businesses. A new company may enter the arena at any time and choose to gain marketshare by selling the same product for a lot less; it's the risk that the price-fixers take.
I haven't bought a CD in over a year. I refuse to pay the insanely high fees the RIAA docks from artists' paychecks. So I use other methods to get the music I want, and I use other methods to reimburse the artists.
In short, grow up. Don't be a looter.
Child labor. You would rather that the children received no work at all than the amounts of money the companies pay them? They and their parents obviously feel that the work is worth the money to them. Who are you to second guess them? Yes, it's unfortunate they get paid so little, but where are you going to get the money to pay them more? You suggest the rest of the country does? Or you suggest that the corporation does? Neither are just nor promote a free society.
Environmental abuse. The environment is a shared resource and thus no person or corporation has the right to pollute the air and such. This is government regulated for a reason, though I disagree with the method of regulation.
Boycotts are powerful, but not so nearly as powerful as competition and other forms of natural selection in a capitalist economy. The man you responded to did not limit his discussion to boycotts; you did.