Because the ability to start one's own business means freedom. If one is not able to participate in the market due to governmental regulation, then they are not free nor do they have liberty. Also, with the ability of ANYONE to enter into the market place means that competition is abundant and prices are usually low. And finally, the ability to start one's own business also means that upward class mobility is possible meaning that anyone can become wealthy not just those born into it.
Yes, and how much money from the government is subsidizing that? What is the tax rate for the average (median) Chinese citizen? How easy is it in terms of regulatory hurdles for the average Chinese to start up their own business?
So? If people want those services, they should either pay what it costs for them, OR, they should move closer to where they can get them.
When you live in the middle of no where, you dont expect a grocery store to pop up around the block so that it is easier to get your food. If you want all of these modern urban conveniences then you should consider living in a modern urban area.
Regulations have fixed prices thus limiting competition and forcing cross-collateralization among the providers. Besides, if the telcos didnt find it profitable to roll service out to the rural areas, then either a)a smaller more agile firm would've started up to do it, or b)new technology would've been invented or utilized (think microwave/shortwave etc) to deal with this problem. If there is a demand, then there is a supply, and necessity is of course the mother of innovation.
Why should I pay someone else's cost of obtaining a modern convenience?
I hate to tell you but utilities and broadband companies here in the US do NOT currently operate in the free market. If they did the situation would be improved.
In fact the problem is that there is NO true competition available (it is a cartel/oligopoly situation) because of governmental regulations. Try starting your own cable or DSL company sometime; see how quickly the PUC shuts you down.
This is the result of intrusive government, excessive regulation, and big business buying legislation and regulation in favor of big business. I vote Libertarian.
Secondly, in case you haven't noticed, our broadband/utility companies do NOT currently operate in the free market. If they did, then the situation would be much improved. The utility market is HIGHLY regulated which is the cause of the problem, not the solution.
My local telco, Bellsouth (now with AT&T) is offering me a bit lower rate and some cash back incentives for a 1 year contract if I switch from cable. I just had the DSL installed today and essentially with the incentives and lower rate I'll be paying $26/month less than for my Comcast cable provide (savings of $312/year).
Not only does it dance on the idea of free expression/speech, but it would absolutely be outside of the area of Congress. The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, does NOT permit Congress to regulate the video game market.
Which is EXACTLY why I'm either going to vote Libertarian, or for Ron Paul (a former Libertarian running under the GOP, but still a libertarian at heart).
What the majority wants isn't always a good thing. What if the majority wants to ban porn? Or ban Linux? Or ban black people? Or Mexicans? Have a Constitutional Republic protects the rights of all, not just the majority.
And in a democracy if your neighbors vote to take your land doesn't mean they hate you, it might just mean they are greedy. Ever here about the eminent domain abuses?
I hate to tell ya but the United States was founded on the ideals of every individual having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Forcing someone to "conform" is contradictory to those ideals and is also unconstitutional.
The original setup of the Federal government was such that it was bicameral (two houses). An upper house (senate) and lower house (house of reps). The Senate was a place for the States to be represented, the house was the place for the People to be represented. Perhaps you might not be aware, but each individual state in the US is its own sovereign nation. In other words, if all of the states got together tomorrow to have another Constitutional convention they could abolish the Federal government in a matter of 24 hours if desired.
And you are talking about enslaving your neighbors? What is your point? It doesn't make sense.
... is that the government shouldn't be in the library business. If all libraries were private (think of video stores) then the government couldn't ban what was offered in there. This is why small and limited government is always a better option.
Exactly.
Not only that, even if they simply park their money in a bank account somewhere, it is still working in the economy. Money in the back gets used as investments for loans and such. The only way these guys would be taking money OUT of the economy would be to liquidate it and then stuff the cash in a vault or under their bed or something. That would be dumb because then not only does it NOT grow, but they are losing about 4% in inflation each year on it.
Classifying it as a "trade secret" would be a severe stretch in my opinion. Why not just slam the guy for copyright infringement because he violated the copyright holder's right to exclusive distribution? That would be a slam dunk in court if they could prove the person was responsible for the action.
We (as a People) shouldn't want democracy. Outright pure democracy is a bad thing. In a pure democracy your neighbors can vote to divide up your land. There is no rule of law in a democracy.
One thing that needs to happen is that the US Senators should be chosen from their respective legislators again instead of a popular vote. The States need to have more of a say in the Federal government.
Besides, limiting the amount of income that people can earn is unconstitutional.
Perhaps I was misunderstood. We should all be taxed at an equal rate; in other words we should be taxed proportionally.
And you're right, we don't have democracy. We never have! The United States is a constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected. The idea that the US is somehow a democracy is a misnomer.
5th Amendment: "no person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
If he claimed that specific video would be incriminating to himself, from my limited understanding, I don't see how they could force him to turn it over.
Any law school students or attorneys care to comment?
What are you talking about? In a free-market system you have a CHOICE of where you can spend your money. With taxation you DON'T have a choice. Equal under the law means that everyone is treated equally, or at least proportionally.
A sales tax on non-essential items (food/medical/etc) at the same rate for everyone would be "equal". Taxing someone 10% while taxing others 20% is NOT equality under the law. In fact it's discrimination.
But that is NOT equality under the law. Why should one be rewarded or punished by the government based on the amount of money they make? People should be taxed equally. We should not discriminate based upon income.
"I can't wait until Walmart kills off all the truely unprofitable "small businesses" that are in most small towns out side of Arkansas. It'll help the economy as those business adjust to areas where Walmart isn't doing business or gasp actually successfully compete with Walmart. Walmart has been around for more than 20 years, and there are lots of small businesses in Arkansas. They just don't do what Walmart does best."
Both Wal-Mart and small businesses have advantages and disadvantages. Wal-Marts are able to give rock-bottom prices to the local consumers. Small businesses keep the majority of their earnings IN the local economy. Wal-Marts has limited selection and a "one-size fits all" mentality plus putting small businesses out of business. Small businesses as usually NOT able to offer one-stop shopping and rock-bottom prices.
Don't forget that that people will buy on different levels. Not everyone buys on price. Some people buy on convenience. Some people buy on spec. Some people buy on brand name or availability.
Slashdot Mirror
When that was written "regulate" meant 'to make regular' as in no trade wars, quotas, etc...
Because the ability to start one's own business means freedom. If one is not able to participate in the market due to governmental regulation, then they are not free nor do they have liberty. Also, with the ability of ANYONE to enter into the market place means that competition is abundant and prices are usually low. And finally, the ability to start one's own business also means that upward class mobility is possible meaning that anyone can become wealthy not just those born into it.
Yes, and how much money from the government is subsidizing that? What is the tax rate for the average (median) Chinese citizen? How easy is it in terms of regulatory hurdles for the average Chinese to start up their own business?
So? If people want those services, they should either pay what it costs for them, OR, they should move closer to where they can get them.
When you live in the middle of no where, you dont expect a grocery store to pop up around the block so that it is easier to get your food. If you want all of these modern urban conveniences then you should consider living in a modern urban area.
Regulations have fixed prices thus limiting competition and forcing cross-collateralization among the providers. Besides, if the telcos didnt find it profitable to roll service out to the rural areas, then either a)a smaller more agile firm would've started up to do it, or b)new technology would've been invented or utilized (think microwave/shortwave etc) to deal with this problem. If there is a demand, then there is a supply, and necessity is of course the mother of innovation.
Why should I pay someone else's cost of obtaining a modern convenience?
I hate to tell you but utilities and broadband companies here in the US do NOT currently operate in the free market. If they did the situation would be improved.
In fact the problem is that there is NO true competition available (it is a cartel/oligopoly situation) because of governmental regulations. Try starting your own cable or DSL company sometime; see how quickly the PUC shuts you down.
This is the result of intrusive government, excessive regulation, and big business buying legislation and regulation in favor of big business. I vote Libertarian.
First off, the TVA is unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not allow for Congress to set up an independent corporation such as the TVA.i on.articlei.html#section8
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
Secondly, in case you haven't noticed, our broadband/utility companies do NOT currently operate in the free market. If they did, then the situation would be much improved. The utility market is HIGHLY regulated which is the cause of the problem, not the solution.
My local telco, Bellsouth (now with AT&T) is offering me a bit lower rate and some cash back incentives for a 1 year contract if I switch from cable. I just had the DSL installed today and essentially with the incentives and lower rate I'll be paying $26/month less than for my Comcast cable provide (savings of $312/year).
That's because 80-90% of Canadians live within 20% of their landmass. Up there it's the old 80/20 rule.
The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, does NOT permit Congress to pass law on this subject. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.articlei.html#section8
Here is the relevant link:i on.articlei.html#section8
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
Not only does it dance on the idea of free expression/speech, but it would absolutely be outside of the area of Congress. The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, does NOT permit Congress to regulate the video game market.
Which is EXACTLY why I'm either going to vote Libertarian, or for Ron Paul (a former Libertarian running under the GOP, but still a libertarian at heart).
I think I'm going to stop feeding the ignorant troll now.
What the majority wants isn't always a good thing. What if the majority wants to ban porn? Or ban Linux? Or ban black people? Or Mexicans? Have a Constitutional Republic protects the rights of all, not just the majority.
And in a democracy if your neighbors vote to take your land doesn't mean they hate you, it might just mean they are greedy. Ever here about the eminent domain abuses?
I hate to tell ya but the United States was founded on the ideals of every individual having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Forcing someone to "conform" is contradictory to those ideals and is also unconstitutional.
The original setup of the Federal government was such that it was bicameral (two houses). An upper house (senate) and lower house (house of reps). The Senate was a place for the States to be represented, the house was the place for the People to be represented. Perhaps you might not be aware, but each individual state in the US is its own sovereign nation. In other words, if all of the states got together tomorrow to have another Constitutional convention they could abolish the Federal government in a matter of 24 hours if desired.
And you are talking about enslaving your neighbors? What is your point? It doesn't make sense.
... is that the government shouldn't be in the library business. If all libraries were private (think of video stores) then the government couldn't ban what was offered in there. This is why small and limited government is always a better option.
- Did you ever notice that "Valentine's Day" and "venereal disease" both start with the same two letters?
- We're both white trash, bred by the dozen, and now its time to do my cousin!
- Roses are red, politicians are sleazy, will you be mine? I hear you're easy
- Roses are red, violets are blue, I've got herpes, and now so do you!
- As Elton John says on Valentine's Day "It's better to have a rose on your piano than a tulip on your organ!"
Exactly.
Not only that, even if they simply park their money in a bank account somewhere, it is still working in the economy. Money in the back gets used as investments for loans and such. The only way these guys would be taking money OUT of the economy would be to liquidate it and then stuff the cash in a vault or under their bed or something. That would be dumb because then not only does it NOT grow, but they are losing about 4% in inflation each year on it.
Classifying it as a "trade secret" would be a severe stretch in my opinion. Why not just slam the guy for copyright infringement because he violated the copyright holder's right to exclusive distribution? That would be a slam dunk in court if they could prove the person was responsible for the action.
We (as a People) shouldn't want democracy. Outright pure democracy is a bad thing. In a pure democracy your neighbors can vote to divide up your land. There is no rule of law in a democracy.
One thing that needs to happen is that the US Senators should be chosen from their respective legislators again instead of a popular vote. The States need to have more of a say in the Federal government.
Besides, limiting the amount of income that people can earn is unconstitutional.
Perhaps I was misunderstood. We should all be taxed at an equal rate; in other words we should be taxed proportionally.
And you're right, we don't have democracy. We never have! The United States is a constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected. The idea that the US is somehow a democracy is a misnomer.
5th Amendment:
"no person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
If he claimed that specific video would be incriminating to himself, from my limited understanding, I don't see how they could force him to turn it over.
Any law school students or attorneys care to comment?
What are you talking about? In a free-market system you have a CHOICE of where you can spend your money. With taxation you DON'T have a choice. Equal under the law means that everyone is treated equally, or at least proportionally.
A sales tax on non-essential items (food/medical/etc) at the same rate for everyone would be "equal". Taxing someone 10% while taxing others 20% is NOT equality under the law. In fact it's discrimination.
I agree with that. Cut spending, and cut taxes! Vote Libertarian.
But that is NOT equality under the law. Why should one be rewarded or punished by the government based on the amount of money they make? People should be taxed equally. We should not discriminate based upon income.
"I can't wait until Walmart kills off all the truely unprofitable "small businesses" that are in most small towns out side of Arkansas. It'll help the economy as those business adjust to areas where Walmart isn't doing business or gasp actually successfully compete with Walmart. Walmart has been around for more than 20 years, and there are lots of small businesses in Arkansas. They just don't do what Walmart does best."
Both Wal-Mart and small businesses have advantages and disadvantages. Wal-Marts are able to give rock-bottom prices to the local consumers. Small businesses keep the majority of their earnings IN the local economy. Wal-Marts has limited selection and a "one-size fits all" mentality plus putting small businesses out of business. Small businesses as usually NOT able to offer one-stop shopping and rock-bottom prices.
Don't forget that that people will buy on different levels. Not everyone buys on price. Some people buy on convenience. Some people buy on spec. Some people buy on brand name or availability.