So here's my comment I wrote before finding out the discussion had been archived:
Forgot this point after writing my previous reply.
The situation with banks is due to government regulations.
Less and less people care about freedom of speech and favor enforcing religious values.
The modern religion is feminism, transforming into intersectionality.
At the it's core, government action shields people from the consequences of their actions.
Making the higher quality people pay the price for the lower quality people.
Quality as in the extent to which a person is productive, responsible and/or rational.
This allows religion to develop and get stronger.
In a free society their costs wouldn't be paid by others.
So I think religion also only exists because of government.
Free speech does apply to private companies, the first amendment doesn't.
Personally I'm in favor of the NAP.
Meaning that if you want to use someone else's property, they can restrict your freedom of speech in any way they want for any reason.
In a society where that was actually implemented government would be impossible.
So people wouldn't be corrupted by government and actually respect each others freedom of speech, even when they don't have to.
Where did he say socialist?
Liberalism and socialism are not the same thing.
Progressives and socialists have abused the term liberal because everyone understood what their own terms stand for.
You've been duped.
What I'm saying is the problem has already been solved.
By Youtube, Twitter, ect
Normal people can report and discuss the news just fine.
We don't need university indoctrinated people to push their politics into everything.
It's just a detriment.
I think very few people can be professional journalists, if any, there just isn't a market for it.
Normal people doing their jobs and occasionally reporting/discussing news is a much better way.
Concepts like requiring evidence is just common sense.
Journalists have become so bad they're doing a worse job than a 5 second Google search.
It has a good reputation but with local people reporting on the ground, there's no need.
Just go do something productive instead.
Even if it was useful, most journalism is political activism.
Like the attacks on Convington students showed.
I could name many more examples, this good reputation is undeserved.
Walter Duranty covered up the Holodemor and got a pullitzer prize for it.
So it was never deserved, only now the people can refute these elites.
He's proving that it's possible to move stones without machine power.
It doesn't require a massive flat surface, just one big enough for both the supporting stones to maneuver on.
There's plenty of other techniques that will have been used.
Like transporting on ships/floats, rolling on logs and who knows what other techniques.
Most importantly, he showed how the stones can be stood up straight.
I'm not saying we know how they did it exactly, we'll never know, that's impossible.
Just that us not knowing how they did it is not an argument for the existence of aliens.
Are you serious?
He's proving that it's possible.
Of course he didn't do it himself.
The people involved could have taken hundreds of years to get it done.
One guy can move big blocks of stone by hand.
This construction worker figured it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just use the hardness of stone in your favor.
He places the rock on 2 small stones, balances it on one, then rotates and lets it down on the other.
And there's rolling logs, etc.
I said "real monopoly". Rockefeller had a ~90% market share but kept prices low because he knew competitors would come in if he didn't.
So that kind of high market share isn't a bad thing, so long as government stays out of it.
By the time government came in to "solve the problem", their market share had already dropped https://www.capitalism.org/ant...
If anything it seems more likely to me that they lobbied government to step in and raise barriers to entry to reduce competition.
Microsoft was summoned before congress, which demanded Microsoft 'invest' in Washington DC, with offices, lobbyists, etc.
Which basically means "buy us off, or else", they said no.
And 6 months later they where sued for anti-trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Microsoft had a high market share with Internet Explorer because they gave their software away for free.
Before that browsers where being sold for $50.
Oh the humanity! If only we didn't have the government to protect us against the horror of free products!
In practice you can always be in violation of anti-trust law:
- If your prices are low; you must be dumping
- If your prices are high; you must have a monopoly
- If your prices are similar; you must be in a cartel
It really depends on whether the politicians like you, making it the perfect extortion tool.
"In the end, software patents are the exact opposite of what a patent was intended to accomplish."
Which applies to everything government does.
So either people in government are stupid or their intentions are very different from what they say in public.
Ask the government to terrorize your competitors.
Governments claim to oppose monopolies, yet they are the only way a real monopoly can be achieved.
The software world has been going so well with open source and lack of suffocation by government.
This is a major blow to improvements in the field.
Do you miss the mass murder of innocent civilians?
Don't worry, 90% of the people murdered by drone strikes are not even the intended target. https://theintercept.com/drone...
Forget whether the intended target is guilty of anything.
So the US military is still profitable for the bomb producers who control them.
We know it's not to stop terrorism.
Because that problem has only gotten worse since the "war on terror".
If the US wanted to stop terrorism, they'd stop funding it.
Even Trump restarted funding for ISIS.
I'd expect the overlap between those two groups of people to be very small.
My only problem with companies like Monsanto is when they're given a monopoly by government.
https://co2coalition.org/
Also, cold periods are far more deadly than warm periods.
So even if CO2 caused warming, for which there's no evidence, it wouldn't be bad.
The temperature record has been defrauded: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not only have climate alarmists failed to make any predictions on the climate that came through, a real understand of temperature has been reached: https://www.omicsonline.org/op...
Anti-cartel regulation can be applied to any company at any time the government wants.
If your prices are:
- Low; you must be dumping
- Similar due to intense competition; you must be price fixing
- High; you must have a monopoly
Companies 'lobby' the EU for billions every year.
What stops the EU bureaucrats from slapping a fine on companies who don't do (enough) 'lobbying'?
And companies don't control how consumers spend their money.
Coca Cola spend billions trying to market their 'New Coke' and it was a total flop.
So consumers never need government to meddle with their choices.
I know you tend to see us Europeans as communi-lefties that want to throw an evil-tyrannical-overreaching government to legislate the shit out of everything
I'm Dutch and don't see a significant difference between the US and Europe. The US became more and more socialist from 1924 until Reagan. But Republicans love big government too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
but at no point in my post did I invoke it.
That's why I said "You seem to", so you don't want government to meddle with this stuff?
With the negative side : users are usually on the losing side
And I explained why you're wrong.
I understand why people want government. Obedience to authority started probably started early in evolution and is certainly the way life on earth became successful. So we have an instinctive desire to organize society based on hierarchy. The problem comes in when people are forced to obey authority. With our means of communication this is no longer necessary. The Irish proved this and developed an entirely voluntary system to organize society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You know there's this thing called "direct democracy".
It works. You should try it sometimes.
I have, living in The Netherlands, we have referendums. But when the people vote against what serves the ruling class, they ignore the result. Or in case of rejecting the Lissabon treaty they changed some irrelevant aspect that nobody cared about and claimed they'd "taken opposing concerns seriously", or some bullshit like that. We recently got a system where the people could request a referendum. When it didn't do what they hoped it would, they abolished. They even explicitely admitted it was only created to justify their power. In the UK the government is just pretending to implement what the people voted for and are more and more in favor of.
Is it okay to demand money and threaten people with violence if they don't? Of course not that's extortion, but that's what governments do all the time. everything they do is necessarily based on this principle. Using some sort of ritual called Democracy doesn't make it okay. https://i.imgsafe.org/fa/fa15e...
Only evil ends can be achieved through the evil means of government.
The whole idea is that you vote what you want to force your government to do (= direct democracy),
instead of voting for some random idiot making empty promises on the TV, and hoping that he'll somehow keep his promises once in power (= representative democracy).
I agree direct democracy is better, but it doesn't deal with the fundamental problems. It's still immoral to extort money from the productive and give it to the unproductive. This motivates people to remain unproductive. People often choose this because it makes them feel better, regardless of the horrible reality this produces. This means you are corrupt, how can you then expect the rulers to not be corrupt?
Actually, part of my rant went the opposite way:
- Facebook *is starting to provide less and less* value to new generations of customer who know it and eventually decide to go somewhere else (nothing new, same thing happened with any other predecessors in the "social media" category - e.g.: MySpace mostly died out).
- Mark Zuckerberg knows this phenomenon perfectly well.
- That's why he's been buying upcoming startup: He's not actually shutting down competitors and "aqui-hiring" new talent (like most giants), he does indeed buy startups with the purpose of keeping them because he tries to find out the most likely new comer that will eventually succeed to Facebook.
- Giving the current popularity trends of Instagram and Whats
This is a properly working free market and it works proportionally.
We can look at economic freedom and the more economic freedom people have the better off they are: https://www.heritage.org/index...
Economic freedom improves quality of life https://www.flickr.com/photos/...
So we have good evidence that government meddling doens't work.
None of the things you mention require government intervention:
- low barriers to entry; creating barriers to entry is far too expensive, they're only profitable when companies can get the government to steal money from the people and pay for it that way.
- Kartels always fail because it serves each individual business involved to lower their price.
- Nothing good requires government intervention and you haven't shown any evidence that government meddling made life better on any issue ever.
- Product safety. Safety costs money, if the consumer can't afford the product, I'd rather they have the option to take a risk so that they can still benefit. If you think people are too stupid to do that, what makes you think they're smart enough to elect the right rulers? When people can afford the costs for safety they're happy to do so. In cars we have second hand cars from $250 and really expensive and safe cars for $100k. The second is obviously more safe, should all less safe cars be banned?
Your belief in government is based in instinct, not logic.
So you get a different system to monetize.
Has copying music destroyed the music industry?
No, musicians can make money by touring just fine.
Being somewhat creative is really easy.
It's a much smaller hurdle than having to go through the bureaucracy from hell patent system.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if you can't attack peaceful people have people accept it as okay, you're just a business.
This discussion has been archived:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
So here's my comment I wrote before finding out the discussion had been archived:
Forgot this point after writing my previous reply.
The situation with banks is due to government regulations.
Less and less people care about freedom of speech and favor enforcing religious values.
The modern religion is feminism, transforming into intersectionality.
At the it's core, government action shields people from the consequences of their actions.
Making the higher quality people pay the price for the lower quality people.
Quality as in the extent to which a person is productive, responsible and/or rational.
This allows religion to develop and get stronger.
In a free society their costs wouldn't be paid by others.
So I think religion also only exists because of government.
Free speech does apply to private companies, the first amendment doesn't.
Personally I'm in favor of the NAP.
Meaning that if you want to use someone else's property, they can restrict your freedom of speech in any way they want for any reason.
In a society where that was actually implemented government would be impossible.
So people wouldn't be corrupted by government and actually respect each others freedom of speech, even when they don't have to.
Now, many westeners want the same in their own countries...
The internet is doing fine without government terrorism.
Your faith in government meddling is strong.
You're talking about progressive's not liberals.
They took the word liberal because their own term had become toxic.
Where did he say socialist?
Liberalism and socialism are not the same thing.
Progressives and socialists have abused the term liberal because everyone understood what their own terms stand for.
You've been duped.
What I'm saying is the problem has already been solved.
By Youtube, Twitter, ect
Normal people can report and discuss the news just fine.
We don't need university indoctrinated people to push their politics into everything.
It's just a detriment.
I think very few people can be professional journalists, if any, there just isn't a market for it.
Normal people doing their jobs and occasionally reporting/discussing news is a much better way.
Concepts like requiring evidence is just common sense.
Journalists have become so bad they're doing a worse job than a 5 second Google search.
It has a good reputation but with local people reporting on the ground, there's no need.
Just go do something productive instead.
Even if it was useful, most journalism is political activism.
Like the attacks on Convington students showed.
I could name many more examples, this good reputation is undeserved.
Walter Duranty covered up the Holodemor and got a pullitzer prize for it.
So it was never deserved, only now the people can refute these elites.
He's proving that it's possible to move stones without machine power.
It doesn't require a massive flat surface, just one big enough for both the supporting stones to maneuver on.
There's plenty of other techniques that will have been used.
Like transporting on ships/floats, rolling on logs and who knows what other techniques.
Most importantly, he showed how the stones can be stood up straight.
I'm not saying we know how they did it exactly, we'll never know, that's impossible.
Just that us not knowing how they did it is not an argument for the existence of aliens.
A lot more people die from cold than heat and CO2 is plant food, it's great for life on earth, climate alarmism is bullshit.
Are you serious?
He's proving that it's possible.
Of course he didn't do it himself.
The people involved could have taken hundreds of years to get it done.
One guy can move big blocks of stone by hand.
This construction worker figured it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just use the hardness of stone in your favor.
He places the rock on 2 small stones, balances it on one, then rotates and lets it down on the other. And there's rolling logs, etc.
Cover roofs with them.
I said "real monopoly". Rockefeller had a ~90% market share but kept prices low because he knew competitors would come in if he didn't.
So that kind of high market share isn't a bad thing, so long as government stays out of it.
By the time government came in to "solve the problem", their market share had already dropped https://www.capitalism.org/ant...
If anything it seems more likely to me that they lobbied government to step in and raise barriers to entry to reduce competition.
Microsoft was summoned before congress, which demanded Microsoft 'invest' in Washington DC, with offices, lobbyists, etc.
Which basically means "buy us off, or else", they said no.
And 6 months later they where sued for anti-trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Microsoft had a high market share with Internet Explorer because they gave their software away for free.
Before that browsers where being sold for $50.
Oh the humanity! If only we didn't have the government to protect us against the horror of free products!
In practice you can always be in violation of anti-trust law:
- If your prices are low; you must be dumping
- If your prices are high; you must have a monopoly
- If your prices are similar; you must be in a cartel
It really depends on whether the politicians like you, making it the perfect extortion tool.
"In the end, software patents are the exact opposite of what a patent was intended to accomplish."
Which applies to everything government does.
So either people in government are stupid or their intentions are very different from what they say in public.
Ask the government to terrorize your competitors.
Governments claim to oppose monopolies, yet they are the only way a real monopoly can be achieved.
The software world has been going so well with open source and lack of suffocation by government.
This is a major blow to improvements in the field.
Do you miss the mass murder of innocent civilians?
Don't worry, 90% of the people murdered by drone strikes are not even the intended target.
https://theintercept.com/drone...
Forget whether the intended target is guilty of anything.
So the US military is still profitable for the bomb producers who control them.
We know it's not to stop terrorism.
Because that problem has only gotten worse since the "war on terror".
If the US wanted to stop terrorism, they'd stop funding it.
Even Trump restarted funding for ISIS.
Which means nothing, soybeans are a small portion of the food supply and we don't need them anyway.
I'd expect the overlap between those two groups of people to be very small.
My only problem with companies like Monsanto is when they're given a monopoly by government.
https://co2coalition.org/
Also, cold periods are far more deadly than warm periods.
So even if CO2 caused warming, for which there's no evidence, it wouldn't be bad.
The temperature record has been defrauded:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not only have climate alarmists failed to make any predictions on the climate that came through, a real understand of temperature has been reached:
https://www.omicsonline.org/op...
It allows trees to grow faster and with less water usage.
http://co2coalition.org/
That's probably why total plant life on earth has increased by 14% in the past 30 years:
https://i.imgsafe.org/35/352a2...
Anti-cartel regulation can be applied to any company at any time the government wants.
If your prices are: - Low; you must be dumping
- Similar due to intense competition; you must be price fixing
- High; you must have a monopoly
Companies 'lobby' the EU for billions every year.
What stops the EU bureaucrats from slapping a fine on companies who don't do (enough) 'lobbying'?
And companies don't control how consumers spend their money.
Coca Cola spend billions trying to market their 'New Coke' and it was a total flop.
So consumers never need government to meddle with their choices.
I know you tend to see us Europeans as communi-lefties that want to throw an evil-tyrannical-overreaching government to legislate the shit out of everything
I'm Dutch and don't see a significant difference between the US and Europe. The US became more and more socialist from 1924 until Reagan. But Republicans love big government too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
but at no point in my post did I invoke it.
That's why I said "You seem to", so you don't want government to meddle with this stuff?
With the negative side : users are usually on the losing side
And I explained why you're wrong.
I understand why people want government. Obedience to authority started probably started early in evolution and is certainly the way life on earth became successful. So we have an instinctive desire to organize society based on hierarchy. The problem comes in when people are forced to obey authority. With our means of communication this is no longer necessary. The Irish proved this and developed an entirely voluntary system to organize society:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You know there's this thing called "direct democracy".
It works. You should try it sometimes.
I have, living in The Netherlands, we have referendums. But when the people vote against what serves the ruling class, they ignore the result. Or in case of rejecting the Lissabon treaty they changed some irrelevant aspect that nobody cared about and claimed they'd "taken opposing concerns seriously", or some bullshit like that. We recently got a system where the people could request a referendum. When it didn't do what they hoped it would, they abolished. They even explicitely admitted it was only created to justify their power. In the UK the government is just pretending to implement what the people voted for and are more and more in favor of.
Is it okay to demand money and threaten people with violence if they don't? Of course not that's extortion, but that's what governments do all the time. everything they do is necessarily based on this principle. Using some sort of ritual called Democracy doesn't make it okay.
https://i.imgsafe.org/fa/fa15e...
Only evil ends can be achieved through the evil means of government.
The whole idea is that you vote what you want to force your government to do (= direct democracy),
instead of voting for some random idiot making empty promises on the TV, and hoping that he'll somehow keep his promises once in power (= representative democracy).
I agree direct democracy is better, but it doesn't deal with the fundamental problems. It's still immoral to extort money from the productive and give it to the unproductive. This motivates people to remain unproductive. People often choose this because it makes them feel better, regardless of the horrible reality this produces. This means you are corrupt, how can you then expect the rulers to not be corrupt?
Actually, part of my rant went the opposite way :
- Facebook *is starting to provide less and less* value to new generations of customer who know it and eventually decide to go somewhere else (nothing new, same thing happened with any other predecessors in the "social media" category - e.g.: MySpace mostly died out).
- Mark Zuckerberg knows this phenomenon perfectly well.
- That's why he's been buying upcoming startup: He's not actually shutting down competitors and "aqui-hiring" new talent (like most giants), he does indeed buy startups with the purpose of keeping them because he tries to find out the most likely new comer that will eventually succeed to Facebook.
- Giving the current popularity trends of Instagram and Whats
This is a properly working free market and it works proportionally.
We can look at economic freedom and the more economic freedom people have the better off they are:
https://www.heritage.org/index...
Economic freedom improves quality of life https://www.flickr.com/photos/...
So we have good evidence that government meddling doens't work.
None of the things you mention require government intervention: - low barriers to entry; creating barriers to entry is far too expensive, they're only profitable when companies can get the government to steal money from the people and pay for it that way. - Kartels always fail because it serves each individual business involved to lower their price.
- Nothing good requires government intervention and you haven't shown any evidence that government meddling made life better on any issue ever.
- Product safety. Safety costs money, if the consumer can't afford the product, I'd rather they have the option to take a risk so that they can still benefit. If you think people are too stupid to do that, what makes you think they're smart enough to elect the right rulers? When people can afford the costs for safety they're happy to do so. In cars we have second hand cars from $250 and really expensive and safe cars for $100k. The second is obviously more safe, should all less safe cars be banned?
Your belief in government is based in instinct, not logic.
So you get a different system to monetize.
Has copying music destroyed the music industry?
No, musicians can make money by touring just fine.
Being somewhat creative is really easy.
It's a much smaller hurdle than having to go through the bureaucracy from hell patent system.