"We're supposed to take your commentary seriously when you can't even be bothered to look up the guy's name?"
This is Slashdot. You're taking peoples commentary seriously?
"And you also mention that you edit Wikipedia."
Only when glaringly wrong, and I find removing/adding one word or two usually sufficient to change the bias of the article back to fact from fiction.
I was very pleased that when I went deeply into the article on the Weimar Republic, it became clear that the Google excerpt was not representative of the article as a whole.
"Way to go."
What, you don't? Correcting error is important. Information is the only thing we truly contribute to our species. Accuracy in that information is imperative.
No, Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand. He wrote extensively on the benefits of a hard currency and fiscal restraint by government.
When in office, however, he threw it all out and printed money like it was going out of style just like every other Federal Reserve officer.
Von Mises, on the other hand, never changed his stance against the printing of fiat currency. They hardly ran in the "same circles" unless you're also going to admit that Greenspan abandoned his principles for political expedience.
No. The last time the US didn't have inflation was 1912, before the Federal Reserve was established. As soon as the US Government went on a paper diet, inflation began and has never stopped.
The 1930's did have inflation, because the government put in place legal restrictions against people dropping prices to fit the changing market conditions. As a result, there were surpluses which the government then paid (with printed money) farmers to destroy.
If you want to decry the depression of the 1930's, you might notice that it happened after the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which was touted as a way to prevent the mild recessions that had occurred during the 19th century.
I didn't take the time to look up the new sock-puppet's name. Yes, I know Greenspan retired, I hope someone decides to inflate his water supply so he drowns like he helped drown America.
One sad thing about Bernanke as opposed to Greenspan, Bernanke never embraced a firm currency, he never wrote about the benefits of thrift. All of Bernanke's writings have been about how he believes it's possible to print wealth.
Bernanke's promotion to the head of the Federal Reserve does not bode well. If the policies he's espoused in the past are enacted, America is going to make the Weimar Republic look fiscally responsible.
In doing just a quick search to make sure I spelled "Weimar" correctly, it looks like I might have to fix the Wikipedia entry on the subject. Inflation is caused by the printing of worthless money, the Weimar Republic was not the victim of their inflation, it was the cause.
Wiretapping is a legitimate power with a court order, as per the 4th Amendment. It was the 4th Amendment which granted the power to search in the first place.
And the problem with "a fascist ass like Bush" is that any power granted to any level of government will be abused. No matter how noble the present office holder is, there will be a fascist little twit there at some point.
That is why granting power to government doesn't work. It has never worked. Leviathan always grows, always gains more power to itself. Any "emergency" power today will be tomorrows "Legitimate Power". That's why the American Constitution has no provision for suspension of said Constitution. If it did, an "emergency" would be quickly manufactured and those Constitutional limitations on government power forsaken.
There are those who see "illegal combatant" as just another excuse for an abuse of power they want to do anyway.
So my tax money is being spent to subsidize more Disney profits?
It's bad enough tax money subsidizes the immensely profitable Sesame Street and Barney corporations. Oh, but NooooOOOoooo, Disney has to get their cut too.
The gradual infantilization of the American public, especially through 13 years of forced labor in the government reeducation camps, has ensured that the individual remains functionally illiterate for years after a man or woman would have been a functional adult at any other time in history. "Look-Say", "New Math" and other atrocities are just the methods for retarding the natural learning processes.
Any rational "teacher" would be overjoyed that his student was writing, and suggest different topics and help the student with his grammar and punctuation on the blog itself. I'm sure you can grasp the concept, it's called "taking an interest in the student".
Just reading the blog is enough to demonstrate the waste of time that the public schools represent. The writer writes as he speaks, and he speaks terribly. My three year old reads at a second grade level. That's not special, that's because the public school grades are designed to make learning as slow and boring as possible.
If you have any interest in improving education in America, the first thing to do is to get your kid(s) out of the clutches of the "public" schools. Then get a book that will teach them to read easily at an "accelerated" rate: http://www.righttrackreading.com/
Linux uses loadable modules. That is an element of "micro-kernel" architecture, being able to load and unload drivers without taking the system down.
There are also places where the "little bit of overhead" that a micro-kernel requires does make a difference, such as supercomputing applications.
What I see happening is an evolution. Linux evolves to incorporate good ideas that work. Minix and the other "purist testbeds" evolve ideas.
The best of both is that both coexist side by side without argument. It's people that argue. There's nothing to win here, neither Linux nor Minix matter in the long run. It's ideas that matter.
That said, the micro-kernel zealots do come across as a bunch of jealous whiners who are disgusted that some macro-kernel P.O.S. is getting all the attention.
"How can I possibly take seriously the views of someone who smokes and drinks Oolong?"
I do neither. I despise tobacco smoke. It is, however, irrelevant to the discussion what *I* do. You are engaging in the fallacy of attacking the messenger, a paper tiger that doesn't even exist.
"What possible reason would polluting businesses have to install expensive scrubbers or stop dumping pollutants in the rivers instead of having them disposed of properly???"
Because otherwise they get sued out of existence, boycotted, have their foibles plastered all over the "ecologist" web sites, newspapers and broadcast media.
Or do you believe that an issue so important to you is of little or no importance to anyone else?
If you really feel that some vast majority of people are going to sit back and let pollution happen, then a representative government also has no power to do anything about it.
Reality is that people do care. Businesses care about how they are perceived, especially in relatively unregulated sectors (remember the free market?) where competition is far more about keeping customers than simply minimizing costs.
The greatest pollution has always been in the more socialist countries, or where governments enforce "commons" that no one owns, such as waterways, than then get horribly polluted because there is no private owner looking out for their property values.
Again I suggest http://www.mises.org/story/2120 if you are actually interested in doing more than insulting people you happen to disagree with.
"Pollution doesn't cost anything in a "free" market"
Then you neither understand the word "cost" nor "free market".
Pollution is externalized cost. By violating the private property rights of your neighbors, the people down wind or down stream, you can "dump" your wastes on them to clean up instead of you.
Since it is a "free" market, there is no EPA to tell me that I cannot sue you if you pollute below their guidelines, there is no justice department to enforce a statute of limitations, there is no "pollution credit" you can wave in my face to allow you to get away with polluting.
"chances are he might just format the drive and sell it at pawn shop."
Exactly. Thieves are usually looking for fast money. If the data is easy to get, they get it. If it's not, then they aren't going to waste their time and maybe expose themselves as the thieves when they can hock a quick bit of change and move on to the next target of opportunity.
There are several dissertations easily found through Google about making boot media (such as a USB memory stick) with a really good key for the disk drive itself, which itself is unlocked using an easier to remember pass phrase by the user during the boot process. Someone grabs just the laptop, and not the users USB thumb drive, they have a very difficult time ahead of them.
People also make companies go from $0.60 to $80. But in order to do that they have to satisfy their customers better. The reverse certainly has little or nothing to do with satisfying customers.
The freer the market, the more fickle customers are allowed to be. Enron and Worldcom were punished quickly and decisively by going bankrupt, long before anyone was in jail.
Oh there's no question I could have handled it better, and if I'd had any idea how she would react to, "That's as far as I can go, I don't have the password" I certainly would have (in my opinion) gone on the offensive and asked her for the password.
Indeed there are substantial differences between male/female. Some of the loudest yelling at me has been to question my process over and over when the outcome was not what the woman wanted, when I'd already agreed that what I did had not worked.
"What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?"
The part about how my being prevented from owning and carrying the weapon will somehow make me better able to respond when called upon.
What part of "the Right of the People" do you not understand? Unless, of course, I didn't read the innuendo of your.sig correctly.
Naive maybe. Dumb? Do you understand what that word actually means?
"Completely free markets don't work."
Yes, they do, and more efficiently than regulated ones. If regulation solved problems, there would be no pollution, no corruption, no scandals.
If I promised that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer would feel better than not, and you hit yourself and discovered I was wrong, you would not hit yourself in the head again. Government has promised to solve problems with regulation and those problems have not been solved. Why do you continue to hit yourself in the head with government?
"Game theory suggests..."
Game theory is based upon zero-sum outcomes. Someone wins, someone loses. The more that others lose, the more one wins, so of course there are people who will dump on others for the greatest gain.
Economics is not a zero-sum game. Value is created specifically because of trade. A rock in the ground is worthless. A diamond ring is worth lots of money. At each stage in the process the new owner has traded some of their treasure for something they value even more, while the old owner has traded something they valued less than they gained in treasure. The final transfer very likely does not involve any transfer of material treasure yet each party deems that they have gained from the exchange.
Those in real life, not games, gain the greatest amount by having the freedom to trade what they wish when they wish. Both sides of the transaction gain the greatest tangable and intangible reward by satisfying their wants in the most mutually satisfactory way.
"...when the facts might be a few billion in economic damages or thousands of people with asbestos-induced cancer."
Demonstrate harm, prosecute harm. If asbestos causes cancer, prosecute those who knowingly continue its use. If someone does not know, educate them and then prosecute if they do not change their materials (because then it's knowingly acting to cause harm).
Now, remind me again how a free market doesn't work?
It's not just "execs", it's also "auditors" according to the article.
Considering that "auditors" have incentive to like having more work to do, why would "auditors" be saying it's a waste of time and money?
It certainly is in the interests of "execs" to minimize costs, and Sarbox certainly doesn't do that. But I think there is more to it simply because the auditors are also involved in nay-saying the legislation.
"The point is that the burdensome new procedures have positive externalities which outweigh the increased costs."
By what measure? Where is your data?
I am completely serious. If there are "positive externalities", demonstrate them.
My contention is that, with less reliance on government to shield losses, such improvements (if they truly are) to accounting practices would be enacted specifically because they had positive results.
There are a whole lot of marketing departments who would just love to put a positive spin on how the business is now doing more to protect their customers/shareholders/the_public, rather than simply obeying another burdensome regulation.
Thank you for the pointer. Hopefully it will be of help, I expect so. I just don't recall seeing so many "L.L.P." suffixes 30 years ago. Something seems to have changed.
I expect that "go to Wikipedia, newbie" will become as commonplace as "use Google, newbie" is in the technical fields now, and "RTFM" has been in the past.
"What does:
The company somehow discovered that I had more pressing work to sit on my butt in another building doing nothing until it was time for the next round of layoffs.
mean?"
It means that I was quickly transferred away from the main corporate office to a satellite office, where there was effectively nothing for me to do, until they could invent an excuse to fire me since they had no cause.
That's what happens when a Power Secretary takes a disliking to you. At least I got some severance time to find other work carrying letters of reference from my supervisor and coworkers. (more evidence that the layoff had nothing to do with actual work performance other than with this one Power Secretary)
As silly as it might seem, if they had been honest and just fired me because I pissed off Ms. Whatshername, it wouldn't still hurt. But no, they had to lie.
"You are uninformed about the role that an LLC plays."
Indeed, I have explicitly stated such. However, I do know that it is a creation by legislation, a distinction made by law.
"You misread my original post as to mean something that it clearly doesn't mean."
Since I am not the only one, I again suggest that the "clearly" isn't actually so clear.
"You seem to think that all corporations are public corporations."
The corporations effected by Sarbanes-Oxley are public, thus my quotation elsewhere about companies going private to avoid the increased regulation.
"You do not seem to understand the role of debt and how it relates to business and commerce."
If you mean that when a stock broker tells me that there is "smart debt" just before the 2000 stock bubble burst, and I ended up being very glad that I didn't go into debt as suggested, then you're right.
Otherwise, and to the rest of your statement, I must politely bow out. It is clear that my position on the issue, fraught as it is with naivete and experience rather than book-learning, is not at all one which you feel is valid.
I'm ok with that. I realize that there are many reasons for people to become pragmatists, reasons which I do not share. No different than religion.
I would ask you to examine just how many of the assumptions and foundations of your position are based upon government intervention.
I'm not talking about down-to-the-dirt pragmatic decisions, such as debt load verses earnings, I mean this "limited liability" verses some other "limited liability". Your original meaning of being sued into poverty verses my reading of your posting that the poverty was caused by a lack of sales. After all, being sued has its basis in a system of laws (or at least rules).
The problem with a free market is there is no such thing. That is why a "free market" position has, how did you put it? "which bears a passing resemblance to reality but actually is not implementable in real life."
Indeed there is no human endeavor that has not had government, some time some where even now, regulating it. That doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Everywhere that government influence is lessened or for a short time removed demonstrates great blossoming of innovation, industry and prosperity.
All I want to do is extend that innovation, industry and prosperity to every facet of interaction, especially commerce.
And if, by the inventiveness of interaction, something like the corporation and limited liability is created, who am I to argue? I only eschew coercion.
Why would I have the opportunity to chat with the store clerks but that I was there to do business? Otherwise, I'm just wasting their time. Same with co-workers, the very reason I have co-workers at all is that I am engaging in business.
If I step in and help some guy at Home Depot who is asking a sheet-rock department sales drone about cat-5 vs. cat-3 cable, even though I am doing something without any expectation of remuneration I am there to buy, I am helping out a salesman with questions by a buyer, everything about it could only happen because of business.
My friends and relatives I can count in mere double digits. Let's say I'm at an SCA event. I might interact with 30 people on a personal level, but 30 more because they're there selling swords, beads, clothing, tents. And that's the most un-entrepreneurial environment I can think of!
Owwww, Ouch! I know what you mean, since during part of my "network engineer" stint at said company I filled in on the computer department help desk. Ever read http://www.userfriendly.org/ ? Mike the network engineer and Greg the helpdesk guy. Been there, done that!
Imagine being on the help desk at NASA, and getting a call from the Executive Office of the President because they aren't getting their email. That was an interesting time!
Slashdot Mirror
"We're supposed to take your commentary seriously when you can't even be bothered to look up the guy's name?"
This is Slashdot. You're taking peoples commentary seriously?
"And you also mention that you edit Wikipedia."
Only when glaringly wrong, and I find removing/adding one word or two usually sufficient to change the bias of the article back to fact from fiction.
I was very pleased that when I went deeply into the article on the Weimar Republic, it became clear that the Google excerpt was not representative of the article as a whole.
"Way to go."
What, you don't? Correcting error is important. Information is the only thing we truly contribute to our species. Accuracy in that information is imperative.
Bob-
No, Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand. He wrote extensively on the benefits of a hard currency and fiscal restraint by government.
When in office, however, he threw it all out and printed money like it was going out of style just like every other Federal Reserve officer.
Von Mises, on the other hand, never changed his stance against the printing of fiat currency. They hardly ran in the "same circles" unless you're also going to admit that Greenspan abandoned his principles for political expedience.
Bob-
No. The last time the US didn't have inflation was 1912, before the Federal Reserve was established. As soon as the US Government went on a paper diet, inflation began and has never stopped.
The 1930's did have inflation, because the government put in place legal restrictions against people dropping prices to fit the changing market conditions. As a result, there were surpluses which the government then paid (with printed money) farmers to destroy.
If you want to decry the depression of the 1930's, you might notice that it happened after the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which was touted as a way to prevent the mild recessions that had occurred during the 19th century.
Bob-
I didn't take the time to look up the new sock-puppet's name. Yes, I know Greenspan retired, I hope someone decides to inflate his water supply so he drowns like he helped drown America.
One sad thing about Bernanke as opposed to Greenspan, Bernanke never embraced a firm currency, he never wrote about the benefits of thrift. All of Bernanke's writings have been about how he believes it's possible to print wealth.
Bernanke's promotion to the head of the Federal Reserve does not bode well. If the policies he's espoused in the past are enacted, America is going to make the Weimar Republic look fiscally responsible.
In doing just a quick search to make sure I spelled "Weimar" correctly, it looks like I might have to fix the Wikipedia entry on the subject. Inflation is caused by the printing of worthless money, the Weimar Republic was not the victim of their inflation, it was the cause.
Bob-
Now, if only we could turn off the farmers at the Federal Reserve and stop inflation in the "real" world.
Visualize banned Greenspan.
Wiretapping is a legitimate power with a court order, as per the 4th Amendment. It was the 4th Amendment which granted the power to search in the first place.
And the problem with "a fascist ass like Bush" is that any power granted to any level of government will be abused. No matter how noble the present office holder is, there will be a fascist little twit there at some point.
That is why granting power to government doesn't work. It has never worked. Leviathan always grows, always gains more power to itself. Any "emergency" power today will be tomorrows "Legitimate Power". That's why the American Constitution has no provision for suspension of said Constitution. If it did, an "emergency" would be quickly manufactured and those Constitutional limitations on government power forsaken.
There are those who see "illegal combatant" as just another excuse for an abuse of power they want to do anyway.
Bob-
So my tax money is being spent to subsidize more Disney profits?
It's bad enough tax money subsidizes the immensely profitable Sesame Street and Barney corporations. Oh, but NooooOOOoooo, Disney has to get their cut too.
The gradual infantilization of the American public, especially through 13 years of forced labor in the government reeducation camps, has ensured that the individual remains functionally illiterate for years after a man or woman would have been a functional adult at any other time in history. "Look-Say", "New Math" and other atrocities are just the methods for retarding the natural learning processes.
Any rational "teacher" would be overjoyed that his student was writing, and suggest different topics and help the student with his grammar and punctuation on the blog itself. I'm sure you can grasp the concept, it's called "taking an interest in the student".
Just reading the blog is enough to demonstrate the waste of time that the public schools represent. The writer writes as he speaks, and he speaks terribly. My three year old reads at a second grade level. That's not special, that's because the public school grades are designed to make learning as slow and boring as possible.
If you have any interest in improving education in America, the first thing to do is to get your kid(s) out of the clutches of the "public" schools. Then get a book that will teach them to read easily at an "accelerated" rate: http://www.righttrackreading.com/
Bob-
Not that I need another media player, especially one that won't let me play my non-American DVDs. Sheesh.
Linux uses loadable modules. That is an element of "micro-kernel" architecture, being able to load and unload drivers without taking the system down.
There are also places where the "little bit of overhead" that a micro-kernel requires does make a difference, such as supercomputing applications.
What I see happening is an evolution. Linux evolves to incorporate good ideas that work. Minix and the other "purist testbeds" evolve ideas.
The best of both is that both coexist side by side without argument. It's people that argue. There's nothing to win here, neither Linux nor Minix matter in the long run. It's ideas that matter.
That said, the micro-kernel zealots do come across as a bunch of jealous whiners who are disgusted that some macro-kernel P.O.S. is getting all the attention.
Bob-
"How can I possibly take seriously the views of someone who smokes and drinks Oolong?"
I do neither. I despise tobacco smoke. It is, however, irrelevant to the discussion what *I* do. You are engaging in the fallacy of attacking the messenger, a paper tiger that doesn't even exist.
Bob-
"Are you insane???"
No.
"What possible reason would polluting businesses have to install expensive scrubbers or stop dumping pollutants in the rivers instead of having them disposed of properly???"
Because otherwise they get sued out of existence, boycotted, have their foibles plastered all over the "ecologist" web sites, newspapers and broadcast media.
Or do you believe that an issue so important to you is of little or no importance to anyone else?
If you really feel that some vast majority of people are going to sit back and let pollution happen, then a representative government also has no power to do anything about it.
Reality is that people do care. Businesses care about how they are perceived, especially in relatively unregulated sectors (remember the free market?) where competition is far more about keeping customers than simply minimizing costs.
The greatest pollution has always been in the more socialist countries, or where governments enforce "commons" that no one owns, such as waterways, than then get horribly polluted because there is no private owner looking out for their property values.
Again I suggest http://www.mises.org/story/2120 if you are actually interested in doing more than insulting people you happen to disagree with.
Bob-
"Pollution doesn't cost anything in a "free" market"
Then you neither understand the word "cost" nor "free market".
Pollution is externalized cost. By violating the private property rights of your neighbors, the people down wind or down stream, you can "dump" your wastes on them to clean up instead of you.
Since it is a "free" market, there is no EPA to tell me that I cannot sue you if you pollute below their guidelines, there is no justice department to enforce a statute of limitations, there is no "pollution credit" you can wave in my face to allow you to get away with polluting.
If you are at all interested, try this: http://www.mises.org/story/2120
If you bother to read that, then come back and tell me what part you disagree with.
Bob-
"chances are he might just format the drive and sell it at pawn shop."
Exactly. Thieves are usually looking for fast money. If the data is easy to get, they get it. If it's not, then they aren't going to waste their time and maybe expose themselves as the thieves when they can hock a quick bit of change and move on to the next target of opportunity.
There are several dissertations easily found through Google about making boot media (such as a USB memory stick) with a really good key for the disk drive itself, which itself is unlocked using an easier to remember pass phrase by the user during the boot process. Someone grabs just the laptop, and not the users USB thumb drive, they have a very difficult time ahead of them.
"people make companies go from $80 to $0.60."
People also make companies go from $0.60 to $80. But in order to do that they have to satisfy their customers better. The reverse certainly has little or nothing to do with satisfying customers.
The freer the market, the more fickle customers are allowed to be. Enron and Worldcom were punished quickly and decisively by going bankrupt, long before anyone was in jail.
Bob-
Oh there's no question I could have handled it better, and if I'd had any idea how she would react to, "That's as far as I can go, I don't have the password" I certainly would have (in my opinion) gone on the offensive and asked her for the password.
.sig correctly.
Indeed there are substantial differences between male/female. Some of the loudest yelling at me has been to question my process over and over when the outcome was not what the woman wanted, when I'd already agreed that what I did had not worked.
"What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?"
The part about how my being prevented from owning and carrying the weapon will somehow make me better able to respond when called upon.
What part of "the Right of the People" do you not understand? Unless, of course, I didn't read the innuendo of your
Bob-
"This is dumb. And naive."
Naive maybe. Dumb? Do you understand what that word actually means?
"Completely free markets don't work."
Yes, they do, and more efficiently than regulated ones. If regulation solved problems, there would be no pollution, no corruption, no scandals.
If I promised that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer would feel better than not, and you hit yourself and discovered I was wrong, you would not hit yourself in the head again. Government has promised to solve problems with regulation and those problems have not been solved. Why do you continue to hit yourself in the head with government?
"Game theory suggests..."
Game theory is based upon zero-sum outcomes. Someone wins, someone loses. The more that others lose, the more one wins, so of course there are people who will dump on others for the greatest gain.
Economics is not a zero-sum game. Value is created specifically because of trade. A rock in the ground is worthless. A diamond ring is worth lots of money. At each stage in the process the new owner has traded some of their treasure for something they value even more, while the old owner has traded something they valued less than they gained in treasure. The final transfer very likely does not involve any transfer of material treasure yet each party deems that they have gained from the exchange.
Those in real life, not games, gain the greatest amount by having the freedom to trade what they wish when they wish. Both sides of the transaction gain the greatest tangable and intangible reward by satisfying their wants in the most mutually satisfactory way.
"...when the facts might be a few billion in economic damages or thousands of people with asbestos-induced cancer."
Demonstrate harm, prosecute harm. If asbestos causes cancer, prosecute those who knowingly continue its use. If someone does not know, educate them and then prosecute if they do not change their materials (because then it's knowingly acting to cause harm).
Now, remind me again how a free market doesn't work?
It's not just "execs", it's also "auditors" according to the article.
Considering that "auditors" have incentive to like having more work to do, why would "auditors" be saying it's a waste of time and money?
It certainly is in the interests of "execs" to minimize costs, and Sarbox certainly doesn't do that. But I think there is more to it simply because the auditors are also involved in nay-saying the legislation.
Bob-
"The point is that the burdensome new procedures have positive externalities which outweigh the increased costs."
By what measure? Where is your data?
I am completely serious. If there are "positive externalities", demonstrate them.
My contention is that, with less reliance on government to shield losses, such improvements (if they truly are) to accounting practices would be enacted specifically because they had positive results.
There are a whole lot of marketing departments who would just love to put a positive spin on how the business is now doing more to protect their customers/shareholders/the_public, rather than simply obeying another burdensome regulation.
Bob-
Thank you for the pointer. Hopefully it will be of help, I expect so. I just don't recall seeing so many "L.L.P." suffixes 30 years ago. Something seems to have changed.
I expect that "go to Wikipedia, newbie" will become as commonplace as "use Google, newbie" is in the technical fields now, and "RTFM" has been in the past.
"I like reminding people that neither Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel were corporations."
:^)
Indeed, that would tend to hamstring those who have said that without "limited liability corporations" nothing would get done.
I recall reading how Carnegie, when selling his company, was simply handed a really big check. Not something to cash at the Quickie-Mart!
Peace, may your aim never waver,
Bob-
"What does:
The company somehow discovered that I had more pressing work to sit on my butt in another building doing nothing until it was time for the next round of layoffs.
mean?"
It means that I was quickly transferred away from the main corporate office to a satellite office, where there was effectively nothing for me to do, until they could invent an excuse to fire me since they had no cause.
That's what happens when a Power Secretary takes a disliking to you. At least I got some severance time to find other work carrying letters of reference from my supervisor and coworkers. (more evidence that the layoff had nothing to do with actual work performance other than with this one Power Secretary)
As silly as it might seem, if they had been honest and just fired me because I pissed off Ms. Whatshername, it wouldn't still hurt. But no, they had to lie.
Bob-
"You are uninformed about the role that an LLC plays."
Indeed, I have explicitly stated such. However, I do know that it is a creation by legislation, a distinction made by law.
"You misread my original post as to mean something that it clearly doesn't mean."
Since I am not the only one, I again suggest that the "clearly" isn't actually so clear.
"You seem to think that all corporations are public corporations."
The corporations effected by Sarbanes-Oxley are public, thus my quotation elsewhere about companies going private to avoid the increased regulation.
"You do not seem to understand the role of debt and how it relates to business and commerce."
If you mean that when a stock broker tells me that there is "smart debt" just before the 2000 stock bubble burst, and I ended up being very glad that I didn't go into debt as suggested, then you're right.
Otherwise, and to the rest of your statement, I must politely bow out. It is clear that my position on the issue, fraught as it is with naivete and experience rather than book-learning, is not at all one which you feel is valid.
I'm ok with that. I realize that there are many reasons for people to become pragmatists, reasons which I do not share. No different than religion.
I would ask you to examine just how many of the assumptions and foundations of your position are based upon government intervention.
I'm not talking about down-to-the-dirt pragmatic decisions, such as debt load verses earnings, I mean this "limited liability" verses some other "limited liability". Your original meaning of being sued into poverty verses my reading of your posting that the poverty was caused by a lack of sales. After all, being sued has its basis in a system of laws (or at least rules).
The problem with a free market is there is no such thing. That is why a "free market" position has, how did you put it? "which bears a passing resemblance to reality but actually is not implementable in real life."
Indeed there is no human endeavor that has not had government, some time some where even now, regulating it. That doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Everywhere that government influence is lessened or for a short time removed demonstrates great blossoming of innovation, industry and prosperity.
All I want to do is extend that innovation, industry and prosperity to every facet of interaction, especially commerce.
And if, by the inventiveness of interaction, something like the corporation and limited liability is created, who am I to argue? I only eschew coercion.
Bob-
Why would I have the opportunity to chat with the store clerks but that I was there to do business? Otherwise, I'm just wasting their time. Same with co-workers, the very reason I have co-workers at all is that I am engaging in business.
If I step in and help some guy at Home Depot who is asking a sheet-rock department sales drone about cat-5 vs. cat-3 cable, even though I am doing something without any expectation of remuneration I am there to buy, I am helping out a salesman with questions by a buyer, everything about it could only happen because of business.
My friends and relatives I can count in mere double digits. Let's say I'm at an SCA event. I might interact with 30 people on a personal level, but 30 more because they're there selling swords, beads, clothing, tents. And that's the most un-entrepreneurial environment I can think of!
Bob-
"working on the Help Desk..."
Owwww, Ouch! I know what you mean, since during part of my "network engineer" stint at said company I filled in on the computer department help desk. Ever read http://www.userfriendly.org/ ? Mike the network engineer and Greg the helpdesk guy. Been there, done that!
Imagine being on the help desk at NASA, and getting a call from the Executive Office of the President because they aren't getting their email. That was an interesting time!
Bob-