I couldn't disagree with you more. Libertarianism encourages exploitation, it doesn't encourage non-profit ventures at all.
If you haven't seen it before, take a look at The Political Compass. I scored (-9, -9). Thanks for stating why. If you could elaborate on your point a lot more, maybe we could have an intelligent conversation.
Another way of viewing the issue is that libertarianism is a good political system for those who stand a head higher than average, since there's no barriers to them exploiting others in it; and most young, intelligent people certainly think they're above the "sheep". For everyone else - the average and below people - it is a horrible system, because there's nothing stopping the giants from exploiting them.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Libertarianism is just about pure freedom. No matter what system you have, even Communism, there will be people exploiting other people for a profit. It's human nature to take advantage in certain situations for personal gain. But that's not always a bad thing. Libertarianism, in my view, is the ultimate in taking care of people who need it because it gets rid of the barriers, apathy, etc of government safety nets. It encourages individuals and communities to keep an eye on their local sphere of influence to care for their fellow friend and family member. It encourages non-profit, voluntary groups to form to pool resources together so that larger community/societal problems can be funded and solved. And it does all of this without an elite group making a forceful, very assumptive decision that all taxpayers believe that welfare or something like it is the best way to help the poor (when it clearly is a very inefficient and lethargic way). So sure, if humans were all unfeeling animals it'd be awful because survival of the fittest, but there are many enlightened, caring individuals out there who do take self initiative to help others voluntarily.
Uh huh, yeah...sure I am. You completely ignored that fact that I said "I never said that fraud was good business. If an ISP is in the act of fraud, they should be prosecuted by the law to the fullest extent." Doesn't that go against your claim against me of "If that's not the case, you should at least be aware that's the impression you give by immediately condemning any government action to reign in companies committing fraud and illegal man-in-the-middle attacks."? I think I said the government (aka judicial system) should step in when the law is being broken. If a company entered a voluntary contract with a customer about with a TOS and they break that, they broke the law and should be punished. But guess what, no ISP can ever put you in jail or take away your rights to anything. The government has full power to do that. That is why I do fundamentally have a very healthy and rational fear of the government, and you should too. History is there to provide me with unending volumes of the tyranny of governments and their abuses of the ones they are out there to "regulate" and "protect."
Then you can do what they did, claim no limit, give no limit for a short time, then defraud your customers by adding in an undefined limit and lying about it. That's not fraud, that's good business, right? After all, if they get tired of your fraud, they can always just go somewhere else with promises and no regulations to hold them to them to telling the truth.
I never said that fraud was good business. If an ISP is in the act of fraud, they should be prosecuted by the law to the fullest extent. I'm not for businesses or anyone illegally taking advantage of someone, but when the government takes away the right of an ISP to do with their (read: not the government's) bandwidth what they want to, then the government should be the one accountable to the law.
I completely agree with you as well. I'd much rather be free to choose an ISP that doesn't throttle their bandwidth, and if it ends up that there aren't any left, well then that's a business opportunity for me. But if the government outlaws it, they taken away a choice and forced something on someone (like they're always very good at doing).
Nope, I think you're alone. He's the only candidate running for president that raises genuine passion for their message. Passion means you will hear a lot about RP.
I absolutely agree with this. Why is this parent post a troll just because they disagree with the article? Are the moderators of/. really that insecure with their own position that they must silence those who disagree?
Also, the parent post is absolutely right. The government is the only absolute, all-powerful force in a land. They are the only ones who can fully coerce you into doing something against your will. A company could rough you up with some thugs, but ultimately they will be accountable for their actions. A government is not accountable, they get away with tyranny all the time.
I love Apple and their products (I have 2 Macs and an iPod), but this is ridiculous. I can't believe the patent system allows this. Who are these people in charge of granting patents who get suckered into thinking this is a unique, tangible product? Patents are for recuperating costs (among other uses), where are Apple's costs in developing this idea?
I would not assume either the government or private corporation has my interests at heart. Only I can advocate for that. Contrary to your example, privatization does not hold down corruption. The NYC transit system used to be operated by many independent companies. The whole set up was scrapped and merged into 1 singlt MTA precisely BECAUSE of rampant corruption and payoffs. Thus far, people complain about the fares, but I hear no accusation of corruption within the MTA.
Would you be happier if all US military activities are subcontracted to Blackwater? I support a case by case analysis of whether a function is better handled via private entities of public one. Prejudgement is nonoptimal, IMHO. I absolutely agree with you, but the one thing about a private company is that if there is corruption, they can be fired. The government (aka public interest) cannot be fired. The government can monitor and fire a company that becomes corrupt. If the government is corrupt at it's core, electing new officials won't necessarily take care of the problem.
It always amazes me that the people so vehemently opposed to socialized medicine are nearly always the ones who have proper health insurance through work and don't need it anyways.
...
Oh, and I pay 100% for my own health insurance. I'm a contractor, so I pick up the tab, completely. I've paid for most of my own things since I was 16. Don't talk to me about not knowing what it's like to bear the cost.
I didn't talk about bearing the cost, I talked about having health insurance, which you clearly do.
By the way, I've paid for everything in my life since I was 16. What do I win?
Life isn't fair, goods and services are scarce, nothing balances these inequalities better than a truly free market. I'm not talking about socialism, fascism or even corporatism. I'm talking about the ability to openly trade and set prices so the citizen has full knowledge of price and differences in services.
There's two things I see here that are completely counter intuitive. You say you want to help the less fortunate, but clearly that's only when you want to feel good about yourself, not necessarily when they need your help the most. Secondly, there's enough trouble with informed consent in the medical industry today - but you seriously want people to start price shopping their procedures? Who truly understands the difference between an MRI, CAT, or PET scan and which situation necessitates which test?
You really think the government would do a better job? If you do, I have no idea what government you've been observing for your lifetime. The one I've been observing (and have ready about in the history books) always shows an incompetent and generally abusive power that never even does an *ok* job, they just plainly suck.
Believe in evolution - it's completely about inequality. It's a fact of life. But that won't stop me from helping the less fortunate and enriching my life and the lives of others in the process.
That's clearly nonsense, because you oppose the most effective measure to help the less fortunate - universal health care. It sounds more like you want to make a profit, or feel better about yourself, rather than doing the most good.
Really, and you know me how well? And who's saying universal healthcare is the most effective measure to help the less fortunate? Who's going to help you when the bar is lowered for standard of healthcare than what you might be used to now because of medicine shortages, long lines to get somewhat basic procedures done, and when we no longer become the world's leading place to develop new drugs? Where's your imagination, why is it universal healthcare, or the current system we have now. We have a lot of bright people, we could solve this healthcare problem very rapidly if the government would get out of the way and stop meddling where they don't belong. Oh yeah, don't come crying to me when your choice in how you take care of yourself medically related is gone because the same government that seriously messed up the war in Iraq messed up your healthcare.
This is why, IMO, things like universal healthcare are evil.
Well, I've never been turned away from a hospital because I didn't have an insurance card or my AmEx handy. I also never hear about my fellow Canadians bankrupted because of a critical illness. None of my friends, family or co-workers have lost (or heavily mortgaged) their homes because they got cancer. (FWIW, I know personally no less than six people who have had various forms of cancer in the past decade)
Health care (the ability to be healthy) should be a fundamental right for everybody - not just those fortunate enough to be able to afford it.
Whereas, in a country like we have in the U.S., people can mostly volunteer their resources to help someone out, to better society as a whole, and feel really fulfilled about the act. Better society as a whole should never, ever be coerced.
...
They remove choice, they remove people's chance to be warm and loving to those less fortunate, and it alienates those who adversely react to this robbing from those who have to give to those who might not have right now.
This idea always sounds great on paper but in reality how many people donate their time, energy, efforts, money and skills to the less fortunate? How many doctors go through med school only to open clinics that give health care away to the poor and needy? Atleast in a socialized health care system they get paid for their efforts at walk-in clinics.
It always amazes me that the people so vehemently opposed to socialized medicine are nearly always the ones who have proper health insurance through work and don't need it anyways. Speaking of the definition of greed. Find me a hundred single parents who can barely afford to buy used clothing for their child(ren) who are strongly opposed to socialized medicine and there's a hero cookie in it for you.
So when charity doesn't work, because it's not really given a chance because the medical industry is so regulated, the answer is to turn it over even more to the government? Are you an elitist or what? Thank you very much, but we should all have the choice in what we do with our lives, not some overpaid politicians who really don't care about the public anymore (nor are any smarter than your average person). When charity doesn't work, we move to a coercive system? How does this make sense? You cannot rid the world of poverty and inequality. It's the nature of the universe. Believe in evolution - it's completely about inequality. It's a fact of life. But that won't stop me from helping the less fortunate and enriching my life and the lives of others in the process.
Oh, and I pay 100% for my own health insurance. I'm a contractor, so I pick up the tab, completely. I've paid for most of my own things since I was 16. Don't talk to me about not knowing what it's like to bear the cost. Life isn't fair, goods and services are scarce, nothing balances these inequalities better than a truly free market. I'm not talking about socialism, fascism or even corporatism. I'm talking about the ability to openly trade and set prices so the citizen has full knowledge of price and differences in services. And when, not until then, a person's rights have been violated, may the government step in a bring justice to the situation (if they don't go and corrupt the situation first that is).
No kidding. Couldn't say it any more clearly. Keep the government out of our lives. Why do people think governments always have their best interest in mind? How are they any less corrupt than anybody else? AND, when a government is corrupt, there's nothing we can do about it. When private citizens or companies are corrupt, people go to jail.
That is not the definition of greedy. The definition is, having an excess of or a desire for more. Of course that's purely subjective too. Communism and other isms take from people and do not respect private property lines "to help improve people's lives and society as a whole." Hmm, that doesn't improve anything. It only pisses people off and creates a war because they're rights are being violated. Whereas, in a country like we have in the U.S., people can mostly volunteer their resources to help someone out, to better society as a whole, and feel really fulfilled about the act. Better society as a whole should never, ever be coerced. This is why, IMO, things like universal healthcare are evil. They remove choice, they remove people's chance to be warm and loving to those less fortunate, and it alienates those who adversely react to this robbing from those who have to give to those who might not have right now. (Side note, I'm not saying our current healthcare setup is great, insurance companies are pretty evil as well. But they were founded by our government once upon a time as well. I guess it just shows, don't send a government to do what citizens can do much better by themselves).
People have been calling it "Ubunghole" for seemingly forever, and it didn't bother me. But after hearing about "Gutsy Gibbon"... it just seems like Ubuntu is one big joke, or else into some really twisted stuff.
"Gutsy Gibbon" sounds like one of those bizarre sex acts they talk about on South Park, like the Hot Carl or Dirty Sanchez or whatever. Now they have "Hardon Heron", which sounds really bizarre as well.
Frankly, I give up. I'm not using a distro which has people thinking I'm some kind of freak. It's bad enough that using teh lunix already makes people think you are a closet serial killer. Ok, I don't know who you hang around with, but nobody that I do thinks of me as a serial killer or freak. Plus, you could refer to each release by their more formal names, Ubuntu 7.10. The other names are akin to code names (to the best of my knowledge). And finally, how insecure are you that you won't use an amazing and free product because people think you're a freak based on the name alone? I mean wow, get a life!
But why is it that the default is taxation unless a bill is passed to ban taxation for some time period? Since when did the government gain the right to claim our money by default?
Its for the Children, some progressives wont be happy until we are all servants of the state...
Any government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to steal everything you have.
Not quite, maybe in this limited instance. But why is it that the default is taxation unless a bill is passed to ban taxation for some time period? Since when did the government gain the right to claim our money by default? It is our money and it is the government's privilege to be able to tax us, not the other way around.
And while we're on the subject of taxes, I still say that the income tax is unconstitutional. Sure they got an amendment passed, but they had to con us to do it. Let's hear it for the Fair Tax!
I am suprised at how many people think a free market economy requires no regulation. Even the most right wing economist knows that once a monopoly has developed the market is no longer free.
Microsoft may never have forced people to use windows at gun-point but their position in the market is now so dominant that most consumers are 'forced' to use it. Are they really forced? Why did you put force in quotes then? If they're truly not forced, you should be able to state that as fact and not have to do a play on the word. Also, back up your statement saying most right wing economists know that once a monopoly has developed the market is no longer free. By the definition of the word, only a government has a real monopoly. I chose not to use Windows about 10 years ago now and am not forced to use it.
But Dell (and others) aren't selling as many Linux boxes as they're selling Windows boxes. Doesn't that mean that there's less market for desktop Linux?
Yes, for now. But the market for alternatives to Windows will never be given a chance unless competition regulators force that market to be open and free to competition. The best and fastest way to do this is through unbundling Windows from PCs. If consumers still want Windows, they'll be free to elect to acquire it at the time they purchase their PC, but this should be through conscious decision-making, not through forced bundling.
This is crap. What a contradiction of terms. Force can never be aligned with freedom. Force is always someone ramming their opinion of what should happen down someone else's throat. Windows, though I hate it as an OS as much as the next Linux fan, came to power through a free market. People chose it and continue to choose it because it's what they know. We know that it's not the best option out there, but there's no wrong doing. Microsoft never forced people to use Windows at gun-point, but that's what this article is espousing for "freedom." It's saying, through the force of the government, and thus gun-point, to "free" the market up. No, won't work and shouldn't happen. Yes it's tough competing against Windows, but it can be done. It's our responsibility as those enlightened to stop supporting Windows and help those sick of Windows to try out Linux. Keep the crappy government out of this, they only make things worse because of their incompetence.
17% extra is $105 a year more than I currently pay. I'd rather be free to spend that (or save) $100 as I see fit, not as some politicians out of touch with reality see fit.
That is not a monopoly. There is nothing stopping anybody from creating a brand new business generating ads like Doubleclick. Only governments and thugs get in the way of new business/innovation from occurring (yes I'm referring to the EU Commision).
And curiously, there are Americans who go to Europe to get the latest experimental procedure, because if they waited for FDA to approve phase 1 trials, let alone launch, they would be long dead before they got the treatment they need.
Yes, but you're not proving socialist medicine's merits with your rebuttal. You're proving more freedom once again. The FDA is another form of government control and a free or more free medical system wouldn't have this problem and would also have much lower medical costs (like before the 1970s and the government advent of PPOs and HMOs and socialized insurance). Health insurance is a form of socialized medicine first launched by the government, not the private medical industry.
You're right on. I just finished emailing them complaining. I do not get cable either precisely because I can get these shows on iTunes for a lot less money and ala cart. I won't be watching BSG until I can get it via iTunes again or via some other Internet distribution method (and if they choose to go this route, they'd better not tie it to a Windows-only DRM crappy technology).
What's wrong with hardware makers having to disclose their specs? Shouldn't consumers have the right to know how the products they`ve bought work? Even if each individual consumer doesnt know what to do with this information, having the information out there means that *some* people will work out cool new things to do with it. Look what people have made the C64 do compared to what it was originally intended to do. The problem isn't having this available, I'm all for that. The problem is forcing vendors to do this! Vendors have a right to decide to keep what they made, what is theirs, secret...as much as you don't like that. It's called freedom...they don't have to sell you anything. That's on the law side of things at least. Personally, I'd love for vendors to release detailed specs about their cards for driver-writers, but this is their decision.
Slashdot Mirror
If you haven't seen it before, take a look at The Political Compass. I scored (-9, -9). Thanks for stating why. If you could elaborate on your point a lot more, maybe we could have an intelligent conversation.
Another way of viewing the issue is that libertarianism is a good political system for those who stand a head higher than average, since there's no barriers to them exploiting others in it; and most young, intelligent people certainly think they're above the "sheep". For everyone else - the average and below people - it is a horrible system, because there's nothing stopping the giants from exploiting them.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Libertarianism is just about pure freedom. No matter what system you have, even Communism, there will be people exploiting other people for a profit. It's human nature to take advantage in certain situations for personal gain. But that's not always a bad thing. Libertarianism, in my view, is the ultimate in taking care of people who need it because it gets rid of the barriers, apathy, etc of government safety nets. It encourages individuals and communities to keep an eye on their local sphere of influence to care for their fellow friend and family member. It encourages non-profit, voluntary groups to form to pool resources together so that larger community/societal problems can be funded and solved. And it does all of this without an elite group making a forceful, very assumptive decision that all taxpayers believe that welfare or something like it is the best way to help the poor (when it clearly is a very inefficient and lethargic way). So sure, if humans were all unfeeling animals it'd be awful because survival of the fittest, but there are many enlightened, caring individuals out there who do take self initiative to help others voluntarily.
Well said, I couldn't agree with you more!
Uh huh, yeah...sure I am. You completely ignored that fact that I said "I never said that fraud was good business. If an ISP is in the act of fraud, they should be prosecuted by the law to the fullest extent." Doesn't that go against your claim against me of "If that's not the case, you should at least be aware that's the impression you give by immediately condemning any government action to reign in companies committing fraud and illegal man-in-the-middle attacks."? I think I said the government (aka judicial system) should step in when the law is being broken. If a company entered a voluntary contract with a customer about with a TOS and they break that, they broke the law and should be punished. But guess what, no ISP can ever put you in jail or take away your rights to anything. The government has full power to do that. That is why I do fundamentally have a very healthy and rational fear of the government, and you should too. History is there to provide me with unending volumes of the tyranny of governments and their abuses of the ones they are out there to "regulate" and "protect."
Then you can do what they did, claim no limit, give no limit for a short time, then defraud your customers by adding in an undefined limit and lying about it. That's not fraud, that's good business, right? After all, if they get tired of your fraud, they can always just go somewhere else with promises and no regulations to hold them to them to telling the truth.
I never said that fraud was good business. If an ISP is in the act of fraud, they should be prosecuted by the law to the fullest extent. I'm not for businesses or anyone illegally taking advantage of someone, but when the government takes away the right of an ISP to do with their (read: not the government's) bandwidth what they want to, then the government should be the one accountable to the law.
I completely agree with you as well. I'd much rather be free to choose an ISP that doesn't throttle their bandwidth, and if it ends up that there aren't any left, well then that's a business opportunity for me. But if the government outlaws it, they taken away a choice and forced something on someone (like they're always very good at doing).
Nope, I think you're alone. He's the only candidate running for president that raises genuine passion for their message. Passion means you will hear a lot about RP.
I absolutely agree with this. Why is this parent post a troll just because they disagree with the article? Are the moderators of /. really that insecure with their own position that they must silence those who disagree?
Also, the parent post is absolutely right. The government is the only absolute, all-powerful force in a land. They are the only ones who can fully coerce you into doing something against your will. A company could rough you up with some thugs, but ultimately they will be accountable for their actions. A government is not accountable, they get away with tyranny all the time.
I love Apple and their products (I have 2 Macs and an iPod), but this is ridiculous. I can't believe the patent system allows this. Who are these people in charge of granting patents who get suckered into thinking this is a unique, tangible product? Patents are for recuperating costs (among other uses), where are Apple's costs in developing this idea?
Would you be happier if all US military activities are subcontracted to Blackwater?
I support a case by case analysis of whether a function is better handled via private entities of public one. Prejudgement is nonoptimal, IMHO. I absolutely agree with you, but the one thing about a private company is that if there is corruption, they can be fired. The government (aka public interest) cannot be fired. The government can monitor and fire a company that becomes corrupt. If the government is corrupt at it's core, electing new officials won't necessarily take care of the problem.
...
I didn't talk about bearing the cost, I talked about having health insurance, which you clearly do.
By the way, I've paid for everything in my life since I was 16. What do I win?
There's two things I see here that are completely counter intuitive. You say you want to help the less fortunate, but clearly that's only when you want to feel good about yourself, not necessarily when they need your help the most. Secondly, there's enough trouble with informed consent in the medical industry today - but you seriously want people to start price shopping their procedures? Who truly understands the difference between an MRI, CAT, or PET scan and which situation necessitates which test?
You really think the government would do a better job? If you do, I have no idea what government you've been observing for your lifetime. The one I've been observing (and have ready about in the history books) always shows an incompetent and generally abusive power that never even does an *ok* job, they just plainly suck.That's clearly nonsense, because you oppose the most effective measure to help the less fortunate - universal health care. It sounds more like you want to make a profit, or feel better about yourself, rather than doing the most good.
Really, and you know me how well? And who's saying universal healthcare is the most effective measure to help the less fortunate? Who's going to help you when the bar is lowered for standard of healthcare than what you might be used to now because of medicine shortages, long lines to get somewhat basic procedures done, and when we no longer become the world's leading place to develop new drugs? Where's your imagination, why is it universal healthcare, or the current system we have now. We have a lot of bright people, we could solve this healthcare problem very rapidly if the government would get out of the way and stop meddling where they don't belong. Oh yeah, don't come crying to me when your choice in how you take care of yourself medically related is gone because the same government that seriously messed up the war in Iraq messed up your healthcare.Well, I've never been turned away from a hospital because I didn't have an insurance card or my AmEx handy. I also never hear about my fellow Canadians bankrupted because of a critical illness. None of my friends, family or co-workers have lost (or heavily mortgaged) their homes because they got cancer. (FWIW, I know personally no less than six people who have had various forms of cancer in the past decade)
Health care (the ability to be healthy) should be a fundamental right for everybody - not just those fortunate enough to be able to afford it.
This idea always sounds great on paper but in reality how many people donate their time, energy, efforts, money and skills to the less fortunate? How many doctors go through med school only to open clinics that give health care away to the poor and needy? Atleast in a socialized health care system they get paid for their efforts at walk-in clinics.
It always amazes me that the people so vehemently opposed to socialized medicine are nearly always the ones who have proper health insurance through work and don't need it anyways. Speaking of the definition of greed. Find me a hundred single parents who can barely afford to buy used clothing for their child(ren) who are strongly opposed to socialized medicine and there's a hero cookie in it for you.
So when charity doesn't work, because it's not really given a chance because the medical industry is so regulated, the answer is to turn it over even more to the government? Are you an elitist or what? Thank you very much, but we should all have the choice in what we do with our lives, not some overpaid politicians who really don't care about the public anymore (nor are any smarter than your average person). When charity doesn't work, we move to a coercive system? How does this make sense? You cannot rid the world of poverty and inequality. It's the nature of the universe. Believe in evolution - it's completely about inequality. It's a fact of life. But that won't stop me from helping the less fortunate and enriching my life and the lives of others in the process.Oh, and I pay 100% for my own health insurance. I'm a contractor, so I pick up the tab, completely. I've paid for most of my own things since I was 16. Don't talk to me about not knowing what it's like to bear the cost. Life isn't fair, goods and services are scarce, nothing balances these inequalities better than a truly free market. I'm not talking about socialism, fascism or even corporatism. I'm talking about the ability to openly trade and set prices so the citizen has full knowledge of price and differences in services. And when, not until then, a person's rights have been violated, may the government step in a bring justice to the situation (if they don't go and corrupt the situation first that is).
No kidding. Couldn't say it any more clearly. Keep the government out of our lives. Why do people think governments always have their best interest in mind? How are they any less corrupt than anybody else? AND, when a government is corrupt, there's nothing we can do about it. When private citizens or companies are corrupt, people go to jail.
That is not the definition of greedy. The definition is, having an excess of or a desire for more. Of course that's purely subjective too. Communism and other isms take from people and do not respect private property lines "to help improve people's lives and society as a whole." Hmm, that doesn't improve anything. It only pisses people off and creates a war because they're rights are being violated. Whereas, in a country like we have in the U.S., people can mostly volunteer their resources to help someone out, to better society as a whole, and feel really fulfilled about the act. Better society as a whole should never, ever be coerced. This is why, IMO, things like universal healthcare are evil. They remove choice, they remove people's chance to be warm and loving to those less fortunate, and it alienates those who adversely react to this robbing from those who have to give to those who might not have right now. (Side note, I'm not saying our current healthcare setup is great, insurance companies are pretty evil as well. But they were founded by our government once upon a time as well. I guess it just shows, don't send a government to do what citizens can do much better by themselves).
"Gutsy Gibbon" sounds like one of those bizarre sex acts they talk about on South Park, like the Hot Carl or Dirty Sanchez or whatever. Now they have "Hardon Heron", which sounds really bizarre as well.
Frankly, I give up. I'm not using a distro which has people thinking I'm some kind of freak. It's bad enough that using teh lunix already makes people think you are a closet serial killer. Ok, I don't know who you hang around with, but nobody that I do thinks of me as a serial killer or freak. Plus, you could refer to each release by their more formal names, Ubuntu 7.10. The other names are akin to code names (to the best of my knowledge). And finally, how insecure are you that you won't use an amazing and free product because people think you're a freak based on the name alone? I mean wow, get a life!
Its for the Children, some progressives wont be happy until we are all servants of the state...
hehe, you're absolutely right.Any government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to steal everything you have.
Not quite, maybe in this limited instance. But why is it that the default is taxation unless a bill is passed to ban taxation for some time period? Since when did the government gain the right to claim our money by default? It is our money and it is the government's privilege to be able to tax us, not the other way around.
And while we're on the subject of taxes, I still say that the income tax is unconstitutional. Sure they got an amendment passed, but they had to con us to do it. Let's hear it for the Fair Tax!
Microsoft may never have forced people to use windows at gun-point but their position in the market is now so dominant that most consumers are 'forced' to use it. Are they really forced? Why did you put force in quotes then? If they're truly not forced, you should be able to state that as fact and not have to do a play on the word. Also, back up your statement saying most right wing economists know that once a monopoly has developed the market is no longer free. By the definition of the word, only a government has a real monopoly. I chose not to use Windows about 10 years ago now and am not forced to use it.
But Dell (and others) aren't selling as many Linux boxes as they're selling Windows boxes. Doesn't that mean that there's less market for desktop Linux?
Yes, for now. But the market for alternatives to Windows will never be given a chance unless competition regulators force that market to be open and free to competition. The best and fastest way to do this is through unbundling Windows from PCs. If consumers still want Windows, they'll be free to elect to acquire it at the time they purchase their PC, but this should be through conscious decision-making, not through forced bundling.
This is crap. What a contradiction of terms. Force can never be aligned with freedom. Force is always someone ramming their opinion of what should happen down someone else's throat. Windows, though I hate it as an OS as much as the next Linux fan, came to power through a free market. People chose it and continue to choose it because it's what they know. We know that it's not the best option out there, but there's no wrong doing. Microsoft never forced people to use Windows at gun-point, but that's what this article is espousing for "freedom." It's saying, through the force of the government, and thus gun-point, to "free" the market up. No, won't work and shouldn't happen. Yes it's tough competing against Windows, but it can be done. It's our responsibility as those enlightened to stop supporting Windows and help those sick of Windows to try out Linux. Keep the crappy government out of this, they only make things worse because of their incompetence.
17% extra is $105 a year more than I currently pay. I'd rather be free to spend that (or save) $100 as I see fit, not as some politicians out of touch with reality see fit.
That is not a monopoly. There is nothing stopping anybody from creating a brand new business generating ads like Doubleclick. Only governments and thugs get in the way of new business/innovation from occurring (yes I'm referring to the EU Commision).
And curiously, there are Americans who go to Europe to get the latest experimental procedure, because if they waited for FDA to approve phase 1 trials, let alone launch, they would be long dead before they got the treatment they need.
Yes, but you're not proving socialist medicine's merits with your rebuttal. You're proving more freedom once again. The FDA is another form of government control and a free or more free medical system wouldn't have this problem and would also have much lower medical costs (like before the 1970s and the government advent of PPOs and HMOs and socialized insurance). Health insurance is a form of socialized medicine first launched by the government, not the private medical industry.
You're right on. I just finished emailing them complaining. I do not get cable either precisely because I can get these shows on iTunes for a lot less money and ala cart. I won't be watching BSG until I can get it via iTunes again or via some other Internet distribution method (and if they choose to go this route, they'd better not tie it to a Windows-only DRM crappy technology).
Shouldn't consumers have the right to know how the products they`ve bought work?
Even if each individual consumer doesnt know what to do with this information, having the information out there means that *some* people will work out cool new things to do with it. Look what people have made the C64 do compared to what it was originally intended to do. The problem isn't having this available, I'm all for that. The problem is forcing vendors to do this! Vendors have a right to decide to keep what they made, what is theirs, secret...as much as you don't like that. It's called freedom...they don't have to sell you anything. That's on the law side of things at least. Personally, I'd love for vendors to release detailed specs about their cards for driver-writers, but this is their decision.