Those patients have rights! They should not be stripped searched because they are receiving treatment for a terminal illness. They should not have to carry papers to prove to the police that they are not terrorists. And they should not be barred from using public transportation.
And people should not be blowing up buildings, but they do. And we have to deal with the world as it is, not as it *should* be.
And others of us are capable of combining mathematical knowledge with an understanding of common language (bilingual so to speak)...but apparently he only speaks math.
So should authors/publishers of history and fact books (such as encyclopedias) have to ask permission of the folks they are writing about? Or, more specifically, exactly what CAN someone disclose without some official permission?
How do you define "private information"? In my mind, if information is, in fact, private, then no one else knows about it. If on the other hand, people (or someone) knows something about you, then by definition it is NOT private.
"Price fixing" has got to be the biggest myth out there. There is no conspiracy. All prices are fixed, by their very nature. I choose a price, you decide wether to pay it or not. Then I may choose another price...rinse and repeat.
All but the most ideologically radical economists acknowledge that a free market is a good thing but that free markets aren't really that great at keeping free markets free.
Spend some time with a few economists. The political cronies you see on TV don't count. Virtually any economist worth his salt will tell you monopolies (in a truly free market) are very difficult to either create or maintain, and that organizations suchs as unions, cartels (e.g. OPEC) don't remain cohesive very consistantly.
"And if I didn't like what the rest of my group of friends was going to eat for dinner (ie. Mexican food), I'd stay out of the trip"
Which is essentially what I'm trying to do. However, to my knowledge, there is no other option...and still remain a part of civilization.
I had to look up OHIP....essentially it looks like government run (meaning paid for by the sweat of others) health care. Basically, some people have to do without things they might otherwise have, so that that others can get OHIP (as is the case with any type of government hand-out).
"I don't know why you seem to think that "the common good" is a coercive arrangement."
When the government (typically representing only a portion of the population) dictates what is "the common good", that's where I have problems. It seems a little dishonest on your part to refer to "the common good" as things that help YOU PERSONALLY the most. I mean, at least be honest enough to say "I don't know wether this type of government/society is the best or not, but it seems to help me the most."
I'm not suggesting that people can do without others (perhaps some can, but I prefer not to). What I am suggesting is that people get to be themselves. What I am suggesting is that a bunch of beauracrats in DC (or Ontario) don't have the wisdom to know what the common good is, and when they think they do, usually fail miserably in execution anyway.
And really, what is really the difference between Uncle Sam comming to my door, demanding 2 more percent of my paycheck, and the mafia coming to my door demanding 2 more percent of my paycheck? In either case, I'm being threated with potential bodily harm if I don't pay.
And what's the differnce if 10 lazy people who just couldn't keep there pants on (and now have 10 kids) all break into my house and take my money, or if they elect a politician who will just deduct it directly from my paycheck before I even get a chance to touch it? There is no effective difference. None.
"I guarantee you get a lot more return for your money from the government (which isn't hell-bent on taking off a maximal ROI from every taxpayer dollar it collects) than you do from a corporation"
The primary difference is choice. I don't have to pay Nintendo if I value what they are selling at less than what they charge. However, if I disagree with the 51% on how (for example) schools should be run, I'm basically screwed. I either have to send my kids to a school I'm paying for by force, or arrange for another school (such as home-school or private school), in which case I'm still being charged for the service I'm not using.
I suppose the main way to describe the difference between you and I, in the shortest terms would be:
You prefer to be part of the collective. Pay your taxes, take what you are given, ruled by the majority, etc. You don't mind only having a say on the matter every 4 or 6 years. You would rather see everyone brought down to average, than see any one person excel more than others. You believe 51% of the population should rule 100% of the time.
I prefer to be an individual. I realize that not everyone thinks like I do, so rather than the 51% ruling the 49%, society should reflect the combination of flavors. Instead of 100% having to wear blue (because that's what the 51% agrees and voted as the best color), 51% should wear blue, while everyone else wears what they want. Then, society reflects the collection of indivuals, rather than each individual having to reflect the collective of society.
I even read your "I like paying taxes" diatribe. I find it astounding that so many people (as you do in this piece) can summarize what they feel as being the "best way", and then extrapolate that it must be best for everyone. I don't understand how that doesn't sound as idiotic to you as it does to me (honestly, I wish I could understand that). Imagine that you hated Mexican food, but 10 of us voted, decided that Mexican food was the best, and now you are forced to eat Mexican food (when you would rather have almost anything else...).
Allow me to propose a question, if two guys come in your house and take your television, does the fact that they can out-vote you 2-1 justify that action?
When you can't post a rational argument, flame as an anynymous coward.
I'm an advocate for freedom, that's it. There are a lot of issues surrounding this particular article, especially where the involvement of the government is concerned. However, in regard to what some people ignorantly call "slave labor" in general, it's not slavery if it's voluntary.
"trying to help out" implies intent. There may be some corporations who intend to help out, and there are undoubtedly others who just want the lowest productions costs possible...
Whatever the intent, it's a moot point. The point is that the workers are helped. The standard of living increases. And they are free-thinking humans who should be allowed to make thier own decisions without having to worry about all-knowing western do-gooders (or an oppressive government).
I don't necessarily disagree with most of your post, but what you are talking about is "how to run a business."
The focus of my post was to speak to those who think "slave wages" should be against the law, effectively removing that option for those people. What you are talking about has more to do with building relationships on an individual level (between employer and employee). While I think that what you are saying is frequently correct, I will leave it to the people who run their own business to decide how best to do it. If what you are saying is true for a particular business (say, manufacturers of widgets), then eventually business will start to form in that manner, and other businesses will follow suit...it just takes time.
It can't be slave labor when people do it willingly. Assume some hero liberal had the power to remove these "slave" driven corporations. Do you think those people who have now lost thier jobs would really be better off? If so, why don't they just quit, if it would indeed make them better off? Here's a thought. Maybe, just maybe, those people know what is best for themselves. I know it's hard to imagine for a "westerner" that people in other countries actually have the ability to think and make rational decisions...
People that willingly enter into contracts can't be called slaves....it's an insult to people who actually were/are slaves.
If you were to remove these so-called "sweatshops", do you really think life would suddenly improve for those working there? Don't you think that those people might actually know what is good for themselves better than you do? I know it's hard to imagine...but try. If someone takes a job making what we consider to be very low, then it must be better than the alternative (for that person)...else they wouldn't have taken the job.
However, this does not translate into the right to buy a law to suit their needs.
The one thing I don't understand about this....people frequently get upset at the idea of a company "buying a law", or some such, but people much less often get upset at the fact that the option to buy the law was available.
That is, remove the power of the people selling the laws, and the power of the poeple buying the laws goes away as a result. However, if you only remove the power of the people buying the laws, other people will move in to buy the laws and nothing has really changed...
Only if he is drawing welfare...or some other such thievery of the employed.
In regard to your "example", I particularly like your inability to demonstrate why a "law to prevent paypal from sucking" is such a necessity to every single person in the country that it should be made LAW.
BTW it's worth noting, if the statement hadn't started with "all you liberals", I wouldn't have responded.
I'd say it's generally true that, more so than the conservatives, liberals tend to make laws to protect people from themselves. On the other hand, conservatives tend to make laws to punish what is outside their consideration of "proper behavior."
In the context of this particular story, making a comment about the "left side" (in regard to the issue about them protecting people from themselves), seems appropriate.
I would say there is no single pie. Capitalism (in it's truest form, rather than the socialist/fascist/capitalist-we-all-want-to-believ e-is-capitalism that we have now) is simply the removal of constraints that prevent people from creating new pie for themselves, which would invariably to some degree spill over onto other people's pie plates.
However, we have certainly gotten to the point where most people feel entitled to a slice of someone else's pie, or feel entitled to keeping everyone else from getting pie because it limits the ease with which they could make more pie. That's what patents are really about.
People have invented and innovated for thousands of years and will continue to do so with or without patents.
"We had a whole beta process for Service Pack 1 where we sought and received feedback from industry and government," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler. "It's unfortunate, by hardly surprising, that this group, which is backed by our competitors, chose to play politics rather than participate in the process."
If we were to do away with the patent system, and invalidate all patents, there would be no economy as there would be little incentive for doing ANYTHING.
Thousands of years of human innovation would seem to counter this hypothesis...
The motivations for innovation exist independent of patents. Patents change the economy by potentially preventing the most capable producer of entering the market without paying homage to the patentee, preventing further innovation by disallowing someone to sell patented items with some improvement, and generally creating a monopoly-like economy for the patented idea, along with potentially diminished quality and higher prices.
In addition, in terms of societal costs/benefits, it prevents the person most capable of producing a left-handed widget from making that widget at a lower cost than you may be able to deliver it for.
Also there is the issue of what can be owned. Libertarian thought is that protection of real property should supercede protection of intangible property. The patent is an idea, it's intangible. The pile of left-handed widget parts, even though I may not have know I could put them together in a fashion to make a left-handed widget, is tangible property. If I am disallowed from putting tangible things, which I own, together in a certain fashion, and trading those new items (left-handed widgets) to someone else (for money, or anything else) because of your patent, then your intangible property protection has superceded my tangible property.
The logic is that one of the fundamental principles of ownership is the ability to manage, (including trade) the owned property. If I am not allowed to manage and/or trade that thing I own, then my ownership/property right has been violated.
Re:Casino's are the one's who are organized crooks
on
MIT vs. Las Vegas
·
· Score: 1
It means you shouldn't HAVE to "serve blacks, jews, queers, or irish" at your restaurant. Frankly, if I were a restaraunt owner, and you were a restaurant owner across the street, I would hope that you would refuse service to everyone.
Does that mean it's ok (in some moral/ethical sense) to refuse service to groups of people like that? No, but you should certainly be free to be an asshole if you want...
Re:Casino's are the one's who are organized crooks
on
MIT vs. Las Vegas
·
· Score: 1
"The rulings by courts that Casino's can exclude individuals for any reason are unconstitutional"
The constitution was originally supposed to be a document outlining what the government can't do.
Anyone should be able to opt-out of doing business, or interacting, with anyone else....period.
If no-one was required to report their earnings, how would we even know if a crime had been committed?
It wouldn't be a crime (as in against humanity), it would be a break of contractual obligations. An inteligent investor wouldn't invest in whatever came along, he would investigate, and then only invest after making contractual agreements with the target of the investment. That allows individuals the freedom to invest in environments they deem to maximize the potential for their money, while providing for certain legal gaurantees, in which a person who breaks the agreement would be subject to a lawsuit for breach of contract.
This type of system would easily be more efficient than the burden of government, which can't possibly efficiently apply to every conceivable business situation, we have now.
Slashdot Mirror
Those patients have rights! They should not be stripped searched because they are receiving treatment for a terminal illness. They should not have to carry papers to prove to the police that they are not terrorists. And they should not be barred from using public transportation.
And people should not be blowing up buildings, but they do. And we have to deal with the world as it is, not as it *should* be.
And others of us are capable of combining mathematical knowledge with an understanding of common language (bilingual so to speak)...but apparently he only speaks math.
So should authors/publishers of history and fact books (such as encyclopedias) have to ask permission of the folks they are writing about? Or, more specifically, exactly what CAN someone disclose without some official permission?
How do you define "private information"? In my mind, if information is, in fact, private, then no one else knows about it. If on the other hand, people (or someone) knows something about you, then by definition it is NOT private.
"Price fixing" has got to be the biggest myth out there. There is no conspiracy. All prices are fixed, by their very nature. I choose a price, you decide wether to pay it or not. Then I may choose another price...rinse and repeat.
It certainly has something to do with the (absurd) idea that people are "held hostage"...
All but the most ideologically radical economists acknowledge that a free market is a good thing but that free markets aren't really that great at keeping free markets free.
Spend some time with a few economists. The political cronies you see on TV don't count. Virtually any economist worth his salt will tell you monopolies (in a truly free market) are very difficult to either create or maintain, and that organizations suchs as unions, cartels (e.g. OPEC) don't remain cohesive very consistantly.
"And if I didn't like what the rest of my group of friends was going to eat for dinner (ie. Mexican food), I'd stay out of the trip"
Which is essentially what I'm trying to do. However, to my knowledge, there is no other option...and still remain a part of civilization.
I had to look up OHIP....essentially it looks like government run (meaning paid for by the sweat of others) health care. Basically, some people have to do without things they might otherwise have, so that that others can get OHIP (as is the case with any type of government hand-out).
"I don't know why you seem to think that "the common good" is a coercive arrangement."
When the government (typically representing only a portion of the population) dictates what is "the common good", that's where I have problems. It seems a little dishonest on your part to refer to "the common good" as things that help YOU PERSONALLY the most. I mean, at least be honest enough to say "I don't know wether this type of government/society is the best or not, but it seems to help me the most."
I'm not suggesting that people can do without others (perhaps some can, but I prefer not to). What I am suggesting is that people get to be themselves. What I am suggesting is that a bunch of beauracrats in DC (or Ontario) don't have the wisdom to know what the common good is, and when they think they do, usually fail miserably in execution anyway.
And really, what is really the difference between Uncle Sam comming to my door, demanding 2 more percent of my paycheck, and the mafia coming to my door demanding 2 more percent of my paycheck? In either case, I'm being threated with potential bodily harm if I don't pay.
And what's the differnce if 10 lazy people who just couldn't keep there pants on (and now have 10 kids) all break into my house and take my money, or if they elect a politician who will just deduct it directly from my paycheck before I even get a chance to touch it? There is no effective difference. None.
"I guarantee you get a lot more return for your money from the government (which isn't hell-bent on taking off a maximal ROI from every taxpayer dollar it collects) than you do from a corporation"
The primary difference is choice. I don't have to pay Nintendo if I value what they are selling at less than what they charge. However, if I disagree with the 51% on how (for example) schools should be run, I'm basically screwed. I either have to send my kids to a school I'm paying for by force, or arrange for another school (such as home-school or private school), in which case I'm still being charged for the service I'm not using.
I suppose the main way to describe the difference between you and I, in the shortest terms would be:
You prefer to be part of the collective. Pay your taxes, take what you are given, ruled by the majority, etc. You don't mind only having a say on the matter every 4 or 6 years. You would rather see everyone brought down to average, than see any one person excel more than others. You believe 51% of the population should rule 100% of the time.
I prefer to be an individual. I realize that not everyone thinks like I do, so rather than the 51% ruling the 49%, society should reflect the combination of flavors. Instead of 100% having to wear blue (because that's what the 51% agrees and voted as the best color), 51% should wear blue, while everyone else wears what they want. Then, society reflects the collection of indivuals, rather than each individual having to reflect the collective of society.
I even read your "I like paying taxes" diatribe. I find it astounding that so many people (as you do in this piece) can summarize what they feel as being the "best way", and then extrapolate that it must be best for everyone. I don't understand how that doesn't sound as idiotic to you as it does to me (honestly, I wish I could understand that). Imagine that you hated Mexican food, but 10 of us voted, decided that Mexican food was the best, and now you are forced to eat Mexican food (when you would rather have almost anything else...).
Allow me to propose a question, if two guys come in your house and take your television, does the fact that they can out-vote you 2-1 justify that action?
When you can't post a rational argument, flame as an anynymous coward.
I'm an advocate for freedom, that's it. There are a lot of issues surrounding this particular article, especially where the involvement of the government is concerned. However, in regard to what some people ignorantly call "slave labor" in general, it's not slavery if it's voluntary.
"trying to help out" implies intent. There may be some corporations who intend to help out, and there are undoubtedly others who just want the lowest productions costs possible...
Whatever the intent, it's a moot point. The point is that the workers are helped. The standard of living increases. And they are free-thinking humans who should be allowed to make thier own decisions without having to worry about all-knowing western do-gooders (or an oppressive government).
I don't necessarily disagree with most of your post, but what you are talking about is "how to run a business."
The focus of my post was to speak to those who think "slave wages" should be against the law, effectively removing that option for those people. What you are talking about has more to do with building relationships on an individual level (between employer and employee). While I think that what you are saying is frequently correct, I will leave it to the people who run their own business to decide how best to do it. If what you are saying is true for a particular business (say, manufacturers of widgets), then eventually business will start to form in that manner, and other businesses will follow suit...it just takes time.
It can't be slave labor when people do it willingly. Assume some hero liberal had the power to remove these "slave" driven corporations. Do you think those people who have now lost thier jobs would really be better off? If so, why don't they just quit, if it would indeed make them better off? Here's a thought. Maybe, just maybe, those people know what is best for themselves. I know it's hard to imagine for a "westerner" that people in other countries actually have the ability to think and make rational decisions...
People that willingly enter into contracts can't be called slaves....it's an insult to people who actually were/are slaves.
If you were to remove these so-called "sweatshops", do you really think life would suddenly improve for those working there? Don't you think that those people might actually know what is good for themselves better than you do? I know it's hard to imagine...but try. If someone takes a job making what we consider to be very low, then it must be better than the alternative (for that person)...else they wouldn't have taken the job.
However, this does not translate into the right to buy a law to suit their needs.
The one thing I don't understand about this....people frequently get upset at the idea of a company "buying a law", or some such, but people much less often get upset at the fact that the option to buy the law was available.
That is, remove the power of the people selling the laws, and the power of the poeple buying the laws goes away as a result. However, if you only remove the power of the people buying the laws, other people will move in to buy the laws and nothing has really changed...
"If they're going to go so far as to threaten the government of an entire country "
Erm...how does refusing to sell a video game console "threaten the government of an entire country"?
Are they really that important?
"That's an ironic comment considering your sig."
Only if he is drawing welfare...or some other such thievery of the employed.
In regard to your "example", I particularly like your inability to demonstrate why a "law to prevent paypal from sucking" is such a necessity to every single person in the country that it should be made LAW.
BTW it's worth noting, if the statement hadn't started with "all you liberals", I wouldn't have responded.
I'd say it's generally true that, more so than the conservatives, liberals tend to make laws to protect people from themselves. On the other hand, conservatives tend to make laws to punish what is outside their consideration of "proper behavior."
In the context of this particular story, making a comment about the "left side" (in regard to the issue about them protecting people from themselves), seems appropriate.
Who else gets these doors kicked open for them?
Who else get's their rehad drug through everyones' home at 6:00 and 10:00?
I would say there is no single pie. Capitalism (in it's truest form, rather than the socialist/fascist/capitalist-we-all-want-to-believ e-is-capitalism that we have now) is simply the removal of constraints that prevent people from creating new pie for themselves, which would invariably to some degree spill over onto other people's pie plates.
However, we have certainly gotten to the point where most people feel entitled to a slice of someone else's pie, or feel entitled to keeping everyone else from getting pie because it limits the ease with which they could make more pie. That's what patents are really about.
People have invented and innovated for thousands of years and will continue to do so with or without patents.
"We had a whole beta process for Service Pack 1 where we sought and received feedback from industry and government," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler. "It's unfortunate, by hardly surprising, that this group, which is backed by our competitors, chose to play politics rather than participate in the process."
Why weren't they involved in the beta process...?
If we were to do away with the patent system, and invalidate all patents, there would be no economy as there would be little incentive for doing ANYTHING.
Thousands of years of human innovation would seem to counter this hypothesis...
The motivations for innovation exist independent of patents. Patents change the economy by potentially preventing the most capable producer of entering the market without paying homage to the patentee, preventing further innovation by disallowing someone to sell patented items with some improvement, and generally creating a monopoly-like economy for the patented idea, along with potentially diminished quality and higher prices.
In addition, in terms of societal costs/benefits, it prevents the person most capable of producing a left-handed widget from making that widget at a lower cost than you may be able to deliver it for.
Also there is the issue of what can be owned. Libertarian thought is that protection of real property should supercede protection of intangible property. The patent is an idea, it's intangible. The pile of left-handed widget parts, even though I may not have know I could put them together in a fashion to make a left-handed widget, is tangible property. If I am disallowed from putting tangible things, which I own, together in a certain fashion, and trading those new items (left-handed widgets) to someone else (for money, or anything else) because of your patent, then your intangible property protection has superceded my tangible property.
The logic is that one of the fundamental principles of ownership is the ability to manage, (including trade) the owned property. If I am not allowed to manage and/or trade that thing I own, then my ownership/property right has been violated.
It means you shouldn't HAVE to "serve blacks, jews, queers, or irish" at your restaurant. Frankly, if I were a restaraunt owner, and you were a restaurant owner across the street, I would hope that you would refuse service to everyone.
Does that mean it's ok (in some moral/ethical sense) to refuse service to groups of people like that? No, but you should certainly be free to be an asshole if you want...
"The rulings by courts that Casino's can exclude individuals for any reason are unconstitutional"
The constitution was originally supposed to be a document outlining what the government can't do.
Anyone should be able to opt-out of doing business, or interacting, with anyone else....period.
"We" don't always agree with ourselves.
If no-one was required to report their earnings, how would we even know if a crime had been committed?
It wouldn't be a crime (as in against humanity), it would be a break of contractual obligations. An inteligent investor wouldn't invest in whatever came along, he would investigate, and then only invest after making contractual agreements with the target of the investment. That allows individuals the freedom to invest in environments they deem to maximize the potential for their money, while providing for certain legal gaurantees, in which a person who breaks the agreement would be subject to a lawsuit for breach of contract.
This type of system would easily be more efficient than the burden of government, which can't possibly efficiently apply to every conceivable business situation, we have now.