You can hardly blame a lobbying group for succeeding. They can lobby for anything they want, but government holds the key. The problem is not the act of lobbying per say -- the problem is that it actually works. The lobbying group may offer the bribe, but it only works if government accepts the bribe. Government is the root of the problem.
Reduce the size of the pie, and the incentive to bribe government will disappear. Lobbying groups only attempt to bribe government because they know it works.
I'm claiming that many "businessmen" are far less ethical than people in the mafia.
Many? Way to backtrack. What you said was:
business will do anything at all to make more money, with no ethical limits whatsoever.
Seems pretty clear to me you tried to blanket your statement on all possible instances of business.
And now you're trying to tell me the're something wrong with dealing in alcohol?
Hell no, what's wrong is prohibition itself. My point was that the mafia was empowered by the illegal drug trade (i.e. alcohol) which you claim it was "too ethical" to engage in.
Because business will do anything at all to make more money, with no ethical limits whatsoever.
Huh? Which business? Are you actually trying to claim that voluntary trade is inherently evil?
The mafia actually has other moral considerations in their dealings; for instance, they don't like to get involved in drugs because it's harmful to children
Come on, you must be aware that the mafia's roots are in the black market. For christ's sake, alcohol prohibition is what gave birth to the mafia!
Whereas if it were legal, businessmen like Marsh and McBride would have no trouble selling children into slavery.
There's a reason why the "successfull businessmen" of the 1880s-1920s were called Robber Barrons.
The very article you referenced says:
The term Robber Baron was used to describe a (usually) 19th century American businessman who used unscrupulous tactics on the stock market to amass a huge personal fortune at the cost of others.
What exactly led you to equate "businessmen who used unscrupulous tactics" with "all successful businessmen"? Again, give me a break.
Business has always been more profitable and less ethical than the Mafia.
More profitable, sure. Less ethical? Give me a break. Are you actually claiming that a business operating by the principle of voluntary association (a law-abiding one) is less ethical than a business operating by the principle of force (the mafia)? How is that logically possible?
The simple fact that government is expanding is what encourages civil lawsuits. As a rule of thumb, the bigger the government, the less personal responsibility. (The process of increasing government necessarily decreases personal liberty, and hence personal responsibility.)
Now think back to that guy who sues his neighbor for slipping on the wet driveway. Which society is likely to foster such absurd lawsuits, the one where people must take responsibility for their own actions, or the one where people can shrug off that responsibility on everyone else?
I'm disturbed by the way that culture has been spreading to the UK over the past few years.
Has the UK government been expanding in scope? Are there more laws today, or less? Does government hold more power over the people today, or less?
We've all heard about the guy who sues his neighbor for slipping on a wet driveway. I hope I don't have to point out the sole reason why he succeeded: because government made it so.
you're not OK with Americans attempting to put an end to that slaughter?
Not if it means killing innocents. With regard to the current war, the US government has slaughtered thousands of innocent Iraqis (including children). Thousands dead is no accident. The US government may be the one with the "noble cause", but that doesn't grant them the right to murder.
If you have trouble swallowing this, simply imagine yourself in the position of the innocent Iraqi. Really, try it -- I think you'll quickly reconsider your feelings on "collateral damage".
But why are there so many lawyers in the US? Does it have something to do with culture? Hardly.
The lawyers are here because the law is overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable. In other words, the root of the problem is government. As long as the law is exploitable, there will be a demand to exploit the law. The lawyers are only here to supply the demand.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and the US government's solution is to keep producing more and more pie (to continuously expand the scope of government). This is a classic example of government creating problems of which the "solution" requires (guess what) more government. The real solution, of course, is to limit the size of the pie.
A citizen of USA will cross the ocean to fight for democracy
Don't even go there. There are millions of US citizens who oppose the US government's foreign policy of aggressive intervention.
What you meant to say was "the US government will cross the ocean to fight". (I won't even say "for democracy", because as we all know, that's only one side of the story.)
Don't fall into the "us vs. them" mindset which is commonly propagated by governments (including the US government). There is no "us", and there is no "them" -- only unique individuals, each with unique opinions.
The frequency of unjust lawsuits is roughly proportional to the amount of unjust laws. People attempt to exploit government because they know government is exploitable.
The amount of unjust laws is roughly proportional to the size of government. The more complex/ambiguous the law, the more potential for exploitation.
The solution is to reduce the size of government. If government wasn't so deeply entangled in business, there wouldn't be much for business to exploit.
That's classic. Sort of an automated version of my usual routine:
1. "Hello? Yes, it is... OK... Uh huh..." (Just a few words of encouragement and they're in high gear.)
2. Put down phone, and go about business. (But don't hangup.)
I figure the only way to really penalize them for wasting my time is to waste THEIR time, and the best possible way to do that is to make them work for nothing. The determined ones will actually last for upwards of 10 minutes before they realize they've been scammed!
It is essentially a declaration that the terrorists won.
Well, it is really a declaration that government has won. The PATRIOT act is everything they've dreamed of -- more power, more revenue, more control, more "responsibilities" -- those in power stand to profit now more than ever.
The saying applies to all of government, not just the "war on terrorism". Government is pure force -- everything government does or possibly could do is rooted in force. (Government holds the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end -- this is what defines government and seperates it from everyone else.)
Government's "tool" is force, and indeed, force is the only tool they have. (If government had the tool of voluntary association, it wouldn't be government. It would be private enterprise.)
Let's be realistic. Yes, the "people" (the majority) choose who obtains power (in some cases, to some extent), but this does not change the fact that individuals are driven by self interest. Government is nothing but a collection of individuals. Therefore government is driven by self interest, regardless of how power was obtained.
Similiarly, as a consumer in the market, you vote with your wallet. Provided no government interference and no foul play, a successful businesses is one that has been "voted" into success by the consumers. The "will of the majority" theory can be applied here too, but of course, the consumers have no direct control over what happens in the board meeting -- the owners make the rules, not the consumers.
Would you blame the consumers for Enron's criminal behavior? Of course not -- the Enron executives should be responsible for their own actions, just like government should be responsible for its own actions.
Realistically, the will of the majority ends at the election polls. You can argue that the majority was willing to elect a certain politician, but in no way does this prove that the majority supports what the politician does after obtaining power.
Here's an honest question: If you still believe that government is truly a representation of the people's will, then is it possible for government to make mistakes? (Is it incorrect to hold government accountable for its actions?)
Absolutely, they should provide full compensation for everybody who is affected. Shuting down a business (or detaining an individual) is a penalty. Under no circumstances should a law-abiding business (or individual) be penalized for the actions of somebody else. If the court finds no other way to solve the case than by penalizing innocents, then at least they should be compensated for the time, effort, and lost business.
The US is in Afghanistan and Iraq, why don't they set up schools to teach the current generation of kids there not to hate, and why terrorism is bad?
I'm sure you have good intentions, but the problem (hatred, resent, terrorism) cannot be solved by rewarding the US government with more power, more revenue, more "responsibilities", and more incentive to continue their misguided policies of aggressive foreign intervention (Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg).
In order to solve the problem, the US government must stop waging perpetual wars around the world, killing innocent civilians and repeatedly, endlessly claiming "collateral damage" for something that can never be replaced (human lives). There is no alternative solution.
these laws are no ones fault but our own. We are really a democracy. All of us who live in the US are responsible for our country's actions and decisions.
It's amazing that people still believe that majority rule is the silver bullet, and may be used to legitimize aggression (the initiation of force). As if government is always legitimate as long as somewhere, somehow, it was voted upon.
The truth is that majority rule is an enemy of liberty, because majority rule can't be achieved without force. Force, or involuntary association, is the logical opposite of liberty, or voluntary association. Moreover, it is inevitable that majority rule will be abused in order to benefit special interests. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, because they see everyone else getting a piece of the pie. Government's solution is not to limit the size of the pie, of course. Government's solution is to bake more pie. (Those in power achieve profit roughly proportional to the size of government.)
Tyranny of the majority is a very real threat. Considering the incredible rate of expansion of the US government over the past century (in scope, power, and expense), there is no question that we're headed down that road.
How the heck did the yellow star post get marked as offtopic?
There is a particularly pathetic breed of troll on Slashdot: the moderation troll. Instead of actually debating the issue, the moderation troll attempts to manipulate a post's moderation points in his favor. Because the moderation troll doesn't posess the capacity to debate on an intelligent level, he must resort to this pathetic solution. It's his only source of expression.
The moderation troll seems to lust for power, the power to suppress a person's words so that others won't have the opportunity to consider those words. It gives him a feeling of superiority. Sad, but true.
On the upside, the moderation troll will never win -- he doesn't realize he is fighting an uphill battle. For every moderation troll, there are hundreds of responsible moderators.
Exactly. This only serves to make government a little bit more expensive, a little bit more wasteful, and a little bit more ubiquitous. Of course, when your revenue is simply taken by force, waste is profit.
(Consider the simple business model of government: you confiscate wealth from some people, you distribute some of it to other people, and you keep the rest for yourself.)
Slashdot Mirror
Reduce the size of the pie, and the incentive to bribe government will disappear. Lobbying groups only attempt to bribe government because they know it works.
With only 1 legitimate message every few weeks, it can't be that much of a hassle to switch. Try fastmail.fm if you need a no-bullshit solution.
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are the legislators.
-- P.J. O'Rourke
Many? Way to backtrack. What you said was:
business will do anything at all to make more money, with no ethical limits whatsoever.
Seems pretty clear to me you tried to blanket your statement on all possible instances of business.
And now you're trying to tell me the're something wrong with dealing in alcohol?
Hell no, what's wrong is prohibition itself. My point was that the mafia was empowered by the illegal drug trade (i.e. alcohol) which you claim it was "too ethical" to engage in.
Because business will do anything at all to make more money, with no ethical limits whatsoever.
Huh? Which business? Are you actually trying to claim that voluntary trade is inherently evil?
The mafia actually has other moral considerations in their dealings; for instance, they don't like to get involved in drugs because it's harmful to children
Come on, you must be aware that the mafia's roots are in the black market. For christ's sake, alcohol prohibition is what gave birth to the mafia!
Whereas if it were legal, businessmen like Marsh and McBride would have no trouble selling children into slavery.
Thank you, Miss Cleo.
There's a reason why the "successfull businessmen" of the 1880s-1920s were called Robber Barrons.
The very article you referenced says:
The term Robber Baron was used to describe a (usually) 19th century American businessman who used unscrupulous tactics on the stock market to amass a huge personal fortune at the cost of others.
What exactly led you to equate "businessmen who used unscrupulous tactics" with "all successful businessmen"? Again, give me a break.
More profitable, sure. Less ethical? Give me a break. Are you actually claiming that a business operating by the principle of voluntary association (a law-abiding one) is less ethical than a business operating by the principle of force (the mafia)? How is that logically possible?
The simple fact that government is expanding is what encourages civil lawsuits. As a rule of thumb, the bigger the government, the less personal responsibility. (The process of increasing government necessarily decreases personal liberty, and hence personal responsibility.)
Now think back to that guy who sues his neighbor for slipping on the wet driveway. Which society is likely to foster such absurd lawsuits, the one where people must take responsibility for their own actions, or the one where people can shrug off that responsibility on everyone else?
Has the UK government been expanding in scope? Are there more laws today, or less? Does government hold more power over the people today, or less?
We've all heard about the guy who sues his neighbor for slipping on a wet driveway. I hope I don't have to point out the sole reason why he succeeded: because government made it so.
Not if it means killing innocents. With regard to the current war, the US government has slaughtered thousands of innocent Iraqis (including children). Thousands dead is no accident. The US government may be the one with the "noble cause", but that doesn't grant them the right to murder.
If you have trouble swallowing this, simply imagine yourself in the position of the innocent Iraqi. Really, try it -- I think you'll quickly reconsider your feelings on "collateral damage".
But why are there so many lawyers in the US? Does it have something to do with culture? Hardly.
The lawyers are here because the law is overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable. In other words, the root of the problem is government. As long as the law is exploitable, there will be a demand to exploit the law. The lawyers are only here to supply the demand.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and the US government's solution is to keep producing more and more pie (to continuously expand the scope of government). This is a classic example of government creating problems of which the "solution" requires (guess what) more government. The real solution, of course, is to limit the size of the pie.
Don't even go there. There are millions of US citizens who oppose the US government's foreign policy of aggressive intervention.
What you meant to say was "the US government will cross the ocean to fight". (I won't even say "for democracy", because as we all know, that's only one side of the story.)
Don't fall into the "us vs. them" mindset which is commonly propagated by governments (including the US government). There is no "us", and there is no "them" -- only unique individuals, each with unique opinions.
The frequency of unjust lawsuits is roughly proportional to the amount of unjust laws. People attempt to exploit government because they know government is exploitable.
The amount of unjust laws is roughly proportional to the size of government. The more complex/ambiguous the law, the more potential for exploitation.
The solution is to reduce the size of government. If government wasn't so deeply entangled in business, there wouldn't be much for business to exploit.
testing, please ignore
That's classic. Sort of an automated version of my usual routine:
1. "Hello? Yes, it is... OK... Uh huh..." (Just a few words of encouragement and they're in high gear.)
2. Put down phone, and go about business. (But don't hangup.)
I figure the only way to really penalize them for wasting my time is to waste THEIR time, and the best possible way to do that is to make them work for nothing. The determined ones will actually last for upwards of 10 minutes before they realize they've been scammed!
Well, it is really a declaration that government has won. The PATRIOT act is everything they've dreamed of -- more power, more revenue, more control, more "responsibilities" -- those in power stand to profit now more than ever.
The saying applies to all of government, not just the "war on terrorism". Government is pure force -- everything government does or possibly could do is rooted in force. (Government holds the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end -- this is what defines government and seperates it from everyone else.)
Government's "tool" is force, and indeed, force is the only tool they have. (If government had the tool of voluntary association, it wouldn't be government. It would be private enterprise.)
Let's be realistic. Yes, the "people" (the majority) choose who obtains power (in some cases, to some extent), but this does not change the fact that individuals are driven by self interest. Government is nothing but a collection of individuals. Therefore government is driven by self interest, regardless of how power was obtained. Similiarly, as a consumer in the market, you vote with your wallet. Provided no government interference and no foul play, a successful businesses is one that has been "voted" into success by the consumers. The "will of the majority" theory can be applied here too, but of course, the consumers have no direct control over what happens in the board meeting -- the owners make the rules, not the consumers. Would you blame the consumers for Enron's criminal behavior? Of course not -- the Enron executives should be responsible for their own actions, just like government should be responsible for its own actions. Realistically, the will of the majority ends at the election polls. You can argue that the majority was willing to elect a certain politician, but in no way does this prove that the majority supports what the politician does after obtaining power. Here's an honest question: If you still believe that government is truly a representation of the people's will, then is it possible for government to make mistakes? (Is it incorrect to hold government accountable for its actions?)
Absolutely, they should provide full compensation for everybody who is affected. Shuting down a business (or detaining an individual) is a penalty. Under no circumstances should a law-abiding business (or individual) be penalized for the actions of somebody else. If the court finds no other way to solve the case than by penalizing innocents, then at least they should be compensated for the time, effort, and lost business.
I'm sure you have good intentions, but the problem (hatred, resent, terrorism) cannot be solved by rewarding the US government with more power, more revenue, more "responsibilities", and more incentive to continue their misguided policies of aggressive foreign intervention (Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg).
In order to solve the problem, the US government must stop waging perpetual wars around the world, killing innocent civilians and repeatedly, endlessly claiming "collateral damage" for something that can never be replaced (human lives). There is no alternative solution.
It's amazing that people still believe that majority rule is the silver bullet, and may be used to legitimize aggression (the initiation of force). As if government is always legitimate as long as somewhere, somehow, it was voted upon.
The truth is that majority rule is an enemy of liberty, because majority rule can't be achieved without force. Force, or involuntary association, is the logical opposite of liberty, or voluntary association. Moreover, it is inevitable that majority rule will be abused in order to benefit special interests. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, because they see everyone else getting a piece of the pie. Government's solution is not to limit the size of the pie, of course. Government's solution is to bake more pie. (Those in power achieve profit roughly proportional to the size of government.)
Tyranny of the majority is a very real threat. Considering the incredible rate of expansion of the US government over the past century (in scope, power, and expense), there is no question that we're headed down that road.
There is a particularly pathetic breed of troll on Slashdot: the moderation troll. Instead of actually debating the issue, the moderation troll attempts to manipulate a post's moderation points in his favor. Because the moderation troll doesn't posess the capacity to debate on an intelligent level, he must resort to this pathetic solution. It's his only source of expression.
The moderation troll seems to lust for power, the power to suppress a person's words so that others won't have the opportunity to consider those words. It gives him a feeling of superiority. Sad, but true.
On the upside, the moderation troll will never win -- he doesn't realize he is fighting an uphill battle. For every moderation troll, there are hundreds of responsible moderators.
Exactly. This only serves to make government a little bit more expensive, a little bit more wasteful, and a little bit more ubiquitous. Of course, when your revenue is simply taken by force, waste is profit.
(Consider the simple business model of government: you confiscate wealth from some people, you distribute some of it to other people, and you keep the rest for yourself.)
But there certainly is something inherently unsafe about oppression (lack of liberty): it is achieved by the initiation of force.
You mean issues concerning natural law.