Big business only has power over you (for example the power to silence free speech) if government grants them that power. Without the aid of government, big business would have no more or less rights than you or me.
In other words, give credit where credit is due. Government is the root of the problem.
You're right, but government doesn't profit from peace. Government profits from war. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but as the saying goes, war is the health of the state.
It's amazing that people are so quick to equate victimless crimes (drug offenses) with real agression (fraud), simply because government says they are both illegal.
We still despise them
Who's "we"? The only people I despise are those who initiate force against others.
A pure democracy wouldn't change a thing: Government would still have the power to dictate what you can and cannot spend your money on. A pure democracy would be tyranny of the majority, rather than tyranny of the representatives elected by the majority. I don't see any improvement there. The issue is not the process of distributing power -- the issue is that power exists in the first place. Only by strictly limiting government in scope and power can we reduce the abuse of power.
Even if they never use it offensively, we all lose. The more patents issued, the more government expands, the more powers government assumes over the people, the more we are taxed for it, and the bigger the burden on everybody. It's tempting to say "one defensive patent can't hurt anything", but add them all up, and we are looking at a major burden on the market (and that includes the consumers).
With that said, I don't blame Microsoft for trying to exploit the powers of government. The root of the problem is that government is exploitable in the first place.
I've always thought that as technology advances, individual households will become more and more self-sufficient, and eventually centralized government services (or pseudo-government services) will be eliminated. This includes power, water, and sewer, as well as phone, cable, internet, or anything else that crops up in the future.
This may seem impossible to people living in today's world, but it makes perfect sense in a world where technology is so efficient and perfected that every household can easily afford to be self-sufficient. There will no longer be a need to keep all our eggs in one basket, susceptible to large-scale failure like city-wide blackouts, censorship, and artificial pricing.
Of course, centralized services will fight the advancement of technology tooth and nail, attempting to have legislation passed to prohibit self-sufficiecy. So government will be the most significant barrier to the adoption of such technology. The less we depend on centralized services, the less we depend on government, and the less justification government has for assuming control over these markets.
What's even more impressive, IMO, is tabbed browsing. The demonstration that will have them hooked instantly is to do a search on google and start middle-clicking on the results. Open about 10 tabs, close the original search page, and show them how the first tabs are already downloaded and ready to go. You are guaranteed to get a "WOW" on this from the average clueless IE user.
I work in IT, and I find it's not enough to simply install and configure the browser for them (modern theme is mandatory to catch their attention BTW -- I don't know why this isn't the default). You have to give them a real-world demonstration before it clicks for them.
this is hardly a feature to brag about for trying to convince someone to switch
Sure it is. Searching, finding, downloading, installing, and configuring a third-party popup blocker means time and effort, and even then it's still more or less a hack. The Mozilla solution is not only more elegant, it's just plain easier. Having a third-party popup blocker is like having a third-party spell checker for your word processor. The cleanest solution is to integrate the feature.
they had to lock them into updates too; pure corporate greed
"Greed" implies that (citing your example) the corporation profits at the expense of the consumers. (Greed has a "negative value" -- when a greedy child takes more than his share of cookies, he profits at the expense of the other children.) However, the consumers have voluntarily chosen to endorse the corporation's product: they actually made a conscious decision that they, not the corporation, would benefit by purchasing and using these products.
My question: How is it possible that a corporation profits at the expense of the consumer, when the consumer has already decided, voluntarily, that the product is worthy of trade? (Assuming no foul play, i.e. fraud, false advertising, etc.)
They say "great job! we'll do the same stupid thing".
The powerful elite do not aquire power by thinking like fools. They aquire power through careful exploitation of government. What happened here is not a case of "look how fair and just their laws are -- we're going to do the same thing". It's more like "look how cleverly they've expanded their powers and revenue -- we're going to do the same thing".
Globalization (free trade) is not responsible for oppressive or unjust government. I don't know if you were trying to imply this or not, but free trade cannot "force" the adoption of any law -- free trade is defined by voluntary association, not force. Government holds the key to oppression, because government holds the monopoly on force used as a means to an end -- that is what defines government.
Classical liberism (libertarianism), yes, but certainly not modern liberalism, which is more accurately described as socialism or central planning. Modern liberalism destroys the concept of personal responsibility, forcing "society" to be responsible for the problems of individuals. Classical libertalism is the opposite: individuals are exactly responsible for their own actions -- no more, and no less.
That is exactly why England's murder and violent crime rates have skyrocketed since the 1997 gun ban: (1) Criminals will always be able to obtain weapons, no matter what the law says, and (2) for the criminal, the ideal victim is the one who is unarmed or has no means of self-defense.
It follows that society is safer in general when every individual has the potential to be armed. Criminals don't even need to see the gun -- the fact that a victim MAY be armed is enough to make them think twice. "Tougher" laws and penalites for crime won't change a thing, because the law can't possibly address the need for immediate self-defense.
A similar situation has occurred in Washington, D.C. History has proven, time and time again, that gun "control" (restrictions on the individual's right to self-defense) actually increases, not decreases, the overall crime rate. Of course, if you ask me, that is exactly what government wants. (The higher the crime rate, the more "justification" for expanding the powers of government.)
Refer to this article for a good intro to this issue.
I better solution is for the poor and disenfranchised to control their population so that the value of their labor increases
Can you explain how the poor and disenfranchised could possibly obtain control (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) over the rest of the populace without becoming the powerful elite?
Government cannot possibly achieve equality, because the first prerequisite of government is inequality.
do we just beat up whoever we want whenever we want?
Who's this "we"? The government and the people are not one and the same. Government holds the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the common individual does not.
"unstable" is cutting edge, and that's great, but the daily upgrade list is now absolutely massive. For people still on dial-up (me), a good compromise is to base your system on "testing" and selectively install packages from "unstable" as necessary.
your tax money just went to google.. a good thing..
A good thing? I can't imagine a more arbitrary conclusion. Then again, most of what government does is arbitrary and driven by special interests like yours.
Over time a free market will evolve into an oligopoly (a few large businesses that have so much combined market power they can set price) or a monopoly.
This isn't the debate I was interested in at the moment, but I will point out that you have no proof for what you're saying. (It's all theory, because no purely free market exists.) You certainly can't cite the US market, which is smothered in regulations and taxes (force). Microsoft, for example, would never have been able to achieve the market dominance they did without exploiting the force of government. Your position is all theory, just like my position is all theory. (And there is no shortage of anarcho-capitalist theory showing exactly why free markets DO work.)
If you don't like it, form your own special interest, and start pushing back.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie: a handout, special provisions, penalties against the competition, etc. You are suggesting that instead of trying to achieve true justice, we should all keep trying to take a piece of the pie, feeding government with more power and more revenue?
No, the solution is not to bake more pie. The solution is to eliminate the pie (eliminate force in the market) and have everyone compete on fair terms: voluntary association.
Slashdot Mirror
Big business only has power over you (for example the power to silence free speech) if government grants them that power. Without the aid of government, big business would have no more or less rights than you or me.
In other words, give credit where credit is due. Government is the root of the problem.
You can't rule a nation of innocents. The more laws, the more criminals, and the more power (hence profit) for those who control government.
There is a very good reason why government has a tendency to expand over time: because it benefits those in power.
You're right, but government doesn't profit from peace. Government profits from war. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but as the saying goes, war is the health of the state.
We still despise them
Who's "we"? The only people I despise are those who initiate force against others.
A pure democracy wouldn't change a thing: Government would still have the power to dictate what you can and cannot spend your money on. A pure democracy would be tyranny of the majority, rather than tyranny of the representatives elected by the majority. I don't see any improvement there. The issue is not the process of distributing power -- the issue is that power exists in the first place. Only by strictly limiting government in scope and power can we reduce the abuse of power.
Don't worry, the government will decide that for you.
That's impossible. Government would never act in self-interest. They represent us, not themselves. For the people, by the people.
Even if they never use it offensively, we all lose. The more patents issued, the more government expands, the more powers government assumes over the people, the more we are taxed for it, and the bigger the burden on everybody. It's tempting to say "one defensive patent can't hurt anything", but add them all up, and we are looking at a major burden on the market (and that includes the consumers).
With that said, I don't blame Microsoft for trying to exploit the powers of government. The root of the problem is that government is exploitable in the first place.
I've always thought that as technology advances, individual households will become more and more self-sufficient, and eventually centralized government services (or pseudo-government services) will be eliminated. This includes power, water, and sewer, as well as phone, cable, internet, or anything else that crops up in the future.
This may seem impossible to people living in today's world, but it makes perfect sense in a world where technology is so efficient and perfected that every household can easily afford to be self-sufficient. There will no longer be a need to keep all our eggs in one basket, susceptible to large-scale failure like city-wide blackouts, censorship, and artificial pricing.
Of course, centralized services will fight the advancement of technology tooth and nail, attempting to have legislation passed to prohibit self-sufficiecy. So government will be the most significant barrier to the adoption of such technology. The less we depend on centralized services, the less we depend on government, and the less justification government has for assuming control over these markets.
What's even more impressive, IMO, is tabbed browsing. The demonstration that will have them hooked instantly is to do a search on google and start middle-clicking on the results. Open about 10 tabs, close the original search page, and show them how the first tabs are already downloaded and ready to go. You are guaranteed to get a "WOW" on this from the average clueless IE user.
I work in IT, and I find it's not enough to simply install and configure the browser for them (modern theme is mandatory to catch their attention BTW -- I don't know why this isn't the default). You have to give them a real-world demonstration before it clicks for them.
Sure it is. Searching, finding, downloading, installing, and configuring a third-party popup blocker means time and effort, and even then it's still more or less a hack. The Mozilla solution is not only more elegant, it's just plain easier. Having a third-party popup blocker is like having a third-party spell checker for your word processor. The cleanest solution is to integrate the feature.
"Greed" implies that (citing your example) the corporation profits at the expense of the consumers. (Greed has a "negative value" -- when a greedy child takes more than his share of cookies, he profits at the expense of the other children.) However, the consumers have voluntarily chosen to endorse the corporation's product: they actually made a conscious decision that they, not the corporation, would benefit by purchasing and using these products.
My question: How is it possible that a corporation profits at the expense of the consumer, when the consumer has already decided, voluntarily, that the product is worthy of trade? (Assuming no foul play, i.e. fraud, false advertising, etc.)
The powerful elite do not aquire power by thinking like fools. They aquire power through careful exploitation of government. What happened here is not a case of "look how fair and just their laws are -- we're going to do the same thing". It's more like "look how cleverly they've expanded their powers and revenue -- we're going to do the same thing".
Globalization (free trade) is not responsible for oppressive or unjust government. I don't know if you were trying to imply this or not, but free trade cannot "force" the adoption of any law -- free trade is defined by voluntary association, not force. Government holds the key to oppression, because government holds the monopoly on force used as a means to an end -- that is what defines government.
Classical liberism (libertarianism), yes, but certainly not modern liberalism, which is more accurately described as socialism or central planning. Modern liberalism destroys the concept of personal responsibility, forcing "society" to be responsible for the problems of individuals. Classical libertalism is the opposite: individuals are exactly responsible for their own actions -- no more, and no less.
It follows that society is safer in general when every individual has the potential to be armed. Criminals don't even need to see the gun -- the fact that a victim MAY be armed is enough to make them think twice. "Tougher" laws and penalites for crime won't change a thing, because the law can't possibly address the need for immediate self-defense.
A similar situation has occurred in Washington, D.C. History has proven, time and time again, that gun "control" (restrictions on the individual's right to self-defense) actually increases, not decreases, the overall crime rate. Of course, if you ask me, that is exactly what government wants. (The higher the crime rate, the more "justification" for expanding the powers of government.)
Refer to this article for a good intro to this issue.
Except for the glaring difference: government collects their revenue by force, while [pure] charities collect their revenue by voluntary association.
Can you explain how the poor and disenfranchised could possibly obtain control (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) over the rest of the populace without becoming the powerful elite?
Government cannot possibly achieve equality, because the first prerequisite of government is inequality.
Who's this "we"? The government and the people are not one and the same. Government holds the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the common individual does not.
Regulation? The cable TV "market" is, for all intents and purposes, an extension of government. There's no market to regulate.
What about trespassing?
"unstable" is cutting edge, and that's great, but the daily upgrade list is now absolutely massive. For people still on dial-up (me), a good compromise is to base your system on "testing" and selectively install packages from "unstable" as necessary.
A good thing? I can't imagine a more arbitrary conclusion. Then again, most of what government does is arbitrary and driven by special interests like yours.
And there's the root of the problem: government should not be in the business of news reporting.
This isn't the debate I was interested in at the moment, but I will point out that you have no proof for what you're saying. (It's all theory, because no purely free market exists.) You certainly can't cite the US market, which is smothered in regulations and taxes (force). Microsoft, for example, would never have been able to achieve the market dominance they did without exploiting the force of government. Your position is all theory, just like my position is all theory. (And there is no shortage of anarcho-capitalist theory showing exactly why free markets DO work.)
If you don't like it, form your own special interest, and start pushing back.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie: a handout, special provisions, penalties against the competition, etc. You are suggesting that instead of trying to achieve true justice, we should all keep trying to take a piece of the pie, feeding government with more power and more revenue?
No, the solution is not to bake more pie. The solution is to eliminate the pie (eliminate force in the market) and have everyone compete on fair terms: voluntary association.