The US empire at present covers the American homeland, Iraq and nothing else.
The US government has military troops stationed in well over 100 countries around the world. Why don't we ask the citizens of those countires what they think of the US empire?
If the states were truly sovereign, empire would be much less probable (or possible). Centralized power is a prerequisite of empire and the military forces which make it possible.
Over the years, the US government has gradually morphed in the direction of centralized power, despite the intents of the founders. The power (or lack thereof) was supposed to remain with the individual states, not the federal government. It is this centralized power, along with it's overly large tax base, which gives birth to empire.
It is pretty depressing that Republicans care more about who the President had sex with than about how the country is doing.
They couldn't give damn about Clinton's sex life -- they simply recognized and acted on the opportunity to bash him in public. What the Republicans do care about is expanding the powers of government and cashing in on it. Of course, you can't do that unless you're the one holding the power.
As to why, the truth - and I say this is as an American - is because we're fat (statistically speaking we are becoming grossly obese), greedy (statistically the hardest workers the world while in a nation with one of the highest incomes - yes I know about Luxembourg) swine (check out our popular media sometime) so drunk on our own stupid swill (see that popular media again, or how about Britney's absolutely perfect perfect [cnn.com] quote below her picture) that we no longer care (elections typically drawing in 30-40% of voters).
The people have nothing to do with it, and frankly, I'm getting sick of hearing this excuse. The simple fact is that government has a natural tendency to expand its powers over time. The fact that the people are involved in the voting process does not, in any way, change the fact that government is rooted in force, and that government requires an inequality of power in order to function. It is that inequality of power (the notion of some people holding more "legal" power than others) which allows government to oppress, waste, and generally cause destruction -- not a lack of interest in government from the people!
The solution is to impose strict limits on the scope of government, and perhaps more importantly, to de-centralize power. Logically, the smaller the government, the less destruction they are capable of. The root of the issue is that power WILL be abused. Why? Because positions of power don't attract those who want to live in peace and mind their own business. Positions of power attract those who wish to control others through force. History has proven it time and time again -- there is no such thing as a government which doesn't abuse its power, and there never will be.
As for the coporations, they are only playing the hand they've been dealt by government. More to the point, the corporations may be driving the car, but government handed them the keys. The root of the problem, again, is government -- in particular, the overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable system of law they have imposed. Corporate crime is only a symptom. We need to address the actual virus: big government.
Give credit where credit is due: This is the result of an overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable system of law. We are looking at a problem with government, not the corporations which are only playing the hand they've been dealt.
If we want to address the problem, we need to cure the disease. Attacking the symptoms won't do a damn thing to change the way things work.
Name one monopoly that was achieved without the direct backing of government force, or more commonly, by exploiting an overly complex, ambiguous system of law.
Government is at the root of monopoly, not some "natural tendency of the market". The natural tendency of the market is to promote competition -- only government can prevent or eliminate it.
I can understand if they emulate a proprietary business methodology.
So you support the patenting of business model? That's even worse than software patents.
Or an entire application (which really should fall under copyright law).
So you don't approve of competition in the market either?
Shakespeare was right. We should kill all the lawyers.
Lawyers don't make laws -- government does. Lawyers (and corporations for that matter) only play the game which was designed and implemented by government. We need to attack the virus, not the symptoms.
More generally, it's an opportunity to make government bigger. This is the lawmaker's primary objective: to increase the value of their business (government) through increased spending and/or powers over the people. Logically, those who seek positions of power are not those who want to leave others alone and live in peace. These are the people who wish to control others through force, and if possible, profit off this "business model".
Since government doesn't generate it's own revenue through voluntary trade but simply takes it from the people who do, the concept of loss (and investment for that matter) is virtually non-existent. Even a total failure of government (drug prohibition to cite an obvious example) increases the "value" of the business at large. The people lose, but government still wins.
With that, it's no coincidence that government has a general tendency to expand it's powers (and cost) over time. How many hundreds of times more expensive and more powerful is the US government today than it was 200 years ago?
This is NOT capitalism in action. Capitalism, or free market economics, is based on (and defined by) voluntary association. Nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume -- people are free to produce and consume on their own terms, as long as they do so voluntarily. Capitalism is the absence of force.
Most people don't realize that IP does NOT fit into this model. IP -- the notion that ideas can be property -- is a concept invented and implemented entirely by government. IP requires an initiation of force, because it would never come about voluntarily, as capitalism does. Because IP introduces force into the market, IP is NOT a product of (or aid to) capitalism.
SCO intends to use force to accomplish their goals, not voluntary association. This is not capitalism at work; this is simply another exploit of an overly complex, ambiguous system of law.
You're right, I should have paid more attention to semantics. Just to be clear, it is the notion of using force to accomplish a goal that I consider the root of the problem. I am of the belief that it is never moral or just to use force to achieve a goal, except for the special case of self-defense. Big government encourages the use of force by setting the bad example -- after all, everything government does is rooted in force, by definition.
If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about who gets in.
What happens when I only get 2 parties to choose from, and both of those are determined to expand the scope of government, when I am strongly opposed to just about any possible expansion of government? If I don't choose between apples and apples, in effect ENDORSING the 2-party system, then I have no right to speak my opinion? Get real.
I suppose you also believe in the old line, "if you don't have anything to hide then you'll be just fine with the police state".
Great, let's propose MORE government to solve a problem that was created by government in the first place.
The solution is to abolish the laws which are exploitable and invite people to adopt force as a business model. The problem in this case lies in the exploitable nature of existing US patent law, not because of a lack of some law.
Well, not quite. Politicians don't spend tax money for the hell of it, though it does seem that way sometimes. They spend tax money because it increases the public's dependence on government, which in turn, increases the public's dependence on those in power. In other words, spending tax money is a way to make government more powerful and more expensive: it is simply a way to grow the business of government.
And the USA legal system seems to be completely incapible of doing anything about it.
Ironically, the legal system is what provides the incentive for this kind of behavior in the first place. After so many years of continuously expanding the powers of government, the US legal system is incredibly complex, inefficient, and ambiguous -- and this is exactly what makes it exploitable. SCO knows this, and everyone else knows it too. The bigger the pie gets, the more everyone wants a piece. This is a direct consequence of big government -- a complex set of laws is an exploitable set of laws.
Frankly it is beginning to look like another huge failure of the USA legal system.
As bloated as it is, there is no way the US legal system couldn't be a failure. The only way to address this problem is to drastically limit the powers of government -- but unfortunately, this directly conflicts with the objectives of those in power.
I've been saying all along that Microsoft would never have been able to achieve monopoly without the aid of government force. Microsoft's market share was not achieved through voluntary association, or traditional free market economics. It was achieved through force -- through the various powers of government which inevitably promote certain groups at the expense of others. And still, the popular solution is to propose MORE government to solve a problem that government created in the first place.
It's ironic, but NASA seems to be getting more attention after a spectacular failure (Colombia disaster)
When a government program fails, instead of being replaced with a more competant competitor, they are normally rewarded with more funding. This is a natural consequence of a business model based on force (rather than voluntary association as in the market). When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Look at drug prohibition for a classic example. After decades of prohibition, we have nothing to show for it but crime, violence, corruption, oppression, the highest prison rate of any nation, and last but not least, more drugs. What is government's solution? Reward the failed program with more funding.
Thinking of force as consisting only force of arms is naive.
We're not on the same page. Again, there are exactly 2 possible modes of human interaction: voluntary association and force. There is no ambiguity -- every interaction must take exactly one of these two forms. Let's look at some examples.
Theft is not voluntary; therefore it represents force.
Trade is voluntary; therefore it represents voluntary association.
Assult is not voluntary; therefore it represents force.
Fraud is not voluntary; therefore it represents force.
Marriage is voluntary; therefore it represents voluntary association.
I think you can see the pattern now, and I hope you can understand why the employer-employee relationship does not represent force by any means. It is a pure example of voluntary association: both parties enter the interaction not by force, but through voluntary agreement.
Like many others, you have manipulated the definition of power to suit your agenda. There are exactly two possible modes of human interaction: (1) voluntary association, and (2) force. Guess which one represents government, and which one represents the private sector.
Power is defined by the initiation of force. I'm sorry, but none of the examples you provide fall under the definition of power. You may not like the fact that your employer could fire you at a second's notice, but that doesn't change the fact that you and your employer entered a contract based on voluntary association, NOT FORCE.
A corporation is an innately powerful entity. It controls the employment status of everyone who works for it...
THAT IS NOT POWER. Power is defined by the initiation of force. Only government has the "right" to initiate force, and for this reason, government is defined by the initiation of force. Everyone else, including your favorite evil corporations, must operate on the principle of voluntary association -- otherwise they are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.
You've got it completely backwards. Government holds a monopoly on the initiation of force. Government is the only agency with the power to invoke force as a business model. Government is defined by force, while private organizations are defined by voluntary association. This is the one and only fundamental difference between government and the private sector, as it has been since the beginning of human civilization.
Any private organization or individual which initiates force is either (1) a criminal, in which case they should be dealt with accordingly, or (2) an effective arm of government, since the only possible way they could acquire that power is via government.
I reckon you'd better think long and hard about who poses a bigger threat to yourself and your loved ones: a private organization with equal power to you and everyone else, which operates on the principle of voluntary association, or government which operates on the principle of force.
It is the natural tendency of government to expand. Positions of power tend to attract those who wish to control others, not those who just want to live their lives in peace and mind their own business. This is a rule of thumb, not set in stone, but I would estimate that 98% of government representatives (Democrat and Republican alike) favor big government. That's no surprise if you ask me. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and consequently, the pie grows bigger every year.
What people are mistakingly calling "voluntary communism" is, in fact, an example of free market economics. You see, profit has nothing to do with it. The notion of working together has nothing to do with it. Social advancement has nothing to do with it! The key is FORCE, and whether or not it has been invoked as the political solution.
There are exactly 2 modes of interaction that people may engage in: voluntary, or involuntary. Communism is an example of involuntary interaction, or force. Capitalism, or free market economics, is an example of voluntary interaction.
Communism is dependent on force, because force is the foundation of communism. For all the people who think that communism can be "achieved" through voluntary association, I'd like to see you prove it. Tell me, what exactly happens when a member of the communist society refuses to support the machine?
Re:Orwell's vision was true!
on
Gates and Security
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
While Orwell supported the concept of Communism, he was appalled at the way in which it was being bent and twisted into Stalinism
There is no way that it can't. Commumism is, by definition, force. In order to implement it, you need force -- otherwise it wouldn't be communism.
So just in case any of you were thinking "gee, wouldn't communism be great, if they could just figure out a way to implement it without oppressing the people", drop that thought right now. It's impossible by the definition of communism.
There is no such thing as voluntary communism, because communism is rooted in force (involuntary association). If you eliminate the force, you eliminate the communism.
The notion of exempting certain agencies is bullshit, and demonstrates the hypocricy of government once again -- and the willingness to invoke the force of government to promote those in power. Both government and charities are trying to sell me on a product or service -- just as every other telemarker is trying to sell me on a product or service.
Our so-called leaders need to practice what they preach. Make them compete on the same grounds as everyone else in the market, or I don't want anything to do with this law.
unrestrained capitalism is functionally equivalent to communism
Except for the fact that a communist society operates on the principle of force, while a [true] capitalist society operates on the principle of voluntary association only. Of course, our pro-government friends would never admit to this.
Slashdot Mirror
The US government has military troops stationed in well over 100 countries around the world. Why don't we ask the citizens of those countires what they think of the US empire?
If the states were truly sovereign, empire would be much less probable (or possible). Centralized power is a prerequisite of empire and the military forces which make it possible.
Over the years, the US government has gradually morphed in the direction of centralized power, despite the intents of the founders. The power (or lack thereof) was supposed to remain with the individual states, not the federal government. It is this centralized power, along with it's overly large tax base, which gives birth to empire.
They couldn't give damn about Clinton's sex life -- they simply recognized and acted on the opportunity to bash him in public. What the Republicans do care about is expanding the powers of government and cashing in on it. Of course, you can't do that unless you're the one holding the power.
The people have nothing to do with it, and frankly, I'm getting sick of hearing this excuse. The simple fact is that government has a natural tendency to expand its powers over time. The fact that the people are involved in the voting process does not, in any way, change the fact that government is rooted in force, and that government requires an inequality of power in order to function. It is that inequality of power (the notion of some people holding more "legal" power than others) which allows government to oppress, waste, and generally cause destruction -- not a lack of interest in government from the people!
The solution is to impose strict limits on the scope of government, and perhaps more importantly, to de-centralize power. Logically, the smaller the government, the less destruction they are capable of. The root of the issue is that power WILL be abused. Why? Because positions of power don't attract those who want to live in peace and mind their own business. Positions of power attract those who wish to control others through force. History has proven it time and time again -- there is no such thing as a government which doesn't abuse its power, and there never will be.
As for the coporations, they are only playing the hand they've been dealt by government. More to the point, the corporations may be driving the car, but government handed them the keys. The root of the problem, again, is government -- in particular, the overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable system of law they have imposed. Corporate crime is only a symptom. We need to address the actual virus: big government.
Give credit where credit is due: This is the result of an overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable system of law. We are looking at a problem with government, not the corporations which are only playing the hand they've been dealt.
If we want to address the problem, we need to cure the disease. Attacking the symptoms won't do a damn thing to change the way things work.
Name one monopoly that was achieved without the direct backing of government force, or more commonly, by exploiting an overly complex, ambiguous system of law.
Government is at the root of monopoly, not some "natural tendency of the market". The natural tendency of the market is to promote competition -- only government can prevent or eliminate it.
So you support the patenting of business model? That's even worse than software patents.
Or an entire application (which really should fall under copyright law).
So you don't approve of competition in the market either?
Shakespeare was right. We should kill all the lawyers.
Lawyers don't make laws -- government does. Lawyers (and corporations for that matter) only play the game which was designed and implemented by government. We need to attack the virus, not the symptoms.
More generally, it's an opportunity to make government bigger. This is the lawmaker's primary objective: to increase the value of their business (government) through increased spending and/or powers over the people. Logically, those who seek positions of power are not those who want to leave others alone and live in peace. These are the people who wish to control others through force, and if possible, profit off this "business model".
Since government doesn't generate it's own revenue through voluntary trade but simply takes it from the people who do, the concept of loss (and investment for that matter) is virtually non-existent. Even a total failure of government (drug prohibition to cite an obvious example) increases the "value" of the business at large. The people lose, but government still wins.
With that, it's no coincidence that government has a general tendency to expand it's powers (and cost) over time. How many hundreds of times more expensive and more powerful is the US government today than it was 200 years ago?
This is NOT capitalism in action. Capitalism, or free market economics, is based on (and defined by) voluntary association. Nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume -- people are free to produce and consume on their own terms, as long as they do so voluntarily. Capitalism is the absence of force.
Most people don't realize that IP does NOT fit into this model. IP -- the notion that ideas can be property -- is a concept invented and implemented entirely by government. IP requires an initiation of force, because it would never come about voluntarily, as capitalism does. Because IP introduces force into the market, IP is NOT a product of (or aid to) capitalism.
SCO intends to use force to accomplish their goals, not voluntary association. This is not capitalism at work; this is simply another exploit of an overly complex, ambiguous system of law.
You're right, I should have paid more attention to semantics. Just to be clear, it is the notion of using force to accomplish a goal that I consider the root of the problem. I am of the belief that it is never moral or just to use force to achieve a goal, except for the special case of self-defense. Big government encourages the use of force by setting the bad example -- after all, everything government does is rooted in force, by definition.
What happens when I only get 2 parties to choose from, and both of those are determined to expand the scope of government, when I am strongly opposed to just about any possible expansion of government? If I don't choose between apples and apples, in effect ENDORSING the 2-party system, then I have no right to speak my opinion? Get real.
I suppose you also believe in the old line, "if you don't have anything to hide then you'll be just fine with the police state".
Great, let's propose MORE government to solve a problem that was created by government in the first place.
The solution is to abolish the laws which are exploitable and invite people to adopt force as a business model. The problem in this case lies in the exploitable nature of existing US patent law, not because of a lack of some law.
Well, not quite. Politicians don't spend tax money for the hell of it, though it does seem that way sometimes. They spend tax money because it increases the public's dependence on government, which in turn, increases the public's dependence on those in power. In other words, spending tax money is a way to make government more powerful and more expensive: it is simply a way to grow the business of government.
Ironically, the legal system is what provides the incentive for this kind of behavior in the first place. After so many years of continuously expanding the powers of government, the US legal system is incredibly complex, inefficient, and ambiguous -- and this is exactly what makes it exploitable. SCO knows this, and everyone else knows it too. The bigger the pie gets, the more everyone wants a piece. This is a direct consequence of big government -- a complex set of laws is an exploitable set of laws.
Frankly it is beginning to look like another huge failure of the USA legal system.
As bloated as it is, there is no way the US legal system couldn't be a failure. The only way to address this problem is to drastically limit the powers of government -- but unfortunately, this directly conflicts with the objectives of those in power.
I've been saying all along that Microsoft would never have been able to achieve monopoly without the aid of government force. Microsoft's market share was not achieved through voluntary association, or traditional free market economics. It was achieved through force -- through the various powers of government which inevitably promote certain groups at the expense of others. And still, the popular solution is to propose MORE government to solve a problem that government created in the first place.
When a government program fails, instead of being replaced with a more competant competitor, they are normally rewarded with more funding. This is a natural consequence of a business model based on force (rather than voluntary association as in the market). When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Look at drug prohibition for a classic example. After decades of prohibition, we have nothing to show for it but crime, violence, corruption, oppression, the highest prison rate of any nation, and last but not least, more drugs. What is government's solution? Reward the failed program with more funding.
Thinking of force as consisting only force of arms is naive.
We're not on the same page. Again, there are exactly 2 possible modes of human interaction: voluntary association and force. There is no ambiguity -- every interaction must take exactly one of these two forms. Let's look at some examples.
Theft is not voluntary; therefore it represents force.
Trade is voluntary; therefore it represents voluntary association.
Assult is not voluntary; therefore it represents force.
Fraud is not voluntary; therefore it represents force.
Marriage is voluntary; therefore it represents voluntary association.
I think you can see the pattern now, and I hope you can understand why the employer-employee relationship does not represent force by any means. It is a pure example of voluntary association: both parties enter the interaction not by force, but through voluntary agreement.
Like many others, you have manipulated the definition of power to suit your agenda. There are exactly two possible modes of human interaction: (1) voluntary association, and (2) force. Guess which one represents government, and which one represents the private sector.
Power is defined by the initiation of force. I'm sorry, but none of the examples you provide fall under the definition of power. You may not like the fact that your employer could fire you at a second's notice, but that doesn't change the fact that you and your employer entered a contract based on voluntary association, NOT FORCE.
THAT IS NOT POWER. Power is defined by the initiation of force. Only government has the "right" to initiate force, and for this reason, government is defined by the initiation of force. Everyone else, including your favorite evil corporations, must operate on the principle of voluntary association -- otherwise they are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.
You've got it completely backwards. Government holds a monopoly on the initiation of force. Government is the only agency with the power to invoke force as a business model. Government is defined by force, while private organizations are defined by voluntary association. This is the one and only fundamental difference between government and the private sector, as it has been since the beginning of human civilization.
Any private organization or individual which initiates force is either (1) a criminal, in which case they should be dealt with accordingly, or (2) an effective arm of government, since the only possible way they could acquire that power is via government.
I reckon you'd better think long and hard about who poses a bigger threat to yourself and your loved ones: a private organization with equal power to you and everyone else, which operates on the principle of voluntary association, or government which operates on the principle of force.
It is the natural tendency of government to expand. Positions of power tend to attract those who wish to control others, not those who just want to live their lives in peace and mind their own business. This is a rule of thumb, not set in stone, but I would estimate that 98% of government representatives (Democrat and Republican alike) favor big government. That's no surprise if you ask me. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and consequently, the pie grows bigger every year.
What people are mistakingly calling "voluntary communism" is, in fact, an example of free market economics. You see, profit has nothing to do with it. The notion of working together has nothing to do with it. Social advancement has nothing to do with it! The key is FORCE, and whether or not it has been invoked as the political solution.
There are exactly 2 modes of interaction that people may engage in: voluntary, or involuntary. Communism is an example of involuntary interaction, or force. Capitalism, or free market economics, is an example of voluntary interaction.
Communism is dependent on force, because force is the foundation of communism. For all the people who think that communism can be "achieved" through voluntary association, I'd like to see you prove it. Tell me, what exactly happens when a member of the communist society refuses to support the machine?
There is no way that it can't. Commumism is, by definition, force. In order to implement it, you need force -- otherwise it wouldn't be communism.
So just in case any of you were thinking "gee, wouldn't communism be great, if they could just figure out a way to implement it without oppressing the people", drop that thought right now. It's impossible by the definition of communism.
There is no such thing as voluntary communism, because communism is rooted in force (involuntary association). If you eliminate the force, you eliminate the communism.
The notion of exempting certain agencies is bullshit, and demonstrates the hypocricy of government once again -- and the willingness to invoke the force of government to promote those in power. Both government and charities are trying to sell me on a product or service -- just as every other telemarker is trying to sell me on a product or service.
Our so-called leaders need to practice what they preach. Make them compete on the same grounds as everyone else in the market, or I don't want anything to do with this law.
Except for the fact that a communist society operates on the principle of force, while a [true] capitalist society operates on the principle of voluntary association only. Of course, our pro-government friends would never admit to this.