Was that some kind of bluff that you assumed I'd wince at? I want: - An amendment making it illegal for corporate or union money be used in politics, with some kind of wording to allow corporate-owned free press - An end to limited liability for active owners and employees of a company - (Possibly) Change the criteria for who gets a corporate charter so that there is some demonstrated public good. I'm having trouble buying the argument for passthrough LLCs. Perhaps there is a good economic argument for passthrough entities, but then the limited liability shield should also pass through.
Yes, the largest tech company in the world should not get covered on a nerd website. That makes a lot of sense. Even if you hate Apple, their scale is such that when they fart it affects the whole industry. You can't actually follow tech news without at least side-boob exposure to Apple.
I know what socialism is. Plenty of Russians (and hell, a Cuban too) at work who fled from it. My wife has a co-worker currently dealing with the nightmare of a sick dad in worker's paradise Venezuela. Sure, you can sneak in a little bit of socialism when you are lucky enough to have a cash cow that even the government can't fuck up - Norway is a prime example. And "free country" is a relative term. I can say what I want with almost no limits by the government outside of IP law and endangering other people - that puts me above almost every other country on the planet, even if I'm not 100% "free".
Capitalism does not require corporations - those are something that was created by the government. When you complain about a corporation, you are complaining about an organization operating under a government charter.
There is absolutely no contradiction between government and business getting into a corrupt bed together. Happens all the time, if the political system permits it.
Corruption happens in government - full stop. We have a capitalist-ish system, so yeah, our corruption comes from capitalism. If we had a socialist system, our corruption would come from somewhere else.
So yeah, a capitalist system inherently will have corruption. A socialist system inherently will have corruption. It's a human thing, not an economic system thing. You even say so yourself: "if the political system permits it".
But any action that defeats the economic mechanisms of capitalism is anti-capitalism. Active government interference in the economy is generally anti-capitalist behavior, even if the root of the corruption lies in capitalist-generated dollars.
That's true, but it's not the root cause. I challenge you to point out a significant monopoly that predates the limited liability corporation (or some other government-chartered organization). Monopoly is an unintended consequence of government interference, and monopoly busting is not the only mitigation that becomes necessary.
Companies forced to clean up their messes - Depends.
This gets even more complicated. Neither libertarianism nor capitalism really demands private real estate. Private property, sure - but not necessarily ownership of the land. Most of the mechanisms would still work with long-term leases... and in practice property tax with the 1st lien position is pretty much a lease anyway. Pollution is a difficult problem for libertarian ideals to cover in the real world because it can be very difficult to prove where the specific pollutant that harmed you came from, and you may not have even suffered enough harm to be worth suing... yet the total damage in aggregate can be staggering. See also vaccines.
Bringing the analogy full-circle, it sounds like you are arguing that you should trust that illegal immigrant who was willing to take someone's money to beat you up.
I don't disagree that the government has a role in setting up a free market. They can "grease the wheels", so to speak... set up the rules of the game. But I'd like a specific example where the government enabling a local monopoly "lessens control of the market". Eliminating competition gets rid of one of the main tenets of capitalism.
Well, I did hedge in my comment with "they very well might". If there is some criminal or nefarious intent proved, then yes a court might pierce the shield. But that might be a harder fight than suing the subsidiaries and getting the arbitration clause thrown out.
Capitalism. And a government that has been bought and paid for by those big ass corporations.
You realize that those two things are diametrically opposed? I mean, you admit that one of the problems is the government. Government interference in a market is a socialism thing.
Spot on. At the very least, people active in the running of the business should not have limited liability - it completely defeats the whole libertarian ideal of individual responsibility. I can understand the desire to encourage passive investment, but I don't see any upside in limiting the liability of active investors.
No, that's not true. Limited liability. You can sue for anything you like, but the owners of a limited liability corporation are not going to lose a lawsuit. They very well might need to go after the individual subsidiaries.
I'd waggle my cane at you and give you a lecture about disposable culture and such... but depending on where he gets his electricity from, this may not be a valid criticism.
So I've concocted a scenario where there is a zombie Stalin and Mao fighting, and the part that stands out to you is the implausibility of the dildos? I think this says more about you than me.
People have this innate tendency to choose sides that just drives me nuts. If Stalin and Mao are in a fight, you don't make a choice to help one - you hand them dildos and laugh your ass off as they beat each other with them.
Your standpoint loudly proclaims that organic food has no health benefit, or do I miss something? Would you care to post a link supporting that standpoint?
You have that exactly backwards. There is an "organic" label, and the people slapping it on things make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. I am not an idiot for demanding evidence of these claims, but people are... not quite idiots but definitely ignorant of the scientific method when they believe these claims.
Should I continue?
Only if you admit that you made up the tomato-chicken.
So your original comment did not mention GMO, but what if they use GMO to create a peanut without the protein that people are allergic to? Still evil? It's just a technology - it's mere existence does not demand new regulation. That is taking the precautionary principle to absurd and extreme lengths. Let the food regulators do their thing unless there is some evidence that demands further regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Was that some kind of bluff that you assumed I'd wince at? I want:
- An amendment making it illegal for corporate or union money be used in politics, with some kind of wording to allow corporate-owned free press
- An end to limited liability for active owners and employees of a company
- (Possibly) Change the criteria for who gets a corporate charter so that there is some demonstrated public good. I'm having trouble buying the argument for passthrough LLCs. Perhaps there is a good economic argument for passthrough entities, but then the limited liability shield should also pass through.
Yes, the largest tech company in the world should not get covered on a nerd website. That makes a lot of sense. Even if you hate Apple, their scale is such that when they fart it affects the whole industry. You can't actually follow tech news without at least side-boob exposure to Apple.
My question was meant to be rhetorical. I knew it was virtue signalling.
Why would someone with so little interest in phones click on this story?
At least they aren't using molecule-miles.
I know what socialism is. Plenty of Russians (and hell, a Cuban too) at work who fled from it. My wife has a co-worker currently dealing with the nightmare of a sick dad in worker's paradise Venezuela. Sure, you can sneak in a little bit of socialism when you are lucky enough to have a cash cow that even the government can't fuck up - Norway is a prime example. And "free country" is a relative term. I can say what I want with almost no limits by the government outside of IP law and endangering other people - that puts me above almost every other country on the planet, even if I'm not 100% "free".
Exactly. Holding up a local telephone utility operating under government charter and heavy regulation as an example of "capitalism" is ridiculous.
Capitalism does not require corporations - those are something that was created by the government. When you complain about a corporation, you are complaining about an organization operating under a government charter.
That's a semantic argument. Most people on here would be using the term "capitalism" as shorthand for "free market capitalism". I certainly am.
There is absolutely no contradiction between government and business getting into a corrupt bed together. Happens all the time, if the political system permits it.
Corruption happens in government - full stop. We have a capitalist-ish system, so yeah, our corruption comes from capitalism. If we had a socialist system, our corruption would come from somewhere else.
So yeah, a capitalist system inherently will have corruption. A socialist system inherently will have corruption. It's a human thing, not an economic system thing. You even say so yourself: "if the political system permits it".
But any action that defeats the economic mechanisms of capitalism is anti-capitalism. Active government interference in the economy is generally anti-capitalist behavior, even if the root of the corruption lies in capitalist-generated dollars.
Breaking up monopolies - Socialist
That's true, but it's not the root cause. I challenge you to point out a significant monopoly that predates the limited liability corporation (or some other government-chartered organization). Monopoly is an unintended consequence of government interference, and monopoly busting is not the only mitigation that becomes necessary.
Companies forced to clean up their messes - Depends.
This gets even more complicated. Neither libertarianism nor capitalism really demands private real estate. Private property, sure - but not necessarily ownership of the land. Most of the mechanisms would still work with long-term leases... and in practice property tax with the 1st lien position is pretty much a lease anyway. Pollution is a difficult problem for libertarian ideals to cover in the real world because it can be very difficult to prove where the specific pollutant that harmed you came from, and you may not have even suffered enough harm to be worth suing... yet the total damage in aggregate can be staggering. See also vaccines.
Bringing the analogy full-circle, it sounds like you are arguing that you should trust that illegal immigrant who was willing to take someone's money to beat you up.
I don't disagree that the government has a role in setting up a free market. They can "grease the wheels", so to speak... set up the rules of the game. But I'd like a specific example where the government enabling a local monopoly "lessens control of the market". Eliminating competition gets rid of one of the main tenets of capitalism.
Well, I did hedge in my comment with "they very well might". If there is some criminal or nefarious intent proved, then yes a court might pierce the shield. But that might be a harder fight than suing the subsidiaries and getting the arbitration clause thrown out.
Capitalism. And a government that has been bought and paid for by those big ass corporations.
You realize that those two things are diametrically opposed? I mean, you admit that one of the problems is the government. Government interference in a market is a socialism thing.
Spot on. At the very least, people active in the running of the business should not have limited liability - it completely defeats the whole libertarian ideal of individual responsibility. I can understand the desire to encourage passive investment, but I don't see any upside in limiting the liability of active investors.
No, that's not true. Limited liability. You can sue for anything you like, but the owners of a limited liability corporation are not going to lose a lawsuit. They very well might need to go after the individual subsidiaries.
Well, I mean, that's my job.
I'd waggle my cane at you and give you a lecture about disposable culture and such... but depending on where he gets his electricity from, this may not be a valid criticism.
I wish! We still have SPARC machines.
So I've concocted a scenario where there is a zombie Stalin and Mao fighting, and the part that stands out to you is the implausibility of the dildos? I think this says more about you than me.
People have this innate tendency to choose sides that just drives me nuts. If Stalin and Mao are in a fight, you don't make a choice to help one - you hand them dildos and laugh your ass off as they beat each other with them.
Why is this a binary choice? A pox on both of their houses.
Your standpoint loudly proclaims that organic food has no health benefit, or do I miss something? Would you care to post a link supporting that standpoint?
You have that exactly backwards. There is an "organic" label, and the people slapping it on things make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. I am not an idiot for demanding evidence of these claims, but people are... not quite idiots but definitely ignorant of the scientific method when they believe these claims.
Should I continue?
Only if you admit that you made up the tomato-chicken.
So your original comment did not mention GMO, but what if they use GMO to create a peanut without the protein that people are allergic to? Still evil? It's just a technology - it's mere existence does not demand new regulation. That is taking the precautionary principle to absurd and extreme lengths. Let the food regulators do their thing unless there is some evidence that demands further regulation.
What has your political agenda to do with scientific facts?
Completely agree. People in this country do not get a good scientific education, IMHO.