So if all but one seller sets a certain price, then they are free to do so, but that last one seller is not free to set that same price - then the rules of reality change?
I also do not understand this statement - "artificially raise prices". This assumes there is a correct price for a given product, that sellers know that correct price, and have chosen not to use it. Is that what you are claiming? In a market, the "correct price" is what a buyer and seller are freely willing to agree to, so you could not determine in advance of the actual transaction what price is correct.
Ignoring the various ad hominems, all that's left is - "Apple specifically worked with publishers to raise prices and force those publishers" - so which is it, did Apple voluntarily "work with" publishers to set prices, or did they "force" publishers? And if it's "force", by what means did they enforce it? Did they imprison publishers who did not accept their prices? If not, then what does this word "force" mean, exactly?
Ignoring the ad hominem and appeal to authority, all that's left is "are you... claiming collusion and price-fixing are good things for a free market?", which is really a straw man since we do not have a free market. But regardless, I am only concerned with whether individual rights are being upheld or violated.
"Monopoly power" - I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. A lot of people want their products and buy them. So they have sold a lot of products, and they are popular. How does this observation turn into the claim that they now have a "monopoly" or "power" over the people - are people not free to choose other products, or start up competing products/services? Do people have a right to their products?
Compare so-called private "trusts" to real-life monopolies with actual power (threat of physical force via government). How are they equivalent? Will Apple throw me in jail if I buy a PC? If not, then what "power" do they really have over me?
Why is it the government's business what prices individuals freely choose to set for their products? Do buyers have a right to buy their products at a certain price? Who is being more "greedy" - the seller who asks a certain price, or the buyer who demands one via government force?
The only thing that would cause our unemployment rate to increase in such a situation would be the fact that we have made it illegal to be less productive than $7.25/hour.
Given their clear intentions, how close should we be willing to let them get? If a thug on the street says he wants to kill you and claims he has a knife, do you call his bluff, turn around and walk away, or do you prepare to defend yourself?
There's a big difference between requiring something to get a job (peeing in a cup) and making something a requirement after someone already has a job (requiring flu shots after a longtime policy of it being optional).
It's really not a big difference. You just need to get rid of the idea that once you are hired, you are entitled to that job for good, until you either become unprofitable or start stealing staplers. It's the employers money, and they should be free to spend it how they please.
How much longer are we going to put up with the two false alternatives that continue to kick the can down the road and buy votes with money that will be paid back by future generations?
How long until we finally consider a real alternative?
While the initiator is to blame for the situation each individual holds their own responsibility for how they respond.
Certainly not. If someone starst a fire in a theater, and a panic leads to a stampede, the only person responsible for anything that results is the arsonist - period.
Think of it this way, if a gunman entered a crowded room and shot some people, would it be acceptable to take him out with a grenade?
If he has body armor and is heavily armed, certainly. The context determines what the valid response should be.
You are completely disregarding the effect that a society free of gun laws and fear of guns has on the decision-making of these sorts of people. Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
So no, you aren't arming yourself for an unlikely event, but helping make the event unlikely by arming yourself - in addition to promoting the easement of gun laws, and spreading gun education to reduce irrational fear of guns.
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
You are discounting the effect that a society free of gun laws and fear of guns has on the decision-making of these sorts of people. Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
So no, you aren't arming yourself for an unlikely event, but helping make the event unlikely by arming yourself - in addition to promoting the easement of gun laws, and spreading gun education to reduce irrational fear of guns.
Besides correlation != causation, did they actually determine that those individuals with reduced Alzheimer's risk were actually consuming more caffeine? Higher blood caffeine levels does not necessarily indicate higher caffeine intake, any more than a person with high blood alcohol levels - who happens have to have slow alcohol metabolism - can be said to be drinking more alcohol than others.
Slashdot Mirror
So if all but one seller sets a certain price, then they are free to do so, but that last one seller is not free to set that same price - then the rules of reality change?
I also do not understand this statement - "artificially raise prices". This assumes there is a correct price for a given product, that sellers know that correct price, and have chosen not to use it. Is that what you are claiming? In a market, the "correct price" is what a buyer and seller are freely willing to agree to, so you could not determine in advance of the actual transaction what price is correct.
Ignoring the various ad hominems, all that's left is - "Apple specifically worked with publishers to raise prices and force those publishers" - so which is it, did Apple voluntarily "work with" publishers to set prices, or did they "force" publishers? And if it's "force", by what means did they enforce it? Did they imprison publishers who did not accept their prices? If not, then what does this word "force" mean, exactly?
Ignoring the ad hominem and appeal to authority, all that's left is "are you ... claiming collusion and price-fixing are good things for a free market?", which is really a straw man since we do not have a free market. But regardless, I am only concerned with whether individual rights are being upheld or violated.
"Monopoly power" - I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. A lot of people want their products and buy them. So they have sold a lot of products, and they are popular. How does this observation turn into the claim that they now have a "monopoly" or "power" over the people - are people not free to choose other products, or start up competing products/services? Do people have a right to their products?
Compare so-called private "trusts" to real-life monopolies with actual power (threat of physical force via government). How are they equivalent? Will Apple throw me in jail if I buy a PC? If not, then what "power" do they really have over me?
Why is it the government's business what prices individuals freely choose to set for their products? Do buyers have a right to buy their products at a certain price? Who is being more "greedy" - the seller who asks a certain price, or the buyer who demands one via government force?
That would be submersion...
But the tubes need to be in parallel, not in series!
An easier fix: privatize the waterways. Then if you pollute the water, and the property owner can demonstrate harm, they can take you to court.
There's no easy solution here
Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
The only thing that would cause our unemployment rate to increase in such a situation would be the fact that we have made it illegal to be less productive than $7.25/hour.
More cheap labor would hurt China's economy... how? Protectionist much?
No, because that is not a credible threat, unlike my scenario, or the one Iran presents.
Given their clear intentions, how close should we be willing to let them get? If a thug on the street says he wants to kill you and claims he has a knife, do you call his bluff, turn around and walk away, or do you prepare to defend yourself?
There's a big difference between requiring something to get a job (peeing in a cup) and making something a requirement after someone already has a job (requiring flu shots after a longtime policy of it being optional).
It's really not a big difference. You just need to get rid of the idea that once you are hired, you are entitled to that job for good, until you either become unprofitable or start stealing staplers. It's the employers money, and they should be free to spend it how they please.
More central bank bailouts and foreign aid, at least in theory. In practice, I don't think Romney will do anything differently in that regard.
Maybe if we apologize to them more, they'll like us.
How much longer are we going to put up with the two false alternatives that continue to kick the can down the road and buy votes with money that will be paid back by future generations?
How long until we finally consider a real alternative?
There's a third alternative: Gary Johnson.
While the initiator is to blame for the situation each individual holds their own responsibility for how they respond.
Certainly not. If someone starst a fire in a theater, and a panic leads to a stampede, the only person responsible for anything that results is the arsonist - period.
Think of it this way, if a gunman entered a crowded room and shot some people, would it be acceptable to take him out with a grenade?
If he has body armor and is heavily armed, certainly. The context determines what the valid response should be.
Just some people? And no armed security guards?
Who's being naive about the effect that gun laws have on the culture?
You are completely disregarding the effect that a society free of gun laws and fear of guns has on the decision-making of these sorts of people. Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
So no, you aren't arming yourself for an unlikely event, but helping make the event unlikely by arming yourself - in addition to promoting the easement of gun laws, and spreading gun education to reduce irrational fear of guns.
I'd hate to see what would happen if a bunch of amateurs started firing in a crowded and smoky movie theater.
Whatever does happen, know that there is only one person to blame.
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
You are discounting the effect that a society free of gun laws and fear of guns has on the decision-making of these sorts of people. Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
So no, you aren't arming yourself for an unlikely event, but helping make the event unlikely by arming yourself - in addition to promoting the easement of gun laws, and spreading gun education to reduce irrational fear of guns.
Besides correlation != causation, did they actually determine that those individuals with reduced Alzheimer's risk were actually consuming more caffeine? Higher blood caffeine levels does not necessarily indicate higher caffeine intake, any more than a person with high blood alcohol levels - who happens have to have slow alcohol metabolism - can be said to be drinking more alcohol than others.
...not funded through theft! This is a turning point.