Don't be silly. Humans have 'knowledge' of the future in the same way we have 'knowledge' of the far past: by popular convention. For example, I 'know' that the sun will rise tomorrow. Is there a chance that it won't? Sure. However, I 'know' that it will be there tomorrow morning, just as always. I am sure I 'know' more about what will happen tomorrow, but unless you're willing to wager there's no point showing off.
Yes, and that's why no one ever dies in a car accident. You fucking dolt. Either push for everything that could ever possibly be used improperly to be made illegal or just shut the fuck up and let natural selection do its thang.
If the drive is unmounted and unpowered, that is not a hot swap. This was a drive, which was part of a volume group, which was removed while the system was running and the volume group was active, with mounted filesystems on it.
When I used to work for AIX support, I once had a customer call to complain about a disk in a raid that had gone bad. We tried all the lvm commands to get this disk back, but it was dead. When I asked what had happened right before the disk died, he informed me that it was during a hot-swap operation. Well, I asked him what kind of cabinet he had for his scsi hot-swap system...none. He was swapping internal scsi disks live. Now, when I informed him that we didn't support scsi hot-swap without a drive cabinet or some other device to make it safe, he exploded. Told me all about how he'd been hot swapping scsi drives for 20 years with never a problem. All I could say was 'Wow, sir, you've been extremely lucky.' He tried to get hardware to replace the disk for free, but when they read the text of the call, they couldn't stop laughing. Now, I've had many people tell me that they've been able to get away with hot-swapping scsi drives once or twice, but always with a sense of nervousness. This guy did it all the time, and was lucky enough to only kill an important drive in his mission crit server at 2am. I mean, I'm all for taking chances on old, rescued, redundant, or personal equipment, but it takes balls to pull a drive out of a running mission crit server, just to put a different brand of drive in its place.
I disagree with your statement that a regulated economy is more corruptible than an unregulated one, and have seen no evidence to support this.
Really? You can't imagine how making it required to sort through thousands if not millions of lines of legalese and deal with a multitude of bureaucracies could possibly lead to corruption? I know you don't *want* to, but think of it this way: if multinational hugecorp and localsmalltown inc are going for a government contract, which one do you think will be able to comply with regulations more cost-effectively?
How does doing the right thing not hurt the bottom line? Using safer equipment costs more money than more dangerous equipment. Not firing your broken employees costs you money. Cleaning up environmental messes cost money. That's why none of these things were standard practices in the laissez faire days
You're using the 'laissez faire' days as an example of a free market. However, the government hand was extremely strong *in support of the companies* in those days. Workers could not easily change jobs. In a truly free market, employees can move to jobs which offer safer equipment, leaving the companies who only use dangerous machines substandard employees who don't care about the danger or are willing to work for less money. People who believe in the environment will not work for or patronize companies which do not clean up after themselves. Companies that fire 'broken' employees will likewise be shunned by those who care. The current system forces massive inefficiency because not every business is exactly the same, but we are attempting to make them all follow the same procedures.
Did you notice yet that there was absolutely nothing contradictory in that at all?
No. In fact, saying 'I support your decision' is not supposed to mean that he...um...supported...um...the...decision? Saying 'I support the president and what he did' and then saying 'i don't support the president or his decision' is contradictory. You might wish to look up the context, because it makes it easier to see that he is not saying 'i thought we should have gone to war on a friday instead' or some other minor quibble. at the time, he said 'we should have tried more diplomacy, but we didn't and I support what we're doing' and now he says 'i don't support what we did, even though I said I did at the time' and you don't see a contradiction? It's also humorous that you didn't respond to any of the about 30 other examples they list. You also use the standard liberal talking point about WMD, as though that was the only reason anyone ever gave for going to war. I don't like the big two parties because apparently use of their tired, stale arguments is mandatory, and they aren't very good. Whatever reasons people have *now* for being anti-war, when the decision was made it was overwhelmingly bipartisan. It's just a shame that in a grab for political power, people forget their integrity and can't say 'I changed my mind,' they have to say, 'I never said what I said,' or, 'I never really believed what I said.' Sad, really.
first of all, you are obviously stupid. The post I replied to was looking for heated answers, not truthful ones. You, being a total dipshit, didn't understand that when I said I was giving the poster what he/she wanted, it didn't mean I was responding rationally because that wasn't what was desired. Since you decided to throw your hand in, perhaps you could tell me the name of the Russian detachment that took Iwo Jima. Or Guadalcanal. Perhaps you'd enlighten me as to the non-American OS that put PCs into every house. It wasn't Linux, I'll tell you that. As flawed as Windows is, to deny Microsoft's role in making PCs ubiquitous is willful ignorance. Perhaps you would remember that Henry Ford created the assembly line, turning automobiles from a curiosity into a phenomenon. What exactly is your criticism of Mr. Franklin? That he was willing to sacrifice his body for the pursuit of knowledge? That he understood electricity before most other people? That he was an iconoclast? Really, you failed to adress this point. You created capitalism? Hah. Yes, my lord, I will do whatever you say, my lord. You were bowing to monarchs whilst criminalizing entrepaneurs and capitalists. The concept of rising above one's station is not one most Europeans contemplate, even today. Yet in America, people born into abject poverty become multi-millionaires every day. Next. We were the last to end apartheid? You must not have heard of South Africa. Either that, or you don't consider it important because it contradicts your assertion. What about Darfur? Why wouldn't you be proud of musical styles that can start with a people oppressed and become so mainstream that they are among the most popular styles of music in the entire world? I'm sorry, when was the last time big band music or madrigals took the top spot in any international music ranking? Mozart is good, but I would posit that more people worldwide know who Nelly is. You may think it's sad, but you can't deny the power of such music. Why wouldn't we be proud? I'm not talking about women voting. I didn't say anything about women voting. I was talking about women being equal. Yes, there have been matriarchal societies in the past. However, there have been (and continue to be) far more patriarchal societies. Ours was the first in recent memory to posit the idea that women can do any job men can do. That idea did not come from Europe. As far as 'chips on shoulders,' I was feeding a troll, with what he wanted to hear. You're the one who felt the need to reply. I wasn't being serious, but you decided you needed to 'correct' me. Sure sounds like I'm the one with the chip, doesn't it? Idiot.
Nice troll. You were aware that African slaves were sold into slavery by other Africans, weren't you? Or that Irish slaves were also popular? Or that Irish slaves were more likely to have been kidnapped by raiders than African ones? Certainly you were. You would also be aware that slavery still exists, but not in America, right? Or that America didn't run a fleet of slave ships; those were British and Dutch, mostly. Perhaps you're just trolling.
The world doesn't like the US. We'd be better off without you.
Okay, since you're obviously digging for heated responses, let me fulfill your need.
Without the US, the rest of the world would: Be speaking German or Japanese right now Not be using a computer Not be driving automobiles Never have known the jaw-dropping awesomeness that was Mr. Benjamin Franklin Never have known the concept of working yourself from poverty to riches (in europe there's always some deus ex machina for rags-to-riches stories) Never have known a place where immigrants from anywhere are valued and respected (okay, not so much anymore, but then at least we had it for a brief moment) Never have been introduced to rock n' roll, blues, jazz, rap or hip-hop. Never have allowed women to equal men in common society Never have allowed the poor to sue the rich
okay, did that satisfy your craving for invective? I can throw out polemics like rose petals in a romance novel. I'm sure I believe what I said about as much as you believed what you said.
I don't think markets are natural, I think they must be sustained by rules that maintain the integrity of the free market by stopping larger companies from leveraging their awesome power against their smaller competitors.
That sounds good, but regulations impose more of a burden (in percentage of revenue spent on compliance) on small businesses than large ones. Large businesses can afford to have a person or department to ensure compliance, while a small business usually does not have those resources, and noncompliance with government regulations can shut businesses down. However, it isn't the large companies that get shut down; they can leverage their assets into favorable rulings and/or more time to become compliant. Small businesses almost never can.
If power will decentralize on its own naturally like that, then why is history full of one centralized power after another?
Because there aren't enough Libertarians around to show the people who aren't part of the machine that they are not benefitting from it.
Obviously, people work the rules of any system to maximize the amount of power they wield; they would find ways to do that through a free market too.
Yes, and the more regulations you have, the more loopholes exist. Gaming of the system becomes more complicated but more rewarding, and those with the resources to do it (such as large companies) benefit more. You appear to support that system, while decrying its inevitable effects.
Except that in a free market without a publicly run democratic government, power is controlled entirely by wealth, so the non-affluent would find no way to change their circumstances except through violence, and so revolution would be the only recourse to shake off a disliked power elite. At least right now we can vote out those members of the elite in the public sphere, broken though the system currently is.
Whoa, nelly. First of all, Libertarians do not believe in no government, we believe in less government. I do not accept your assumption that with no government, power is wealth. I would say that in the absence of government, physical force and the mastery thereof is the basis for power. Government is meant to protect us from invasion and arbitrate interstate disputes. Anything local should be handled by local government. Having a strong centralized state causes massive inefficeincy and waste, as well as inter-bureau power struggles. Of course, at any level there will be abuse of power, inefficiency and waste, but centralizing power means magnifying those effects, because they not only affect those close, but everyone across the country. You also claim that we can 'vote out the elite,' but I say that if you truly believe that you are deluded. We have two parties to choose from, both of which are corrupt and beholden to special interests and their own party members. We can choose corrupt party candidate number one, or corrupt party candidate number two. It is Hobson's choice. Voting out one member of the 'elite' only causes another to take his place. It is naive to think otherwise.
I also support worker safety protections and environmental regulations. I'm from the old school of business ethics, the companies obligation is to maximize its profits and nothing else.
Okay...so which is it? The 'old school' of business ethics did not care for worker safety or the environment. However, rather than let the market dictate those practices, they bought lawmakers to change the laws to be favorable to their plans. There is a new school of business ethics which states that worker safety and environmental concerns can be adressed so that the ethical thing to do is also the profitable one. This arises from personal responsibility on the part of the person starting or running the business, something that reliance on too much regulation discounts. You see, you are acting as though we have had a truly free market in this country. The fact is, we have not. Our economy has alway
Hmm. maybe it was a troll, though unintentional. However, only the last sentence is not verifiable fact. (And, I suppose, the first sentence, if you wish to be netpicky.)
I see how it goes. Too afraid to respond to my points, you mod my post flamebait. If you can't use logic or facts, try to prevent people from getting the message. It isn't a new tactic.
No. You're wrong. It's clearly Dungeons and Dragons which makes people think they can fly, like that poor kid in Austin in the eighties that jumped out of the hotel window because his D&D character could fly. We should immunize children against D&D. Either that, or we should realize that life isn't, shouldn't be, and cannot be made completely safe. Then, perhaps we'd turn our attention to something that actually mattered. Okay, probably not.
Using your example, adding the immunization bit, adjusting for hilarity:
Because some people have sex with HIV-infected prostitutes, we're going to neuter every child at birth, so that no child will have sex with an HIV-infected hooker ever again. Problem solved. In fact, that would solve *all* of humanity's problems. Let's eliminate the biggest danger to humankind: humans.
Why don't you just vote Libertarian? In addition to supporting legalization of marijuana, Michael Badnarik is a candidate who stands on his principles, even to refusing to pay taxes until someone points out to him the Constitutionality of the IRS, which tellingly has not yet happened. He also refuses to get a Texas Driver's License because they force you to put your fingerprints and social security # on record to get one. Even at the risk of fines and imprisonment, he stands up for what he believes. I doubt Bush would risk jail time on principle, and I can't tell what Kerry's actual beliefs are because they seem to change depending on who he's talking to.
It was a conspiracy, but not in theory. Four states, which happened to be the four states most impacted by the vast numbers of immigrating Mexicans, called for marijuana to be made illegal. At the time, very few Anglo-Saxons had even heard of 'marihuana' and so had no idea whether it should be made illegal or not. After a 30-minute Congessional hearing, it was decided to ban the sale and use of marijuana. Please tell me how a 30-minute Congressional hearing can be enough to decide whether something should be outlawed or not. Millions of Americans have done jail time because of that 30-minute sham hearing. Also, it is fact that Henry Anslinger was told to fabricate information for use in his anti-marijuana 'documentaries.' He freely admits that he had no idea then what marijuana was and that he was told to demonize it, which he did extremely well. Anyone with an inkling of intelligence cannot watch 'Reefer Madness' and take it seriously these days but when it came out many people believed it. Marijuana was criminalized out of fear and ignorance and is kept criminal out of self-interest. No amount of reason, logic, or fact can prevail when the people who are in control benefit from the status quo. It isn't that they actually believe the rhetoric that they try to sell you; reference the DEA's page explaining why marijuana is illegal, and you will find their argument is this: Marijuana is BAD because it's against the law, and it's against the law because it's BAD. The thing is, they know that this doesn't make sense, but they don't care. A lot of pro-legalization people seem to sincerely believe that if only those in power knew the truth, they'd change their ways. They *know* the truth, however, and simply profit too much to care.
Hammers can be lethal in untrained hands. Cars can be lethal in untrained hands. Bleach can be lethal in untrained hands. Bathtubs kill more people every year than heroin. Make hammers, cars, cleaning products, and bathrubs illegal now, because they kill a certain number of people every year and harm a different number every single year! OH MY GOD! Things can be dangerous! Life isn't perfectly safe! Of course, alcohol is still legal. At least *it* can't be harmful in untrained hands./sarcasm
My point is this: How can you argue against recreational drugs because they 'can be harmful in untrained hands' while totally ignoring the fact that almost everything we interact with on a daily basis fits that same description? Are you saying that people who overeat or smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol or drive cars or misuse tools and end up in the hospital are NOT costing the rest of us money? Of course they are. Yet there is no call for a ban on the use of household cleaners, or cars, or bathtubs. Life isn't safe. Get a helmet and stay the fuck out of my medicine cabinet.
Come on, get serious! This is just plain ridiculous. Now, who wants a Super-Sized Big Mac meal with extra fries? Don't forget that apple pies are two for a dollar! Let me just get out of this chair...doh. Well, it has wheels, I'll just roll it to the golden arches.
Technically, corporations are people too. Therefore in the spirit of advertising, it's still government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
Letting lawyers make the laws is akin to hiring vulpine architects and contractors to design and build your henhouse.
First, you haven't pissed me off at all. In fact, your posts indicate the reverse. I find it funny that although I spend less actual time writing posts than you, because they are longer you assume they take more time. Just because you are too stupid to put a paragraph together does not mean everyone is. If this truly was your last reply, fine. I have been saying for a while now that as soon as you stopped replying, I'd forget you even existed. Of course, I'm sure you don't want me to think you've read this far, but we both know you have. You are teh dumb.
Sure. Of course you are. Why shouldn't I keep replying in full paragraphs? I have no reason to believe that you aren't reading them. You're the same person who doesn't know the difference between 'affect' and 'effect,' after all. Why do you keep replying to me? If you want me to go away, don't reply. Then I won't reply because there won't be anything for me to reply to. Of course, I'm not sure you are smart enough to comprehend that thought. Apparently you also don't know what the word 'hint' means. You've told me to go away now flat out a few times. It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 40 that when you reply, I'll reply. 'Take a hint' and stop now. It's up to you, just as it's always been.
Of course. You don't read my posts, you just respond to what I said in them. Idiot. Besides, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the mistake you made, and everything to do with the fact that you cannot let it go. I had already done so, ten seconds after I replied to your first post. You could not, and still cannot, thus you are driven to reply to me again and again. I definitely do not feel that I'm wasting my time, as every time you reply it makes me happy. I find it incredibly amusing that you cannot simply accept that you are inferior. I am not leveling that accusation at you because of your 'affect/effect' mistake but because of your subsequent mishandling of the simple correction I handed you. I didn't say 'OMG fag you don't even know what the words you're using mean,' I simply informed you of a mistake and why it was a mistake. You chose to take it extremely personally. You chose to reply to me. I am simply returning that courtesy. Keep making yourself my bitch. I don't care.
Of course you're reading my replies. If you were not, you'd not bother replying in turn. Your argument can easily be applied to you as well as to me. Why do you bother replying, when you obviously cannot hope to match me? As to why I reply in entire paragraphs: it is because I can. Obviously, you would like to be able to do so, but cannot. I am sure my entire paragraphs are posted more quickly than your one-line wonders. I'm sure you'd *like* to understand my replies, as well as read them, but I'm afraid I cannot bring myself down to your level. I tried, in the interest of fairness, but could not do it. I have limitless patience. Reply as many times as you like, struggling to flagellate your poor grey matter for a line of response. I will toss off a paragraph at a time, and I don't use the term erroneously. I'm basically sperming all over you every time you attempt to reply to me. You are my bitch. I own you.
No I don't. I'm not the one who thought that someone was out to get me. Just because I'm better than *you* doesn't mean I'm better than everyone. Not that being better than you is any sort of accomplishment. Carrottop is better than you. Paulie Shore is better than you. If it wasn't a BIG DEAL like you say....why did you fly off the handle at me in the first place? I thought it wasn't a BIG DEAL? I mean...it must have affected you pretty strongly for something that isn't a BIG DEAL. I must have had *some* sort of effect on you. Oh well. I guess, if it's not a BIG DEAL, you won't feel the need to reply for what...a fifth time? Good to know you don't think it's a BIG DEAL.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be silly. Humans have 'knowledge' of the future in the same way we have 'knowledge' of the far past: by popular convention. For example, I 'know' that the sun will rise tomorrow. Is there a chance that it won't? Sure. However, I 'know' that it will be there tomorrow morning, just as always. I am sure I 'know' more about what will happen tomorrow, but unless you're willing to wager there's no point showing off.
Yes, and that's why no one ever dies in a car accident. You fucking dolt. Either push for everything that could ever possibly be used improperly to be made illegal or just shut the fuck up and let natural selection do its thang.
If the drive is unmounted and unpowered, that is not a hot swap. This was a drive, which was part of a volume group, which was removed while the system was running and the volume group was active, with mounted filesystems on it.
Kudos, sir. You said it much better than I. Respect.
When I used to work for AIX support, I once had a customer call to complain about a disk in a raid that had gone bad. We tried all the lvm commands to get this disk back, but it was dead. When I asked what had happened right before the disk died, he informed me that it was during a hot-swap operation. Well, I asked him what kind of cabinet he had for his scsi hot-swap system...none. He was swapping internal scsi disks live. Now, when I informed him that we didn't support scsi hot-swap without a drive cabinet or some other device to make it safe, he exploded. Told me all about how he'd been hot swapping scsi drives for 20 years with never a problem. All I could say was 'Wow, sir, you've been extremely lucky.' He tried to get hardware to replace the disk for free, but when they read the text of the call, they couldn't stop laughing. Now, I've had many people tell me that they've been able to get away with hot-swapping scsi drives once or twice, but always with a sense of nervousness. This guy did it all the time, and was lucky enough to only kill an important drive in his mission crit server at 2am. I mean, I'm all for taking chances on old, rescued, redundant, or personal equipment, but it takes balls to pull a drive out of a running mission crit server, just to put a different brand of drive in its place.
I disagree with your statement that a regulated economy is more corruptible than an unregulated one, and have seen no evidence to support this.
...decision?
Really? You can't imagine how making it required to sort through thousands if not millions of lines of legalese and deal with a multitude of bureaucracies could possibly lead to corruption? I know you don't *want* to, but think of it this way: if multinational hugecorp and localsmalltown inc are going for a government contract, which one do you think will be able to comply with regulations more cost-effectively?
How does doing the right thing not hurt the bottom line? Using safer equipment costs more money than more dangerous equipment. Not firing your broken employees costs you money. Cleaning up environmental messes cost money. That's why none of these things were standard practices in the laissez faire days
You're using the 'laissez faire' days as an example of a free market. However, the government hand was extremely strong *in support of the companies* in those days. Workers could not easily change jobs. In a truly free market, employees can move to jobs which offer safer equipment, leaving the companies who only use dangerous machines substandard employees who don't care about the danger or are willing to work for less money. People who believe in the environment will not work for or patronize companies which do not clean up after themselves. Companies that fire 'broken' employees will likewise be shunned by those who care. The current system forces massive inefficiency because not every business is exactly the same, but we are attempting to make them all follow the same procedures.
Did you notice yet that there was absolutely nothing contradictory in that at all?
No. In fact, saying 'I support your decision' is not supposed to mean that he...um...supported...um...the
Saying 'I support the president and what he did' and then saying 'i don't support the president or his decision' is contradictory. You might wish to look up the context, because it makes it easier to see that he is not saying 'i thought we should have gone to war on a friday instead' or some other minor quibble. at the time, he said 'we should have tried more diplomacy, but we didn't and I support what we're doing' and now he says 'i don't support what we did, even though I said I did at the time' and you don't see a contradiction? It's also humorous that you didn't respond to any of the about 30 other examples they list. You also use the standard liberal talking point about WMD, as though that was the only reason anyone ever gave for going to war. I don't like the big two parties because apparently use of their tired, stale arguments is mandatory, and they aren't very good. Whatever reasons people have *now* for being anti-war, when the decision was made it was overwhelmingly bipartisan. It's just a shame that in a grab for political power, people forget their integrity and can't say 'I changed my mind,' they have to say, 'I never said what I said,' or, 'I never really believed what I said.' Sad, really.
first of all, you are obviously stupid. The post I replied to was looking for heated answers, not truthful ones. You, being a total dipshit, didn't understand that when I said I was giving the poster what he/she wanted, it didn't mean I was responding rationally because that wasn't what was desired.
Since you decided to throw your hand in, perhaps you could tell me the name of the Russian detachment that took Iwo Jima. Or Guadalcanal. Perhaps you'd enlighten me as to the non-American OS that put PCs into every house. It wasn't Linux, I'll tell you that. As flawed as Windows is, to deny Microsoft's role in making PCs ubiquitous is willful ignorance. Perhaps you would remember that Henry Ford created the assembly line, turning automobiles from a curiosity into a phenomenon. What exactly is your criticism of Mr. Franklin? That he was willing to sacrifice his body for the pursuit of knowledge? That he understood electricity before most other people? That he was an iconoclast? Really, you failed to adress this point. You created capitalism? Hah. Yes, my lord, I will do whatever you say, my lord. You were bowing to monarchs whilst criminalizing entrepaneurs and capitalists. The concept of rising above one's station is not one most Europeans contemplate, even today. Yet in America, people born into abject poverty become multi-millionaires every day. Next. We were the last to end apartheid? You must not have heard of South Africa. Either that, or you don't consider it important because it contradicts your assertion. What about Darfur? Why wouldn't you be proud of musical styles that can start with a people oppressed and become so mainstream that they are among the most popular styles of music in the entire world? I'm sorry, when was the last time big band music or madrigals took the top spot in any international music ranking? Mozart is good, but I would posit that more people worldwide know who Nelly is. You may think it's sad, but you can't deny the power of such music. Why wouldn't we be proud? I'm not talking about women voting. I didn't say anything about women voting. I was talking about women being equal. Yes, there have been matriarchal societies in the past. However, there have been (and continue to be) far more patriarchal societies. Ours was the first in recent memory to posit the idea that women can do any job men can do. That idea did not come from Europe. As far as 'chips on shoulders,' I was feeding a troll, with what he wanted to hear. You're the one who felt the need to reply. I wasn't being serious, but you decided you needed to 'correct' me. Sure sounds like I'm the one with the chip, doesn't it? Idiot.
Nice troll. You were aware that African slaves were sold into slavery by other Africans, weren't you? Or that Irish slaves were also popular? Or that Irish slaves were more likely to have been kidnapped by raiders than African ones? Certainly you were. You would also be aware that slavery still exists, but not in America, right? Or that America didn't run a fleet of slave ships; those were British and Dutch, mostly. Perhaps you're just trolling.
The world doesn't like the US. We'd be better off without you.
Okay, since you're obviously digging for heated responses, let me fulfill your need.
Without the US, the rest of the world would:
Be speaking German or Japanese right now
Not be using a computer
Not be driving automobiles
Never have known the jaw-dropping awesomeness that was Mr. Benjamin Franklin
Never have known the concept of working yourself from poverty to riches (in europe there's always some deus ex machina for rags-to-riches stories)
Never have known a place where immigrants from anywhere are valued and respected (okay, not so much anymore, but then at least we had it for a brief moment)
Never have been introduced to rock n' roll, blues, jazz, rap or hip-hop.
Never have allowed women to equal men in common society
Never have allowed the poor to sue the rich
okay, did that satisfy your craving for invective?
I can throw out polemics like rose petals in a romance novel. I'm sure I believe what I said about as much as you believed what you said.
I don't think markets are natural, I think they must be sustained by rules that maintain the integrity of the free market by stopping larger companies from leveraging their awesome power against their smaller competitors.
That sounds good, but regulations impose more of a burden (in percentage of revenue spent on compliance) on small businesses than large ones. Large businesses can afford to have a person or department to ensure compliance, while a small business usually does not have those resources, and noncompliance with government regulations can shut businesses down. However, it isn't the large companies that get shut down; they can leverage their assets into favorable rulings and/or more time to become compliant. Small businesses almost never can.
If power will decentralize on its own naturally like that, then why is history full of one centralized power after another?
Because there aren't enough Libertarians around to show the people who aren't part of the machine that they are not benefitting from it.
Obviously, people work the rules of any system to maximize the amount of power they wield; they would find ways to do that through a free market too.
Yes, and the more regulations you have, the more loopholes exist. Gaming of the system becomes more complicated but more rewarding, and those with the resources to do it (such as large companies) benefit more. You appear to support that system, while decrying its inevitable effects.
Except that in a free market without a publicly run democratic government, power is controlled entirely by wealth, so the non-affluent would find no way to change their circumstances except through violence, and so revolution would be the only recourse to shake off a disliked power elite. At least right now we can vote out those members of the elite in the public sphere, broken though the system currently is.
Whoa, nelly. First of all, Libertarians do not believe in no government, we believe in less government. I do not accept your assumption that with no government, power is wealth. I would say that in the absence of government, physical force and the mastery thereof is the basis for power. Government is meant to protect us from invasion and arbitrate interstate disputes. Anything local should be handled by local government. Having a strong centralized state causes massive inefficeincy and waste, as well as inter-bureau power struggles. Of course, at any level there will be abuse of power, inefficiency and waste, but centralizing power means magnifying those effects, because they not only affect those close, but everyone across the country. You also claim that we can 'vote out the elite,' but I say that if you truly believe that you are deluded. We have two parties to choose from, both of which are corrupt and beholden to special interests and their own party members. We can choose corrupt party candidate number one, or corrupt party candidate number two. It is Hobson's choice. Voting out one member of the 'elite' only causes another to take his place. It is naive to think otherwise.
I also support worker safety protections and environmental regulations. I'm from the old school of business ethics, the companies obligation is to maximize its profits and nothing else.
Okay...so which is it? The 'old school' of business ethics did not care for worker safety or the environment. However, rather than let the market dictate those practices, they bought lawmakers to change the laws to be favorable to their plans. There is a new school of business ethics which states that worker safety and environmental concerns can be adressed so that the ethical thing to do is also the profitable one. This arises from personal responsibility on the part of the person starting or running the business, something that reliance on too much regulation discounts. You see, you are acting as though we have had a truly free market in this country. The fact is, we have not. Our economy has alway
Hmm. maybe it was a troll, though unintentional. However, only the last sentence is not verifiable fact. (And, I suppose, the first sentence, if you wish to be netpicky.)
I see how it goes. Too afraid to respond to my points, you mod my post flamebait. If you can't use logic or facts, try to prevent people from getting the message. It isn't a new tactic.
Sometimes, especially here in Atlanta, traffic is so thick that you can't help doing someone stupid sometimes.
Hmm. The traffic must be *really* bad if you have time for that.
No. You're wrong. It's clearly Dungeons and Dragons which makes people think they can fly, like that poor kid in Austin in the eighties that jumped out of the hotel window because his D&D character could fly. We should immunize children against D&D. Either that, or we should realize that life isn't, shouldn't be, and cannot be made completely safe. Then, perhaps we'd turn our attention to something that actually mattered. Okay, probably not.
Using your example, adding the immunization bit, adjusting for hilarity:
Because some people have sex with HIV-infected prostitutes, we're going to neuter every child at birth, so that no child will have sex with an HIV-infected hooker ever again.
Problem solved. In fact, that would solve *all* of humanity's problems. Let's eliminate the biggest danger to humankind: humans.
Why don't you just vote Libertarian? In addition to supporting legalization of marijuana, Michael Badnarik is a candidate who stands on his principles, even to refusing to pay taxes until someone points out to him the Constitutionality of the IRS, which tellingly has not yet happened. He also refuses to get a Texas Driver's License because they force you to put your fingerprints and social security # on record to get one. Even at the risk of fines and imprisonment, he stands up for what he believes. I doubt Bush would risk jail time on principle, and I can't tell what Kerry's actual beliefs are because they seem to change depending on who he's talking to.
It was a conspiracy, but not in theory. Four states, which happened to be the four states most impacted by the vast numbers of immigrating Mexicans, called for marijuana to be made illegal. At the time, very few Anglo-Saxons had even heard of 'marihuana' and so had no idea whether it should be made illegal or not. After a 30-minute Congessional hearing, it was decided to ban the sale and use of marijuana. Please tell me how a 30-minute Congressional hearing can be enough to decide whether something should be outlawed or not. Millions of Americans have done jail time because of that 30-minute sham hearing. Also, it is fact that Henry Anslinger was told to fabricate information for use in his anti-marijuana 'documentaries.' He freely admits that he had no idea then what marijuana was and that he was told to demonize it, which he did extremely well. Anyone with an inkling of intelligence cannot watch 'Reefer Madness' and take it seriously these days but when it came out many people believed it. Marijuana was criminalized out of fear and ignorance and is kept criminal out of self-interest. No amount of reason, logic, or fact can prevail when the people who are in control benefit from the status quo. It isn't that they actually believe the rhetoric that they try to sell you; reference the DEA's page explaining why marijuana is illegal, and you will find their argument is this: Marijuana is BAD because it's against the law, and it's against the law because it's BAD. The thing is, they know that this doesn't make sense, but they don't care. A lot of pro-legalization people seem to sincerely believe that if only those in power knew the truth, they'd change their ways. They *know* the truth, however, and simply profit too much to care.
Hammers can be lethal in untrained hands. Cars can be lethal in untrained hands. Bleach can be lethal in untrained hands. Bathtubs kill more people every year than heroin. Make hammers, cars, cleaning products, and bathrubs illegal now, because they kill a certain number of people every year and harm a different number every single year! OH MY GOD! Things can be dangerous! Life isn't perfectly safe! Of course, alcohol is still legal. At least *it* can't be harmful in untrained hands. /sarcasm
My point is this: How can you argue against recreational drugs because they 'can be harmful in untrained hands' while totally ignoring the fact that almost everything we interact with on a daily basis fits that same description? Are you saying that people who overeat or smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol or drive cars or misuse tools and end up in the hospital are NOT costing the rest of us money? Of course they are. Yet there is no call for a ban on the use of household cleaners, or cars, or bathtubs. Life isn't safe. Get a helmet and stay the fuck out of my medicine cabinet.
Come on, get serious! This is just plain ridiculous. Now, who wants a Super-Sized Big Mac meal with extra fries? Don't forget that apple pies are two for a dollar! Let me just get out of this chair...doh. Well, it has wheels, I'll just roll it to the golden arches.
Technically, corporations are people too. Therefore in the spirit of advertising, it's still government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
Letting lawyers make the laws is akin to hiring vulpine architects and contractors to design and build your henhouse.
First, you haven't pissed me off at all. In fact, your posts indicate the reverse. I find it funny that although I spend less actual time writing posts than you, because they are longer you assume they take more time. Just because you are too stupid to put a paragraph together does not mean everyone is. If this truly was your last reply, fine. I have been saying for a while now that as soon as you stopped replying, I'd forget you even existed. Of course, I'm sure you don't want me to think you've read this far, but we both know you have. You are teh dumb.
Sure. Of course you are. Why shouldn't I keep replying in full paragraphs? I have no reason to believe that you aren't reading them. You're the same person who doesn't know the difference between 'affect' and 'effect,' after all. Why do you keep replying to me? If you want me to go away, don't reply. Then I won't reply because there won't be anything for me to reply to. Of course, I'm not sure you are smart enough to comprehend that thought. Apparently you also don't know what the word 'hint' means. You've told me to go away now flat out a few times. It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 40 that when you reply, I'll reply. 'Take a hint' and stop now. It's up to you, just as it's always been.
Of course. You don't read my posts, you just respond to what I said in them. Idiot. Besides, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the mistake you made, and everything to do with the fact that you cannot let it go. I had already done so, ten seconds after I replied to your first post. You could not, and still cannot, thus you are driven to reply to me again and again. I definitely do not feel that I'm wasting my time, as every time you reply it makes me happy. I find it incredibly amusing that you cannot simply accept that you are inferior. I am not leveling that accusation at you because of your 'affect/effect' mistake but because of your subsequent mishandling of the simple correction I handed you. I didn't say 'OMG fag you don't even know what the words you're using mean,' I simply informed you of a mistake and why it was a mistake. You chose to take it extremely personally. You chose to reply to me. I am simply returning that courtesy. Keep making yourself my bitch. I don't care.
Of course you're reading my replies. If you were not, you'd not bother replying in turn. Your argument can easily be applied to you as well as to me. Why do you bother replying, when you obviously cannot hope to match me? As to why I reply in entire paragraphs: it is because I can. Obviously, you would like to be able to do so, but cannot. I am sure my entire paragraphs are posted more quickly than your one-line wonders. I'm sure you'd *like* to understand my replies, as well as read them, but I'm afraid I cannot bring myself down to your level. I tried, in the interest of fairness, but could not do it. I have limitless patience. Reply as many times as you like, struggling to flagellate your poor grey matter for a line of response. I will toss off a paragraph at a time, and I don't use the term erroneously. I'm basically sperming all over you every time you attempt to reply to me. You are my bitch. I own you.
No I don't. I'm not the one who thought that someone was out to get me. Just because I'm better than *you* doesn't mean I'm better than everyone. Not that being better than you is any sort of accomplishment. Carrottop is better than you. Paulie Shore is better than you. If it wasn't a BIG DEAL like you say....why did you fly off the handle at me in the first place? I thought it wasn't a BIG DEAL? I mean...it must have affected you pretty strongly for something that isn't a BIG DEAL. I must have had *some* sort of effect on you. Oh well. I guess, if it's not a BIG DEAL, you won't feel the need to reply for what...a fifth time? Good to know you don't think it's a BIG DEAL.