Yes, Yes! By all means, wave a piece of paper at them..that'll stop 'em!
I heard Randy Weaver was waving the Constitution at the FBI right before they shot and killed his wife. For some strange reason, it didn't stop the bullet. Must have been a defective copy..hmm..
AC, I'm not a Libertarion, but you may be missing the point.
The government is the only entity that has a monopoly on the legal use of force to get its way.
If a corporation (or Organized Crime) tries to use guns or goons to get its way , then the government has bigger guns to stop them, as they have done on many occasions.
If the government comes to your house with their guns and goons to take it, exactly who would you turn to to rein them in?
Be wary of big business..yes..but be more wary of big government. They do, after all, have the biggest can of whupass, wouldn't you agree?
if Libertarians had their way because there would be no way to deal with jerks charging exorbitant prices for their land and thus blocking construction.
That's right. I mean if Libertarians had their way, how could Walmart possibly buy off the County Commission to get them to bulldoze your house so they can build their next SuperCenter? Power to the (rich) People (and Corporations)!
We would have no roads, because if they market requird roads, it would build roads.
This is the classic overgeneralization and "straw man" fallacy. It's the same fallacy we see with statements like: - if Liberals had their way, then we'd be living under Communism - if Muslims had their way, we'd all bow to Allah or be killed
Conservatives are not monolithic any more than Liberals are. Both idealogies encompass a wide range of opinions on different issues. IMHO, the overgeneralization and name-calling isn't helpful to the discussion.
About the current discussion: The Free Market is the absolute worst conceivable economic system in the whole world....except for all the others.
You must have paid someone off not to mod your post 'flamebait' which is obviously is. But I won't lower myself to responding in kind. I'll simply ask a question:
Would Bill Gates have a harder time putting his man in the Senate if he had to: 1) Buy off one man or 2) Buy off one hundred men
You give no support for your position nor do you explain how the direct or indirect election of Senators would affect someone like Bill Gates' ability to influence a Senatorial election. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say it might have been because a busy, successful man like yourself just didn't have the time. Others might assume it was for other reasons.
My optimistic side would like to believe that the Senators would vote in their states interest either way, since Senators would be selected by people in their state in both cases.
Unfortunately, it's easier for big money to sway the masses through ad campaigns than it is for them to buy off every politician. So, my cynical side knows that you are right.
We also need to reform the direct election of Senators. The original way that Senators were selected was by the state legislatures, but that was changed by an amendment that made Senators directly elected by popular vote.
The result has been that Senators are beholden to Washington lobbyists (read: big-moneyed interests) for re-election funds.
If Senators were appointed by the legislatures, you'd see a dramatic decline in influence peddling in the Senate because the lobbyists would have to try to bribe every state legislator to get their way instead of having a one-stop-shop with the Senator.
These are treasury bonds. Costitutionally, the government has to honor them whether social security needs it or not.
Absolutely. The question is: with what money does the government honor the treasury bonds? Answer: Current tax receipts (or by more borrowing). In the first case, people's tax burden increases. In the second case, inflation increases as the cost of borrowing increases. In either case, the result is the same: less money in the taxpayer pocket (in terms of real dollars).
And being a consumer economy, less money in the taxpayer pocket means a dragging economy...which means higher unemployment...which means..etc..etc.
1. Budget deficits and national debt did not begin with the Bush administration, nor will they end after it.
2. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. There is no lockbox; there is box full of IOUs. For seventy years (not just the last 4), the government has spent every last nickel of the Social Security surpluses.
3. Social Security, being a pay-as-you-go system, will go into a deficit situation about 2018, meaning that it will pay out more than it takes in. The money short has to come from somewhere. Where? From the Treasury paying back the IOUs. How does the Treasury pay back IOUs? With current tax receipts, regardless of the whether the government is running a deficit or not.
The larger fact is that basic problem is a too large federal deficit, not a systemic social security problem
I have to respectfully disagree.
The problem is very much with Social Security. Suppose there were no federal deficit and the budget were perfectly balanced from now until 2018.
For 70 years or so, Social Security has been taking the surplus and "lending" it to the Treasury Depatment. The Treasury Department has in turn spent all of the money and then put IOUs in a box promising to pay Social Security back.
Fast forward to 2018. Now Social Security is running a deficit and comes to collect on the IOUs. Where does the Treasury get the money to pay back the IOUs? Taxes. It has to raise taxes or cut spending somewhere. So the people paying taxes in 2018 will actually be paying Social Security taxes plus a backdoor Social Security tax (or a cut in some other benefit)
No, that's not a crisis...unless you're the one paying the backdoor tax to give gambling money to the richest segment of the society. Look at the numbers, elderly people are on average the richest members of our society. And the absolute greatest benefit of the Social Security program goes to the people who need it least.
This was recently done in the UK, when the Labour Party purchased three URL's, involving the name of the leader of the Conservative party.
This is ethically and politically acceptable. You see, the rule is, that if a left-leaning group does this, it should be tolerated because any means justifies the righteous intentions of the compassionate. (It also aptly demonstrates how much more clever they are than their lame conservative counterparts.) But since the motivations and goals of the Conservatives are nefarious, people-hating, etc. they should be held to a separate standard.
One standard for the good and enlightened; another for the evil. I know it's counter-intuitive and seems irrational, but just chant it to yourself for a while...
Just a clarification: felons can vote if they apply for and receive a pardon for their offense. No one should be branded for life, but I don't think that requiring an act of contrition such as seeking a pardon is unnecessarily burdensome.
On the contrary, seeking a pardon might give some indication that the offender has thought seriously about his or her crime and desires to be a conforming member of society again.
Good point, amigaluvr. I think that Microsoft has definitely used the speed of technological innovation and the slowness of the courts to their advantage in past fights.
Take the lawsuits over the crushing of Netscape. MS just went about capturing 90% of the browser market while the lawyers were still fighting. Additionally they used to stall time to permanently imbed the browser deeply into the OS to help prop up a claim later on that it would be too difficult to extract the browser from the OS as a remedy.
...for helping to accelerate the export all the rest of the programming jobs overseas. Globalization is here, but thanks to short-sighted laws like this, California software professionals are going to feel the bite a little sooner than the rest of us.
At the very least, I think you might see quite a few firms picking up and moving operations to Utah and Nevada in the near future.
Exactly the type of comment I'd expect from an anonymous coward.
I'm not looking to work in a factory anytime soon, but I do salute the men and women who provide the goods and services that come out of the factories. I'm happy to trade my best effort for theirs in a free and open society.
Ok, Blue..so we're back to the basic question to which it all hinges:
Do car companies _owe_ us a car? Do doctors _owe_ us health care? Do software companies _owe_ us a living? Is it possible to force someone else to use his or her brain and talents for our benefit simply because we "need" it.
I guess, you could force someone to do these things at the point of a gun, but I think Fascism has been tried and found wanting.
Instead of complaining about Microsoft, let's just not do any development for the M$ platform. We've got Linux and Java and we can develop using those.
M$ doesn't owe us a living (nor have they offered to provide one for us). No one is forcing us to develop on their platform, and if they try, we can just say no. Might cut into our paychecks? Well no one said living according to principles is cheap. Just seems more productive than constantly bi-otching and moaning about them.
WTF? The courts have upheld the right to use the logos of public figures and public corporations in the use of satire and parody back to the founding days of the country.
If CNN can shut down these guys with a C&D, how would all the M$ bashers on Slashdot like it if "Evil Bill" could shut down Slashdot's use of his borg image? Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth we'd hear then...
The federal government must sieze the assets of Microsoft in the name of the people. From each according to his ability, to each according to their lack of ability to successfully compete in the free market! Viva la revolution!
Slashdot Mirror
Can they build one for Day of Defeat or Counter-Strike? I hate those wussy-ass, spawn-camping, runny-nosed sniperz there!
Hmm..I do seem to remember recent news about a little agreement called CAFTA Does that count?
Nor was the Clinton Administration, the Bush 41 Administration, the Reagan Administration, the Carter Administration, ad nauseum.
Your partisan fangs are showing.
The Constitution?
Yes, Yes! By all means, wave a piece of paper at them..that'll stop 'em!
I heard Randy Weaver was waving the Constitution at the FBI right before they shot and killed his wife. For some strange reason, it didn't stop the bullet. Must have been a defective copy..hmm..
AC, I'm not a Libertarion, but you may be missing the point.
The government is the only entity that has a monopoly on the legal use of force to get its way.
If a corporation (or Organized Crime) tries to use guns or goons to get its way , then the government has bigger guns to stop them, as they have done on many occasions.
If the government comes to your house with their guns and goons to take it, exactly who would you turn to to rein them in?
Be wary of big business..yes..but be more wary of big government. They do, after all, have the biggest can of whupass, wouldn't you agree?
if Libertarians had their way because there would be no way to deal with jerks charging exorbitant prices for their land and thus blocking construction.
That's right. I mean if Libertarians had their way, how could Walmart possibly buy off the County Commission to get them to bulldoze your house so they can build their next SuperCenter?
Power to the (rich) People (and Corporations)!
Anita, Ok..joke taken with good humor.
;-)
It is an interesting commentary on the Slashdot moderation system that you intentually posted flamebait and got modded up
Oh, well...we'll have to wait until CowboyNeal is made CEO to get a perfect system.
Take care, V
We would have no roads, because if they market requird roads, it would build roads.
This is the classic overgeneralization and "straw man" fallacy. It's the same fallacy we see with statements like:
- if Liberals had their way, then we'd be living under Communism
- if Muslims had their way, we'd all bow to Allah or be killed
Conservatives are not monolithic any more than Liberals are. Both idealogies encompass a wide range of opinions on different issues.
IMHO, the overgeneralization and name-calling isn't helpful to the discussion.
About the current discussion:
The Free Market is the absolute worst conceivable economic system in the whole world....except for all the others.
You must have paid someone off not to mod your post 'flamebait' which is obviously is. But I won't lower myself to responding in kind. I'll simply ask a question:
Would Bill Gates have a harder time putting his man in the Senate if he had to:
1) Buy off one man
or
2) Buy off one hundred men
You give no support for your position nor do you explain how the direct or indirect election of Senators would affect someone like Bill Gates' ability to influence a Senatorial election. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say it might have been because a busy, successful man like yourself just didn't have the time. Others might assume it was for other reasons.
My optimistic side would like to believe that the Senators would vote in their states interest either way, since Senators would be selected by people in their state in both cases.
Unfortunately, it's easier for big money to sway the masses through ad campaigns than it is for them to buy off every politician. So, my cynical side knows that you are right.
We also need to reform the direct election of Senators. The original way that Senators were selected was by the state legislatures, but that was changed by an amendment that made Senators directly elected by popular vote.
The result has been that Senators are beholden to Washington lobbyists (read: big-moneyed interests) for re-election funds.
If Senators were appointed by the legislatures, you'd see a dramatic decline in influence peddling in the Senate because the lobbyists would have to try to bribe every state legislator to get their way instead of having a one-stop-shop with the Senator.
These are treasury bonds. Costitutionally, the government has to honor them whether social security needs it or not.
Absolutely. The question is: with what money does the government honor the treasury bonds? Answer: Current tax receipts (or by more borrowing). In the first case, people's tax burden increases. In the second case, inflation increases as the cost of borrowing increases. In either case, the result is the same: less money in the taxpayer pocket (in terms of real dollars). And being a consumer economy, less money in the taxpayer pocket means a dragging economy...which means higher unemployment...which means..etc..etc.
Dear Lord, AC, where do I start with this one?
1. Budget deficits and national debt did not begin with the Bush administration, nor will they end after it.
2. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. There is no lockbox; there is box full of IOUs. For seventy years (not just the last 4), the government has spent every last nickel of the Social Security surpluses.
3. Social Security, being a pay-as-you-go system, will go into a deficit situation about 2018, meaning that it will pay out more than it takes in. The money short has to come from somewhere. Where? From the Treasury paying back the IOUs. How does the Treasury pay back IOUs? With current tax receipts, regardless of the whether the government is running a deficit or not.
I have to respectfully disagree. The problem is very much with Social Security. Suppose there were no federal deficit and the budget were perfectly balanced from now until 2018.
For 70 years or so, Social Security has been taking the surplus and "lending" it to the Treasury Depatment. The Treasury Department has in turn spent all of the money and then put IOUs in a box promising to pay Social Security back.
Fast forward to 2018. Now Social Security is running a deficit and comes to collect on the IOUs. Where does the Treasury get the money to pay back the IOUs? Taxes. It has to raise taxes or cut spending somewhere. So the people paying taxes in 2018 will actually be paying Social Security taxes plus a backdoor Social Security tax (or a cut in some other benefit)
No, that's not a crisis...unless you're the one paying the backdoor tax to give gambling money to the richest segment of the society. Look at the numbers, elderly people are on average the richest members of our society. And the absolute greatest benefit of the Social Security program goes to the people who need it least.
Something hilarious and rich that I found on the Duke4 page:
When you click on the Yahoo's Listing of Duke Nukem Forever Pages link, it comes back with "Document Not Found." Doh!
This was recently done in the UK, when the Labour Party purchased three URL's, involving the name of the leader of the Conservative party.
This is ethically and politically acceptable. You see, the rule is, that if a left-leaning group does this, it should be tolerated because any means justifies the righteous intentions of the compassionate. (It also aptly demonstrates how much more clever they are than their lame conservative counterparts.) But since the motivations and goals of the Conservatives are nefarious, people-hating, etc. they should be held to a separate standard. One standard for the good and enlightened; another for the evil. I know it's counter-intuitive and seems irrational, but just chant it to yourself for a while...
Just a clarification: felons can vote if they apply for and receive a pardon for their offense. No one should be branded for life, but I don't think that requiring an act of contrition such as seeking a pardon is unnecessarily burdensome.
On the contrary, seeking a pardon might give some indication that the offender has thought seriously about his or her crime and desires to be a conforming member of society again.
Good point, amigaluvr. I think that Microsoft has definitely used the speed of technological innovation and the slowness of the courts to their advantage in past fights.
Take the lawsuits over the crushing of Netscape. MS just went about capturing 90% of the browser market while the lawyers were still fighting. Additionally they used to stall time to permanently imbed the browser deeply into the OS to help prop up a claim later on that it would be too difficult to extract the browser from the OS as a remedy.
...for helping to accelerate the export all the rest of the programming jobs overseas. Globalization is here, but thanks to short-sighted laws like this, California software professionals are going to feel the bite a little sooner than the rest of us.
At the very least, I think you might see quite a few firms picking up and moving operations to Utah and Nevada in the near future.
Exactly the type of comment I'd expect from an anonymous coward.
I'm not looking to work in a factory anytime soon, but I do salute the men and women who provide the goods and services that come out of the factories. I'm happy to trade my best effort for theirs in a free and open society.
Ok, Blue..so we're back to the basic question to which it all hinges:
Do car companies _owe_ us a car? Do doctors _owe_ us health care? Do software companies _owe_ us a living? Is it possible to force someone else to use his or her brain and talents for our benefit simply because we "need" it.
I guess, you could force someone to do these things at the point of a gun, but I think Fascism has been tried and found wanting.
Ok, let's take a principled stand.
Instead of complaining about Microsoft, let's just not do any development for the M$ platform. We've got Linux and Java and we can develop using those.
M$ doesn't owe us a living (nor have they offered to provide one for us). No one is forcing us to develop on their platform, and if they try, we can just say no. Might cut into our paychecks? Well no one said living according to principles is cheap. Just seems more productive than constantly bi-otching and moaning about them.
WTF? The courts have upheld the right to use the logos of public figures and public corporations in the use of satire and parody back to the founding days of the country.
If CNN can shut down these guys with a C&D, how would all the M$ bashers on Slashdot like it if "Evil Bill" could shut down Slashdot's use of his borg image? Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth we'd hear then...
Never mind that the founding of the country was based on a basic distrust in the concentrated power of government.
The federal government must sieze the assets of Microsoft in the name of the people.
From each according to his ability, to each according to their lack of ability to successfully compete in the free market!
Viva la revolution!