Right now, USA (the most capitalistic country on the planet) is not practicing pure capitalism. So you are right in the sense that there is no pure free-market. Having said that, I claim that nothing will change under a free-market. The world practices more free-market now than EVER yet the corporations are stronger than ever.
One thing you capitalists and free-market worshippers don't realize is that free-markets will be ruled by monopolies and oligopolies. You guys think that free-markets will somehow magically result in perfect competition but nothing is further from the truth. My theory is that eventually those markets will be dominated by a few. You can already see this happening. Just look around: aircraft manufacturers (Boeing and Airbus), car manufacturers (less than 5 companies world-wide now), media (G.E., Disney, AOL-TW), retail chains (Walmart+3 more or so), etc.
You guys never admit this. Of course you won't since you have all been brainwashed by (capitalist) economists. All free markets will turn into oligopolies or monopolies for several reasons. First of all, with the elimination of govt controls (a prerequisite for free markets), no one will have more power than the corporations. Second of all, the main PURPOSE of corporation (or private enterprises) is to create a monopoly. No one admits it but that's what they spend their whole life doing. Corporations make the greatest profit under monopolies so that is what they try to create. Business schools teach people to steal market share, lock out competition, create barriers to entry, etc. Every single business is attempting to create a monopoly for itself. It's not just Microsoft, Boeing, or Walmart that are doing this--it's EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS. It's just that you don't hear about it, and you don't think about it. Even if you own a business, you don't think about creating a monopoly but that is what you are attempting to do (in order to maximize profits). Furthermore, large organizations have a major weapon on their side. It's called ECONOMIES OF SCALE. Look it up. It basically results in large corporations having a price advantage (or better quality) than smaller ones. The more "units" a company produces, the better it will be. So a small or medium company cannot compete with large companies. This is one reason small and medium businesses are either being taken over or bankrupted by large companies. How many private movie theatres are there now? How many medium companies produce lightbulbs? Ever wonder why it's like that?
Free markets will ultimately result in monopolies and oligopolies. This will simply accelerate over time. Watch how many industries are locked up by a few multinationals over the next 30 years... All you capitalists blame government restrictions for all the problems but that is nothing more than an excuse. Do you really think copyrights and patents are the cause of all these problems? Of course not. They are a tiny element of overall business. Is Microsoft dominant because of copyrights and patents alone? No govt granted Microsoft or Walmart a monopoly... but they will end up being one... it's too bad you worship a false god called the free markets and its corresponding system, capitalism!
Do you REALLY think it was better when people were worshipping God? How do you account for all the atrocities that religion was involved in? In any case, the vast majority of earth's population is religious. Even in countries like USA, a big chunk ofthe population is religious. You need to look no further than George Bush and John Ashcroft who are very religious. Most of the businessmen you despise are very religious. It's like the mafia: the mafia members (like many Italians) are very religious. They go to church more than many others yet end up commiting "undesirable activities"
Marx invented the term capitalism! So I don't see how you can have a different view of the definition. Besides, I don't know anything about Iceland but I highly doubt you had capitalism during medieval times.
Being "anti-capitalist" today is like being anti-Confederacy--it's too late, and the real enemies of the people can proceed unmolested while you waste your time shadowboxing.
Not really... capitalism is front and center. Of course, you don't consider the system to be capitalist so there is some confusion. But in any case, the modern system has got to go. You want to call it something else? Fine but most people, including me, will refer to it as capitalism.
And I'm saying that they are the result of capitalism. It cannot be fixed. It's like trying to eliminate monopolies and oligopolies under capitalism--just won't work..
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Lies, statistics, and analysts
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1
Journalists SHOULD quote other people. THis is important because, as you point out, you need to cover all the sides. Good journalism is when you cover multiple sides (of course, opinion pieces and editorials are different). If you don't quote others, it would basically be YOUR opinion on everything. You may be objective; you may not. Your readers (who likely don't understand the technology in question..otherwise they wouldn't read the article) won't know.
The problem in tech journalism is not that people quote outside sources but that they keep quoting analysts. The analysts are heavily biased and aren't even true analysts (they are the equivalent of stock market analysts who always push their own firm's stocks).
To me, the vast majority of tech journalism is close to junk (no offense to you). It is similar to early 1900's or late 1800's when newspapers literally wrote whatever they wanted. To make matters worse, people took that to be the truth... it's no different now...
I don't know how you are going to correct capitalism... being an anti-capitalist, I'm pretty sure that capitalism will collapse within our lifetimes. There is NO WAY capitalism will re-emerge from a collapse.
"Capitalism" has always been about "beating" the other fellow under the Marquis of Queensbury Rules.
You "beat" him by being better than he, by serving your customers better, by getting your product to market faster, by doing what it takes within the bounds of good sportsmanship.
Since when did good sportsmanship enter into the equation? If anything, capitalism has ALWAYS been about beating others at ANY COST. As a matter of fact, society was FAR WORSE 100 or 150 years ago than now. I don't know where you came up with the notion that capitalism somehow has morality or ethics built-in. Even Adam Smith (considered to be the "founder" of capitalism) remarked how business owners are very sleazy and ruthless.
We are living in a "post-Christian" society, and this is the result.
Society was far worse under the Christian "leadership" than now...
hmm... capitalism rewards "dirty" business (note that these practices aren't really dirty. They are quite common and widely accepted). Since capitalism rewards and encourages this sort of behaviour, it is part of the system.
However, I think there are a number of fundamental problems with the form of capitalism we practice today in the US. They all have to do with money and how corporations leverage unfair influence via the expenditure of money. Campaign finance, corporate tax shelters - typically things that you might hear about on the US evening news.
I don't see how you expect capitalism to be anything else. Capitalism values money above anything else! That's all that matters. Why do sports athletes, movie starts, executive management, etc get millions while firefighters, police officers, social workers, etc get a fraction of that? It's simply because you get paid based on your revenue-generation capability. In the end, undercapitalism, all that matters is how much money you can make for others (no other attribute enters into the discussion)... Campaign finance and tax shelters are nothing comapred to things you don't hear about (like pharmeceuticals, RIAA, MPAA, etc who basically control all govt policy).
My problem isn't so much that they are donating but that they are influencing society. For instance, kids nowadays are probably more influenced by large corporations than even their parents. It would be interesting to see how society evolves under capitalism (I personally think capitalism will collapse within my lifetime but ignoring that...). For instance, a lot of university and other scientific research are funded and owned by corporations nowadays. A hundread or 200 years, society (ie. no one) owned scientific discoveries. Consider the human genome project. I'm not really sure but it seems like corporations will end up owning a huge chunk of the intellectual property. Imagine XYZ corporation owning the theory of gravity:(
I don't know much about Andrew Carnegie but I think I hvae heard of the Carnegie Founcation (or something). Is that the same thing? I think it donates a lot to PBS and supports a lot of scientific endeavours.
Last time I heard (I haven't kept up mind you), Bill Gates said he was going to give away all his wealth before he dies.
Are you saying that the Bush family have a secret love affair with war and oil? I knew that Bush was addicted to oil but didn't know his grandfather was too?;)
Actually it's pretty serious stuff. I mean can I say you are a slavery supporter because your great great great great great grandfather owned slaves? Are you more apt to support slavery than me because my family has no history of slave ownership (at least in the last 1500 years)?:)
There IS a strong dissatisfaction with the Iranian regime. However, I don't think it is strong enough yet to initiate an overthrow or a counter-revolution. The only reason I say CIA was behind it is because USA was contemplating stepping up their overthrow plans and there was a demonstration within a few months? Coincidence?
As far as Venezuela was concerned, it all depends on your stance and what you want to believe. Since all information is hidden and never revealed to the public, one can never be sure what is going on. To make matters worse, USA spends hundreads of millions (although not on Venezuela alone) on disinformation. So it is tough for me to get any "proof" of anything. I'm going to be labelled a conspiracy theorist but let me just say what I think USA was doing.
First of all, there is the stuff that you mentioned. Needless to say, this is all from the mainstream press, which is basically controlled by an oligopoly: it's either the Associate Press or Reuters. As far as the Democrats not doing anything, why should they? They are in this whole thing together (as a sidenote, the Democrats were heavily in favour of invading Iraq too). Besides, how many Americans even know about this affair? Hardly anyone...
In addition to that, there was ONE report (I know... single reports aren't credible but still:) ) which said that US warships jammed wireless communications during the coup. Apparently, all cellphones went dead during the few critical hours of the coup. There are two theories for this. One is that US warships jammed the signals (which is what one report was saying). Another is that the cellphone network was overloaded (a la New York during 9/11 when all cellphones were dead). Take your pick. I'm going with the former...
Lastly, homegrown coup attempts do not result in their "leader" running off to a meeting with a foreign country. Unless the "leader" of the coup was taking orders from a foreign source, or being paid heavily for it, he/she wouldn't run off to meet US govt representatives. If anything, localized coups will always avoid foreign contact. Authoratarians who initiate coups will know in advance that foreign contact may result in counter-revolutions and him/her being executed for treason. Granted, this coup "leader" was a businessman (not a military leader or a politican) so maybe he was incompetent but I doubt that...
I think your opinion leaves a lot to be desired. I am not as anti-Microsoft as many here. I think MS DOES create good products and their monopolistic behaviour is no different than any other company under capitalism. So this isn't a disagreement over Microsoft; instead, I'm talking about your view that sources do not matter.
Non-profits DO gain from these corporations. But is it really worth it? If some company destroys some precious rainforest resulting in hundreads of millions of dollars of damage from an environment point of view (capitalists would consider the cost to be zero), and yet it donates 1 million to PBS, is that any good? Is that even desirable? If you accept the principle that donations are ok, you are indirectly supporting the existence of those enterprises.
As someone above was saying... if the Colombian Drug Cartel gave away $25million (which is almost nothing to them) to some charity, do you think it is acceptable? If not, why?
In the short term, donations may be benefitial (because you can do things with it). But in the long term, it is not desirable at all...
Yes the theocracy has got to go... but the mini-revolt a few weeks ago was initiated by the CIA. If you check some newspaper report a few months ago (I don't remember who.. I think it was the LA Times), the US govt was considering initiating the overthrow of the Iranian govt. It got backfired... same thing as Venezuela...
I have never run into a liberal hawk in my life (especially when a country is carrying out unilateral action). Consider yourself unique. You must roost in a small nest since doves take up all the other spots on the left wing:)
i am one with people like salman rushdie, who wholeheartedly embrace the forceful spread of democracy to dangeorus despotic regimes.
The problem with Salman Rusdie is that he doesn't even live in his country anymore (for obvious reasons). What this means is that he often doesn't value the damage done by forceful change. Any sort of intervention will result in thousands up to tens of thousands of deaths. Rushdie doesn't consider these things because he is living in the comfort of Britain.
Second, and more importantly, I don't see how you can expect a right-wing imperial govt to carry out any of the actions that you seek. As I pointed out, if they can't even get their allies to change how do they expect force to do it? Since you are a hawk I guess you expect force to be the magical answer but as a dove, let me tell you this: no one likes to be forced to do anything! Using force will only backfire. There is no way you can maintain something long term with force. History has shown this. Even some of the top totalitarian governments (which basically means max force) have failed within 100 years.
it is always better to forcefully act against a perceived evil than to sit around and fret about it and eventually do nothing.
Perceptions can be wrong.. in fact they are wrong most of the time. At the rate that USA is going, they should invade Canada next since it is perceived as being evil in many quarters of the white house. As a sidenote, you DO realize that most of your perception is shaped by govt propaganda right?
in such a case, the cancer only grows. saddam hussein was a cancer that needed removing, i don't see how you could debate me on this. there is a large plurality of opinion on this all over the world.
Actually most of the world is on my side. In case you haven't realized, the VAST MAJORITY of countries (including what neo-cons call the chocolate-making countries;) Belgium, France, Germany, etc) were against the war. It actually gets worse for you. When people were polled all over the world (instead of relying on govt positions), even more people were against the war.
Most people realize that circumventing international norms and laws to unilaterally invade is undesirable. It is a trait of authoratarian governments (chaulk another one up for imperialism). Who are you going to invade next? Cuba?
Saddam Hussein is just one of many dictators on earth. So you are willing to remove the next dictator (who has done similar things)? I suggest that you start in Africa. They need some "cleaning up".
fact: the world is better off without saddam hussein.
Fact: the world is better off without homeless people. Let's go and kill all of them. That will eliminate homelessness for sure;)
it is clear i believe the us will democratize iraq. it is clear you believe they will not.
History is on my side. USA hasn't democratized any country it invaded in the last 60 years (except Japan, Germany, and to a small extent South Korea). USA sure did a lot of democratizing in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam, Haiti, Panama, and Afghanistan;(... Iraq will be just as democratic as those countries were when USA was involved...
i'll tell you what, in a year or two, when you see the us leave iraq for good and leave iraq a democratic country, i hope you will revisit this little chat in your mind we have had, and be intellectually honest with me and note that faith in the us actually capable of doing good in the world is worth something.
The original context in which 'intelligence' and 'skill' were used (in the original) implied that they were superior in some manner. I am saying they are not. It's all relative, so you cannot say that a particular skill should be valued more than another. A person may value one more than another but a society should not. If anything, the value given to a skill in society is more influenced by who holds power more than anything else. I wasn't implying that these words don't exist. Otherwise, these words wouldn't even be part of language.
It is also important to understand that a quantity which is not absolute is not a quantity which is meaningless. An iron bar weighs 300 lbs on Earth, 50 lbs on the Moon, and is weightless in space. Is weight meaningless? No. It can be defined as the size of the external force required to keep a body at rest in its frame of reference. Since the quantity is relative, the definition just includes what it is relative to. It's relative to where you're standing, so that's all the extra information you have to know.
I think weight IS useless. Sure it exists in the vocabulary but it shouldn't. I don't think most people even what weight is (ie. relative to gravity). I bet in 500 years people will completely drop the term weight and go with something else (like mass).
I agree with your assertion that a skill is not morally good or bad. My view is that they are morally neutral (I hold the same view of technology). What's not neutral is the resulting action. eg. nuclear fission=neutral; nuclear bomb (which wouldn't be possible without nuclear fission)=bad. BUT...
You don't like that some people think "valuable" means good, and so you try to prove that value doesn't mean anything. It isn't that it doesn't mean anything at all ever. It's that to use valuable to mean good, you have to say what "good" is, and good is indeed a concept that humans made up.
My problem isn't so much that valuable means good (in the moral sense) but that it means something is valued over another. Maybe I have problems with it cuz I'm egalitarian:)
Without humans and without any god, there is apparently no good or bad.
Off-topic I think but anyway... I disagree wtih your view that morality requires God. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It's unfortunate that religions have brainwashed everyone into thinking that you need religion for moarlity. Me, being an atheist:), has a moral code and it has nothing to do with religion (although it may have been influenced by it)...
It isn't good to be intelligent in all situations.
The implication is that intelligent is good at all times. I have never heard nor read anyone ever imply that intelligence can be construed as undesirable.
Skill and intelligence are both valid words despite being relative.
Maybe I should have used different words. I didn't really mean to say that these words don't exist--they clearly DO exist. My point is that the way society uses them is bogus. It's similar to the weight example. Weight is "bogus" in the sense that most people don't even know that weight is relative to gravity. People equate mass with weight and I am saying they shouldn't do that.
I think YOU should brush up on your history... especailly about the Iran/Iraq war. That was not an imperialistic war. In any case, imperialism requires more than one invasion. Only a few countries in history have warranted that title, and I say modern day USA is one. Oh one more thing: modern day imperialism is slightly different from Roman imperialism or even Japanese imperialism. Nowadays, you don't even need to invade countries. You can take over countries via other means. Invasion is your last resort. You preferred method are to create client and proxy states.
i don't see how you can see imperialism in a nation that spent 10 years developing a case for war with iraq after a united nations sanctioned invasion, and promises to foster democracy there and then leave
USA does not inherit its imperialist title from Iraq alone. Nevertheless, what were the reasons USA gave for invading Iraq? Foster democracy and leave was certainly not one of the reasons.
iraq is but the first domino in the move of the middle east towards democracy
USA has no credibility. Do you REALLY think USA is in Iraq to create a democracy? Doesn't it seem odd that some of USA's CLOSEST friends are the most ruthless and undemocratic countries ON THE PLANET? Maybe you should start by democratizing your friends before you go into enemy territory. I'll even give you the choice. Start with one of the Gulf countries. I suggest Saudi Arabia but if they are already democratic enough for your tastes, you can move onto Kuwait.
..the us has no friends in the middle east...
Is that a typo or something? Many of USA's CLOSEST allies are in the Middle East. Countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. A Canadian prime minister can ask for meeting with the US govt and he'll be put at the bottom of the list. A Saudi monarch, or Isreali PM, or Kuwaiti monarch will ask for a meeting and it'll be arranged first thing next day.
internal upheavel after they see how good the iraqis will have it under democracy. iran is already teetering under student unrest.
Iran is as stable as ever. The mini-demonstrations were due to CIA efforts and were quashed. When was the last time democracy was developed by external efforts? Never! I hope one day you realize that society has to change from within, not due to outside foreign intervention. Besides, I don't see how a conservative US govt can ever support liberalism. Liberalism came from the left and all you right-wingers have no idea what women's rights, minority rights, workers' rights, etc are. It's a foreign language to the US govt. As I said, if USA can't even deploy female soldiers to protect the Saudi monarchy, how are they going to ever change a stranger? You should try influencing your friends before going after unknowns...
old message..just got around to it.. hope you don't mind:)
I think your stance can be summed up with these quotes:
My belief is that a once you get to a critical mass of people with skills for independent analytical thinking (one of the reasons for pursuing higher education), only good things can happen.
My hope is that given the right skill set, they'll create new industries and occupations that can employ educated (and non-educated) people. Besides, at the very worst, I'm going to bet that we're going to need qualified technicians to diagnose and repair all those miracle robots of the future.
Being a socialist, I am STRONGLY against some of the things you said. Your system will work (I'm sure it will work since it seems to be a derivatie of capitalism with far more emphasis on creativity). But I'm against it.
First of all, the things I like about your system. I think more people will have jobs. I think your wishes will translate into higher creativity, something seriously lacking in modern day capitalism, and failed attempts at Communism.
Now the bad... my main problem is that what you are saying will shift power to a select few. It will be even more elitist than capitalism. Whoever that controls the robots will have massive power--far more power than what an owner of a massive corporation has now. People will have more jobs but they will be valued LESS. People will simply be treated as a mass of labour supply. Since there will be even more people who are educated and willing to work, it will be good for the employers (ie. the robot owners) but bad for everyone else.
I might sound like a luddite but I'm not. I love technology and I'm even married to my computer:)... but it is IMPERATIVE that the robots cannot be hoarded by a select few.
BTW, you say that education is there teach people analysis, thinking, etc. Well, hate to say it but education is nothing more than a tool to get a job (ie. modern universities are simply there to pump out workers)...
I am not talking about differences. Clearly people ARE different. Some can run faster, some can jump higher, some can lift more, etc. And these are just physical traits; same applies to other non-obvious traits. What I AM talking about is the VALUE placed on those traits. I am saying that the value should be equal and if you say it is unequal, it is purely arbitrary. You can be living in another society/system and that trait may be valued more or less.
First, don't assume you know what I belive or not. If you want to know, ask.
If I mischaracterized your position, I'm sorry. Having said that, my opinion of your position still doesn't change.
When a crime is committed law enforcement must identify who committed the crime.
How is law enforcement going to identify the culprits--at least on Freenet? It is impossible as I said. We are in a new age, if you can implement anonymity, no one can trace. It's just like e-mail. If you use GPG/PGP/whatever to communicate, law enforcement can't read what you are saying (even NSA and CIA have problems with encrypted e-mail).
In the real world, there will always be some kind of chain of evidence. It may not be digital - but it will be there and can be followed to unmask the culprit.
We are dealing with seperate things here. There will be the pysical evidence, which can be traceable. But I'm mainly talking about the digital stuff which is more important when it comes to child pornography. For instance, let's say you view child porn pictures. If all that is encrypted and no one can tell where it is coming from, no one can convict you.
I think what you are hoping for (or expecting) is a mistake by the criminal. But my feeling is that we are moving towards a world where criminals will be all cloacked and undetectable. Law enforcement is already having problems and it will just get worse. For instance, the police is almost useless when it comes to helping businesses with corporate crime.
I don't really know what USA is going to do with Iraq. The Neo-cons botched Iraq, which is surprising since they can usually cook up some excuses for all their activities (their only hope right now is to start another war, or hope that terrorists strike). My feeling is that USA won't withdraw from Iraq. Even with the UN proposal, don't forget that USA still remains in control. I personally don't think the UN should get involved. USA started it and they should finish it. Besides if USA stays in control it won't work. Whoever that is going to send troops is only going to do it for one reason: oil. Most countries care about Iraq as much as they care about Greenland, which is to say not much. Oil will be their only reason and if USA remains in control, they won't get that.
So I don't really see USA handing over power. Well, they really can't (even if they wanted to). First of all, USA needs to recoup its costs (I think they already spent over $70b and they likely want a piece of the oil revenues). Second, they will lose face if they retreat. Third, it will not look good for USA's close friends, especially Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait.
Since USA won't withdraw, your point about USA as a non-imperial power isn't true...
Why are you posting anonymous? Can't stand up for your beliefs? Anyway...
What's your definition of CONCEPTION? Would you have the same view of conception without science? Are you against birth control too? If I can artificially fertilize human eggs with human sperm (outside the human body), would you consider that conception?
hmm... so are you saying the govt doesn't get new "rights" by passing laws it made up?
I thought governments worked like this:
1. govt does A because of X (typically X is the govt itself)
2. court says A is illegal
3. govt passes law legitimizing A in some manner
4. govt carries out A
5. court says A is legal
6. govt happy >:>
If running plutorcracy (nearly all countries), replace X with elites/corporation; if running dictatorship replace X with dictator; if running fascism, replace X with religion/"race"/ethnicity/language/skin colour/hair colour/shape of nose/etc.
BTW, I agree with you that the present US regime is not comparable to a Nazi regime. In fact, it isn't even fascist yet. I think USA will be basically become an imperialist rogue state (it already is practicing imperialism). So in that sense, USA will be more like Imperial Japan during WWII than Nazi Germany.
There is something you don't understand. It seems that you are concentrating on the end-results only. The worst thing the Nazis did were early on. There were not lethal or brutal by any means. Yet they hurt their victims the most.
For instance, when the Nazis stripped people of their property (mostly Jews but also other "undesirable" people) or when they started profiling Jews, that was basically the most important step. Once they put the Jews into concentration camps, it was basically all over. It is next to imposibble to back out of that. If all people just waited until genocide was being carried out, it wouldn't work (this is actually what has happend in the past years). If you want to stop something like from happening, you need to do it right at thebeginning: when the Jews were stripped of property, forced to wear markers, and sent to concentration camp... if you waited until the Jews were being eliminated, well, good luck trying to get anything done...
Slashdot Mirror
Right now, USA (the most capitalistic country on the planet) is not practicing pure capitalism. So you are right in the sense that there is no pure free-market. Having said that, I claim that nothing will change under a free-market. The world practices more free-market now than EVER yet the corporations are stronger than ever.
One thing you capitalists and free-market worshippers don't realize is that free-markets will be ruled by monopolies and oligopolies. You guys think that free-markets will somehow magically result in perfect competition but nothing is further from the truth. My theory is that eventually those markets will be dominated by a few. You can already see this happening. Just look around: aircraft manufacturers (Boeing and Airbus), car manufacturers (less than 5 companies world-wide now), media (G.E., Disney, AOL-TW), retail chains (Walmart+3 more or so), etc.
You guys never admit this. Of course you won't since you have all been brainwashed by (capitalist) economists. All free markets will turn into oligopolies or monopolies for several reasons. First of all, with the elimination of govt controls (a prerequisite for free markets), no one will have more power than the corporations. Second of all, the main PURPOSE of corporation (or private enterprises) is to create a monopoly. No one admits it but that's what they spend their whole life doing. Corporations make the greatest profit under monopolies so that is what they try to create. Business schools teach people to steal market share, lock out competition, create barriers to entry, etc. Every single business is attempting to create a monopoly for itself. It's not just Microsoft, Boeing, or Walmart that are doing this--it's EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS. It's just that you don't hear about it, and you don't think about it. Even if you own a business, you don't think about creating a monopoly but that is what you are attempting to do (in order to maximize profits). Furthermore, large organizations have a major weapon on their side. It's called ECONOMIES OF SCALE. Look it up. It basically results in large corporations having a price advantage (or better quality) than smaller ones. The more "units" a company produces, the better it will be. So a small or medium company cannot compete with large companies. This is one reason small and medium businesses are either being taken over or bankrupted by large companies. How many private movie theatres are there now? How many medium companies produce lightbulbs? Ever wonder why it's like that?
Free markets will ultimately result in monopolies and oligopolies. This will simply accelerate over time. Watch how many industries are locked up by a few multinationals over the next 30 years... All you capitalists blame government restrictions for all the problems but that is nothing more than an excuse. Do you really think copyrights and patents are the cause of all these problems? Of course not. They are a tiny element of overall business. Is Microsoft dominant because of copyrights and patents alone? No govt granted Microsoft or Walmart a monopoly... but they will end up being one... it's too bad you worship a false god called the free markets and its corresponding system, capitalism!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Do you REALLY think it was better when people were worshipping God? How do you account for all the atrocities that religion was involved in? In any case, the vast majority of earth's population is religious. Even in countries like USA, a big chunk ofthe population is religious. You need to look no further than George Bush and John Ashcroft who are very religious. Most of the businessmen you despise are very religious. It's like the mafia: the mafia members (like many Italians) are very religious. They go to church more than many others yet end up commiting "undesirable activities"
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Marx invented the term capitalism! So I don't see how you can have a different view of the definition. Besides, I don't know anything about Iceland but I highly doubt you had capitalism during medieval times.
Being "anti-capitalist" today is like being anti-Confederacy--it's too late, and the real enemies of the people can proceed unmolested while you waste your time shadowboxing.
Not really... capitalism is front and center. Of course, you don't consider the system to be capitalist so there is some confusion. But in any case, the modern system has got to go. You want to call it something else? Fine but most people, including me, will refer to it as capitalism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
And I'm saying that they are the result of capitalism. It cannot be fixed. It's like trying to eliminate monopolies and oligopolies under capitalism--just won't work..
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Journalists SHOULD quote other people. THis is important because, as you point out, you need to cover all the sides. Good journalism is when you cover multiple sides (of course, opinion pieces and editorials are different). If you don't quote others, it would basically be YOUR opinion on everything. You may be objective; you may not. Your readers (who likely don't understand the technology in question..otherwise they wouldn't read the article) won't know.
The problem in tech journalism is not that people quote outside sources but that they keep quoting analysts. The analysts are heavily biased and aren't even true analysts (they are the equivalent of stock market analysts who always push their own firm's stocks).
To me, the vast majority of tech journalism is close to junk (no offense to you). It is similar to early 1900's or late 1800's when newspapers literally wrote whatever they wanted. To make matters worse, people took that to be the truth... it's no different now...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know how you are going to correct capitalism... being an anti-capitalist, I'm pretty sure that capitalism will collapse within our lifetimes. There is NO WAY capitalism will re-emerge from a collapse.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
"Capitalism" has always been about "beating" the other fellow under the Marquis of Queensbury Rules. You "beat" him by being better than he, by serving your customers better, by getting your product to market faster, by doing what it takes within the bounds of good sportsmanship.
Since when did good sportsmanship enter into the equation? If anything, capitalism has ALWAYS been about beating others at ANY COST. As a matter of fact, society was FAR WORSE 100 or 150 years ago than now. I don't know where you came up with the notion that capitalism somehow has morality or ethics built-in. Even Adam Smith (considered to be the "founder" of capitalism) remarked how business owners are very sleazy and ruthless.
We are living in a "post-Christian" society, and this is the result.
Society was far worse under the Christian "leadership" than now...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
hmm... capitalism rewards "dirty" business (note that these practices aren't really dirty. They are quite common and widely accepted). Since capitalism rewards and encourages this sort of behaviour, it is part of the system.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
However, I think there are a number of fundamental problems with the form of capitalism we practice today in the US. They all have to do with money and how corporations leverage unfair influence via the expenditure of money. Campaign finance, corporate tax shelters - typically things that you might hear about on the US evening news.
:(
I don't see how you expect capitalism to be anything else. Capitalism values money above anything else! That's all that matters. Why do sports athletes, movie starts, executive management, etc get millions while firefighters, police officers, social workers, etc get a fraction of that? It's simply because you get paid based on your revenue-generation capability. In the end, undercapitalism, all that matters is how much money you can make for others (no other attribute enters into the discussion)... Campaign finance and tax shelters are nothing comapred to things you don't hear about (like pharmeceuticals, RIAA, MPAA, etc who basically control all govt policy).
My problem isn't so much that they are donating but that they are influencing society. For instance, kids nowadays are probably more influenced by large corporations than even their parents. It would be interesting to see how society evolves under capitalism (I personally think capitalism will collapse within my lifetime but ignoring that...). For instance, a lot of university and other scientific research are funded and owned by corporations nowadays. A hundread or 200 years, society (ie. no one) owned scientific discoveries. Consider the human genome project. I'm not really sure but it seems like corporations will end up owning a huge chunk of the intellectual property. Imagine XYZ corporation owning the theory of gravity
I don't know much about Andrew Carnegie but I think I hvae heard of the Carnegie Founcation (or something). Is that the same thing? I think it donates a lot to PBS and supports a lot of scientific endeavours.
Last time I heard (I haven't kept up mind you), Bill Gates said he was going to give away all his wealth before he dies.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Are you saying that the Bush family have a secret love affair with war and oil? I knew that Bush was addicted to oil but didn't know his grandfather was too? ;)
:)
Actually it's pretty serious stuff. I mean can I say you are a slavery supporter because your great great great great great grandfather owned slaves? Are you more apt to support slavery than me because my family has no history of slave ownership (at least in the last 1500 years)?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There IS a strong dissatisfaction with the Iranian regime. However, I don't think it is strong enough yet to initiate an overthrow or a counter-revolution. The only reason I say CIA was behind it is because USA was contemplating stepping up their overthrow plans and there was a demonstration within a few months? Coincidence?
:) ) which said that US warships jammed wireless communications during the coup. Apparently, all cellphones went dead during the few critical hours of the coup. There are two theories for this. One is that US warships jammed the signals (which is what one report was saying). Another is that the cellphone network was overloaded (a la New York during 9/11 when all cellphones were dead). Take your pick. I'm going with the former...
As far as Venezuela was concerned, it all depends on your stance and what you want to believe. Since all information is hidden and never revealed to the public, one can never be sure what is going on. To make matters worse, USA spends hundreads of millions (although not on Venezuela alone) on disinformation. So it is tough for me to get any "proof" of anything. I'm going to be labelled a conspiracy theorist but let me just say what I think USA was doing.
First of all, there is the stuff that you mentioned. Needless to say, this is all from the mainstream press, which is basically controlled by an oligopoly: it's either the Associate Press or Reuters. As far as the Democrats not doing anything, why should they? They are in this whole thing together (as a sidenote, the Democrats were heavily in favour of invading Iraq too). Besides, how many Americans even know about this affair? Hardly anyone...
In addition to that, there was ONE report (I know... single reports aren't credible but still
Lastly, homegrown coup attempts do not result in their "leader" running off to a meeting with a foreign country. Unless the "leader" of the coup was taking orders from a foreign source, or being paid heavily for it, he/she wouldn't run off to meet US govt representatives. If anything, localized coups will always avoid foreign contact. Authoratarians who initiate coups will know in advance that foreign contact may result in counter-revolutions and him/her being executed for treason. Granted, this coup "leader" was a businessman (not a military leader or a politican) so maybe he was incompetent but I doubt that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think your opinion leaves a lot to be desired. I am not as anti-Microsoft as many here. I think MS DOES create good products and their monopolistic behaviour is no different than any other company under capitalism. So this isn't a disagreement over Microsoft; instead, I'm talking about your view that sources do not matter.
Non-profits DO gain from these corporations. But is it really worth it? If some company destroys some precious rainforest resulting in hundreads of millions of dollars of damage from an environment point of view (capitalists would consider the cost to be zero), and yet it donates 1 million to PBS, is that any good? Is that even desirable? If you accept the principle that donations are ok, you are indirectly supporting the existence of those enterprises.
As someone above was saying... if the Colombian Drug Cartel gave away $25million (which is almost nothing to them) to some charity, do you think it is acceptable? If not, why?
In the short term, donations may be benefitial (because you can do things with it). But in the long term, it is not desirable at all...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes the theocracy has got to go... but the mini-revolt a few weeks ago was initiated by the CIA. If you check some newspaper report a few months ago (I don't remember who.. I think it was the LA Times), the US govt was considering initiating the overthrow of the Iranian govt. It got backfired... same thing as Venezuela...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
first, i am not right wing, i am a liberal hawk.
:)
;) Belgium, France, Germany, etc) were against the war. It actually gets worse for you. When people were polled all over the world (instead of relying on govt positions), even more people were against the war.
;)
;( ... Iraq will be just as democratic as those countries were when USA was involved...
I have never run into a liberal hawk in my life (especially when a country is carrying out unilateral action). Consider yourself unique. You must roost in a small nest since doves take up all the other spots on the left wing
i am one with people like salman rushdie, who wholeheartedly embrace the forceful spread of democracy to dangeorus despotic regimes.
The problem with Salman Rusdie is that he doesn't even live in his country anymore (for obvious reasons). What this means is that he often doesn't value the damage done by forceful change. Any sort of intervention will result in thousands up to tens of thousands of deaths. Rushdie doesn't consider these things because he is living in the comfort of Britain.
Second, and more importantly, I don't see how you can expect a right-wing imperial govt to carry out any of the actions that you seek. As I pointed out, if they can't even get their allies to change how do they expect force to do it? Since you are a hawk I guess you expect force to be the magical answer but as a dove, let me tell you this: no one likes to be forced to do anything! Using force will only backfire. There is no way you can maintain something long term with force. History has shown this. Even some of the top totalitarian governments (which basically means max force) have failed within 100 years.
it is always better to forcefully act against a perceived evil than to sit around and fret about it and eventually do nothing.
Perceptions can be wrong.. in fact they are wrong most of the time. At the rate that USA is going, they should invade Canada next since it is perceived as being evil in many quarters of the white house. As a sidenote, you DO realize that most of your perception is shaped by govt propaganda right?
in such a case, the cancer only grows. saddam hussein was a cancer that needed removing, i don't see how you could debate me on this. there is a large plurality of opinion on this all over the world.
Actually most of the world is on my side. In case you haven't realized, the VAST MAJORITY of countries (including what neo-cons call the chocolate-making countries
Most people realize that circumventing international norms and laws to unilaterally invade is undesirable. It is a trait of authoratarian governments (chaulk another one up for imperialism). Who are you going to invade next? Cuba?
Saddam Hussein is just one of many dictators on earth. So you are willing to remove the next dictator (who has done similar things)? I suggest that you start in Africa. They need some "cleaning up".
fact: the world is better off without saddam hussein.
Fact: the world is better off without homeless people. Let's go and kill all of them. That will eliminate homelessness for sure
it is clear i believe the us will democratize iraq. it is clear you believe they will not.
History is on my side. USA hasn't democratized any country it invaded in the last 60 years (except Japan, Germany, and to a small extent South Korea). USA sure did a lot of democratizing in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam, Haiti, Panama, and Afghanistan
i'll tell you what, in a year or two, when you see the us leave iraq for good and leave iraq a democratic country, i hope you will revisit this little chat in your mind we have had, and be intellectually honest with me and note that faith in the us actually capable of doing good in the world is worth something.
Sure..
The original context in which 'intelligence' and 'skill' were used (in the original) implied that they were superior in some manner. I am saying they are not. It's all relative, so you cannot say that a particular skill should be valued more than another. A person may value one more than another but a society should not. If anything, the value given to a skill in society is more influenced by who holds power more than anything else. I wasn't implying that these words don't exist. Otherwise, these words wouldn't even be part of language.
:)
:), has a moral code and it has nothing to do with religion (although it may have been influenced by it)...
It is also important to understand that a quantity which is not absolute is not a quantity which is meaningless. An iron bar weighs 300 lbs on Earth, 50 lbs on the Moon, and is weightless in space. Is weight meaningless? No. It can be defined as the size of the external force required to keep a body at rest in its frame of reference. Since the quantity is relative, the definition just includes what it is relative to. It's relative to where you're standing, so that's all the extra information you have to know.
I think weight IS useless. Sure it exists in the vocabulary but it shouldn't. I don't think most people even what weight is (ie. relative to gravity). I bet in 500 years people will completely drop the term weight and go with something else (like mass).
I agree with your assertion that a skill is not morally good or bad. My view is that they are morally neutral (I hold the same view of technology). What's not neutral is the resulting action. eg. nuclear fission=neutral; nuclear bomb (which wouldn't be possible without nuclear fission)=bad. BUT...
You don't like that some people think "valuable" means good, and so you try to prove that value doesn't mean anything. It isn't that it doesn't mean anything at all ever. It's that to use valuable to mean good, you have to say what "good" is, and good is indeed a concept that humans made up.
My problem isn't so much that valuable means good (in the moral sense) but that it means something is valued over another. Maybe I have problems with it cuz I'm egalitarian
Without humans and without any god, there is apparently no good or bad.
Off-topic I think but anyway... I disagree wtih your view that morality requires God. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It's unfortunate that religions have brainwashed everyone into thinking that you need religion for moarlity. Me, being an atheist
It isn't good to be intelligent in all situations.
The implication is that intelligent is good at all times. I have never heard nor read anyone ever imply that intelligence can be construed as undesirable.
Skill and intelligence are both valid words despite being relative.
Maybe I should have used different words. I didn't really mean to say that these words don't exist--they clearly DO exist. My point is that the way society uses them is bogus. It's similar to the weight example. Weight is "bogus" in the sense that most people don't even know that weight is relative to gravity. People equate mass with weight and I am saying they shouldn't do that.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think YOU should brush up on your history... especailly about the Iran/Iraq war. That was not an imperialistic war. In any case, imperialism requires more than one invasion. Only a few countries in history have warranted that title, and I say modern day USA is one. Oh one more thing: modern day imperialism is slightly different from Roman imperialism or even Japanese imperialism. Nowadays, you don't even need to invade countries. You can take over countries via other means. Invasion is your last resort. You preferred method are to create client and proxy states.
..the us has no friends in the middle east...
i don't see how you can see imperialism in a nation that spent 10 years developing a case for war with iraq after a united nations sanctioned invasion, and promises to foster democracy there and then leave
USA does not inherit its imperialist title from Iraq alone. Nevertheless, what were the reasons USA gave for invading Iraq? Foster democracy and leave was certainly not one of the reasons.
iraq is but the first domino in the move of the middle east towards democracy
USA has no credibility. Do you REALLY think USA is in Iraq to create a democracy? Doesn't it seem odd that some of USA's CLOSEST friends are the most ruthless and undemocratic countries ON THE PLANET? Maybe you should start by democratizing your friends before you go into enemy territory. I'll even give you the choice. Start with one of the Gulf countries. I suggest Saudi Arabia but if they are already democratic enough for your tastes, you can move onto Kuwait.
Is that a typo or something? Many of USA's CLOSEST allies are in the Middle East. Countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. A Canadian prime minister can ask for meeting with the US govt and he'll be put at the bottom of the list. A Saudi monarch, or Isreali PM, or Kuwaiti monarch will ask for a meeting and it'll be arranged first thing next day.
internal upheavel after they see how good the iraqis will have it under democracy. iran is already teetering under student unrest.
Iran is as stable as ever. The mini-demonstrations were due to CIA efforts and were quashed. When was the last time democracy was developed by external efforts? Never! I hope one day you realize that society has to change from within, not due to outside foreign intervention. Besides, I don't see how a conservative US govt can ever support liberalism. Liberalism came from the left and all you right-wingers have no idea what women's rights, minority rights, workers' rights, etc are. It's a foreign language to the US govt. As I said, if USA can't even deploy female soldiers to protect the Saudi monarchy, how are they going to ever change a stranger? You should try influencing your friends before going after unknowns...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
old message..just got around to it.. hope you don't mind :)
:) ... but it is IMPERATIVE that the robots cannot be hoarded by a select few.
I think your stance can be summed up with these quotes:
My belief is that a once you get to a critical mass of people with skills for independent analytical thinking (one of the reasons for pursuing higher education), only good things can happen.
My hope is that given the right skill set, they'll create new industries and occupations that can employ educated (and non-educated) people. Besides, at the very worst, I'm going to bet that we're going to need qualified technicians to diagnose and repair all those miracle robots of the future.
Being a socialist, I am STRONGLY against some of the things you said. Your system will work (I'm sure it will work since it seems to be a derivatie of capitalism with far more emphasis on creativity). But I'm against it.
First of all, the things I like about your system. I think more people will have jobs. I think your wishes will translate into higher creativity, something seriously lacking in modern day capitalism, and failed attempts at Communism.
Now the bad... my main problem is that what you are saying will shift power to a select few. It will be even more elitist than capitalism. Whoever that controls the robots will have massive power--far more power than what an owner of a massive corporation has now. People will have more jobs but they will be valued LESS. People will simply be treated as a mass of labour supply. Since there will be even more people who are educated and willing to work, it will be good for the employers (ie. the robot owners) but bad for everyone else.
I might sound like a luddite but I'm not. I love technology and I'm even married to my computer
BTW, you say that education is there teach people analysis, thinking, etc. Well, hate to say it but education is nothing more than a tool to get a job (ie. modern universities are simply there to pump out workers)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I am not talking about differences. Clearly people ARE different. Some can run faster, some can jump higher, some can lift more, etc. And these are just physical traits; same applies to other non-obvious traits. What I AM talking about is the VALUE placed on those traits. I am saying that the value should be equal and if you say it is unequal, it is purely arbitrary. You can be living in another society/system and that trait may be valued more or less.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First, don't assume you know what I belive or not. If you want to know, ask.
If I mischaracterized your position, I'm sorry. Having said that, my opinion of your position still doesn't change.
When a crime is committed law enforcement must identify who committed the crime.
How is law enforcement going to identify the culprits--at least on Freenet? It is impossible as I said. We are in a new age, if you can implement anonymity, no one can trace. It's just like e-mail. If you use GPG/PGP/whatever to communicate, law enforcement can't read what you are saying (even NSA and CIA have problems with encrypted e-mail).
In the real world, there will always be some kind of chain of evidence. It may not be digital - but it will be there and can be followed to unmask the culprit.
We are dealing with seperate things here. There will be the pysical evidence, which can be traceable. But I'm mainly talking about the digital stuff which is more important when it comes to child pornography. For instance, let's say you view child porn pictures. If all that is encrypted and no one can tell where it is coming from, no one can convict you.
I think what you are hoping for (or expecting) is a mistake by the criminal. But my feeling is that we are moving towards a world where criminals will be all cloacked and undetectable. Law enforcement is already having problems and it will just get worse. For instance, the police is almost useless when it comes to helping businesses with corporate crime.
Sivaram Velautahpillai
Iraq isn't imperialistic. Why do you say it is?
I don't really know what USA is going to do with Iraq. The Neo-cons botched Iraq, which is surprising since they can usually cook up some excuses for all their activities (their only hope right now is to start another war, or hope that terrorists strike). My feeling is that USA won't withdraw from Iraq. Even with the UN proposal, don't forget that USA still remains in control. I personally don't think the UN should get involved. USA started it and they should finish it. Besides if USA stays in control it won't work. Whoever that is going to send troops is only going to do it for one reason: oil. Most countries care about Iraq as much as they care about Greenland, which is to say not much. Oil will be their only reason and if USA remains in control, they won't get that.
So I don't really see USA handing over power. Well, they really can't (even if they wanted to). First of all, USA needs to recoup its costs (I think they already spent over $70b and they likely want a piece of the oil revenues). Second, they will lose face if they retreat. Third, it will not look good for USA's close friends, especially Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait.
Since USA won't withdraw, your point about USA as a non-imperial power isn't true...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Why are you posting anonymous? Can't stand up for your beliefs? Anyway...
What's your definition of CONCEPTION? Would you have the same view of conception without science? Are you against birth control too? If I can artificially fertilize human eggs with human sperm (outside the human body), would you consider that conception?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are going to be a great leader one day... of the fascist kind...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
hmm... so are you saying the govt doesn't get new "rights" by passing laws it made up?
I thought governments worked like this:
1. govt does A because of X (typically X is the govt itself)
2. court says A is illegal
3. govt passes law legitimizing A in some manner
4. govt carries out A
5. court says A is legal
6. govt happy >:>
If running plutorcracy (nearly all countries), replace X with elites/corporation; if running dictatorship replace X with dictator; if running fascism, replace X with religion/"race"/ethnicity/language/skin colour/hair colour/shape of nose/etc.
Are you telling me I was wrong all this time?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
BTW, I agree with you that the present US regime is not comparable to a Nazi regime. In fact, it isn't even fascist yet. I think USA will be basically become an imperialist rogue state (it already is practicing imperialism). So in that sense, USA will be more like Imperial Japan during WWII than Nazi Germany.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is something you don't understand. It seems that you are concentrating on the end-results only. The worst thing the Nazis did were early on. There were not lethal or brutal by any means. Yet they hurt their victims the most.
For instance, when the Nazis stripped people of their property (mostly Jews but also other "undesirable" people) or when they started profiling Jews, that was basically the most important step. Once they put the Jews into concentration camps, it was basically all over. It is next to imposibble to back out of that. If all people just waited until genocide was being carried out, it wouldn't work (this is actually what has happend in the past years). If you want to stop something like from happening, you need to do it right at thebeginning: when the Jews were stripped of property, forced to wear markers, and sent to concentration camp... if you waited until the Jews were being eliminated, well, good luck trying to get anything done...
Sivaram Velauthapillai