I don't think that means anything. Either you spend it on your kids, or you spend it on other stuff. The only difference is between (short-term) consumption and (long-term) investment...
You must have a short memory. USSR is responsible for a lot of high-tech, solid, reliable stuff. Their space program was pretty solid (1st country to put people in space), rocketry/ballistic missiles was very advanced, etc. I'm anti-war so I shouldn't be mentioning this but... perhaps the most famous product out of a Communist state (in this case USSR) is the AK-47 machine gun. It is very durable, efficient and reliable. It is the most popular machine gun of all time, and isn't about to be overtaken any time soon. It might seem a bit cheap now but it was the top weapon for almost 50 years.
The reason you don't know of any good products out of Communist countries is not because they suck but because Western countries didn't import them. There were trade embargoes against all Communist states (including modern day ones like Cuba; China, of course, is an exception because capitalists will sell their soul for money). If there were no embargoes, you would have seen more of it...
At no point is it in IBM's interest to hinder the development or adoption of Linux, since doing so only decreases their potential market.
Not true under two cases. First of all, even though IBM may not hinder the development of Linux, they will push it in a certain direction that will benefit them. It hasn't happened yet but the day may come when IBM basically takes Linux in a direction that may not benefit others. Second, IBM will try to monopolize the market at some point. If you look at that Microsoft example you gave, MS was very open and literally let everyone use MS-DOS early on. But they monopolized it by creating the WinTel monopoly. Windows wasn't as "open" as DOS and it was better supported on Intel machines than anything else. The WinTel monopoly basically enriched MS and Intel...
My vote is that prisons should only consist of violent offenders.
So you basically want to let all the white-collar criminals go while cracking down on the lower classes? If I break into your car and steal your notebook, I should end up in jail but if I defraud you through the stock market, I should be free?:(
You sure are a liberatarian lol:) Check out this test...
www.politicalcompass.org (if that doesn't work, try http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/i ndex.html)...
I took your test. I took that test before so I might be biased (but I think I got a similar score as before). My stance is:
Left-Liberal
Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%. Your Economic Self-Government Score is 0%.
I think I am where I think I am (although I have a feeling that I am probably a bit more liberatarian).
That test, although seemingly simple, is actually accurate (at least from my impression).
Where are you placed? I'm guessing it's liberatarian-right, near the border between centrist and conservative. My guess for you is 60% personal self-got, 80% economic self-govt...
There is also another test which I like (I'll see if I can dig it up)...
People do get free money, in the form of charity and grant donations.
We are not talking about that; we are talking about a typical person who spends his/her time helping others.
You mean like the fall of communism?
Yeah like that but... Collapse of any system (not just communism) will do that. Other examples include collapse of monarchy in France (during the French revolution), collapse of colonialism in African, Asian and South/Latin American countries. And so on..
Name one capitalist government that has fallen and maybe your stance is remotely justified.
Actually I'm not saying the capitalism has collapsed. If it did, it would fall like a deck of cards and few other countries would be practicisng it. My point is that it is going to happen. Capitalism almost collapsed during the 20's and 30's. The rise of Communism and fascism has more to do with what was happening with capitalism than anything else. Right now, I think most poor and developing countries are on the verge of collapsing. You already see signs in Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador(?), and Indonesia. Argentina, in particular, is a good one to track since it is the poster child for capitalists and their free-market ideals.
If capitalism fails in even one country, you'll feel its impact. I see a domino effect happening, with neigbours all doing teh same thing. For instance, if one country defaults fully on their debt, refuses to pay any of it, and possibly re-nationalizes their resources (no one has done that yet), I'm sure all their neighbours would copy that. This is the reason countries like USA pump billions (far more than they ever give as charitable money) into the IMF.
It works just fine. Why do you think it doesn't?
I'll make it quick:
exploits workers (why do you think companies are moving to poor countries? Because they love the countries so much?:( )
destroys the environment (WTO agreements put business/commerce ABOVE environmental issues. There have been some cases where strong environmental laws were struck down because the free trade agreement calls for weaker standards)
elitist: capitalism strengthens the class structure. Capitalism takes us further and further away from an egalitarian society.
discrepancy in wealth: Under capitalism, a few hoard resources and wealth. This wouldn't matter in and of itself (I don't care if you are rich) but the problem is that wealth translates to POWER. If you are wealthy, you can control others, influence policies, gain more in return, etc. For instance, you almost need to be a millionare to run for the US govt nowadays. If you are not rich, the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, won't even look at you.
leads to oliopolies and monopolies: Capitalists will deny this but my theory is that capitalism leads to oligopolies and monopolies. You just need to look at industries like cars, airplanes, media, banks, and so on. There are very few companies controlling these industries. Capitalism FORCES companies to merge and become larger and larger.
different value system: Capitalism does not adhere to my value system so I don't like it. For instance, capitalism rewards and encourages greed, something I detest.
many more...
Hope that gives an idea of why I hate capitalism.
People think aliens are going to come liberate them and kill themselves off.
Do these people know what planet the aliens are coming from?;) I don't think I want the aliens brainwashed by the capitalists. Last thing we need is another lifeform being enslaved by capitalism;)
Just reject the capitalistic system and you don't matter.
I don't know what this means. So are you saying that if you DON'T reject capitalism then you matter? Do YOU matter? You are just a consumer and a worker--nothing more:(
Capitalism means private ownership, and the use of private capital to fund profitable enterprises.
I agree that capitalism has nothing to do with freedom. However capitalism requires free flow of capital. China is still heavily controlled by the govt so it is still a command control economy. For instance, I think (not 100% sure since I don't track China) the Chinese currency is pegged to the US dollar. The govt decides how much a US dollar is worth, and it also controls how easily you can change the currency.
(NOT QUOTED IN ORDER--hope I'm not misrepresenting your views)
More like "classical liberals" such as Thomas JEfferson.
There is little difference between the liberals of the past and the liberals of today. We have just been changing. Besides, you can't claim Jefferson was responsible for all of it. There are many key things that came afterwards. The most important are perhaps the worker movements, equality for different ethnicities, equality for different gender, and children's rights. Jefferson may have wrote that all men are created equal, but blacks (for instance) certainly weren't equal until very recently, and women weren't even "people" for a long time. If you simply relied on Jefferson's ideals without any of the recent advancements, you would turn into a conservative:)
The problem with liberatarians (if you truly are one) is that you guys never place yourself on the left-right spectrum. Libertarianism in and of itself means nothing without the econopolitical left-right ideology. Liberatarianism is simply a "concept", similar to democracy. In and of itself it means little. In any case, you seem to be liberatarian-right like most Americans, and the Liberatarian Party of USA (as opposed to liberatarian-left, aka anarchist).
That's a very sad view of life, considering oneself chattel to be used at will by... anyone.
Yes it's sad but that's the reality. Just look around... perhaps you should look at the whole world, including other countries, other types of governments, etc..
You seem to think that the government (or "the people" or whoever) have a dvine right to rule, with unlimited power over anyone. Again, how sad!
I am not saying that an entity (whether be "people", government, police, corporation, etc) have a DIVINE right to rule. They don't and they SHOULDN'T! However, that is the reality. What you are saying would make more sense under anarchism (ie. no govt). But for now, govts have ABSOLUTE CONTROL over YOU, your family, your country, your military, your police, your school, etc.
We are all born with rights. People, including governments, regularly try to violate those rights. "We" did not force the government to grant us rights, we forced it to stop violating them.
That's the liberatarian view. You are close to the truth but not quite there. THe problem with the liberatarian view is that humans only LEARN what their rights are over time. Maybe humans ARE born with "full" rights but the problem is that we don't know it. If I said that slavery is bad 200 years ago, I would run out of town. If I said that 1,000 years ago, I would probably be killed. What does this mean? Well, 1000 years ago, the whole notion of being free didn't even exist. If I said that people have the right to be free and not be enslaved by another, people would think I'm crazy. According to your view, who took away your freedom 1000 years ago? The king/govt? Or society? Or you? As crazy as it might sound, a slave himself/herself would have said that slavery was normal 1000 years ago. If you were a liberatarian 1000 years ago, you would never even realize that you have the right to be free from slavery.
What does this all mean? People aren't born with rights; they are simply granted whatever society/govt/etc wants to.
Such as you, I suppose.
So you think I'm a dictator huh?
You're trying to change the debate from, "what powers is government allowed to have" -- what the U.S. was founded on -- into "what priviledges and subsidies shall the rulers grant their subjects?"
I'm not trying to change that; I'm saying that is what happens in the world. You are looking at it totally from a legal point of view, while I'm looking at it from an ideological point of view. As I said, the courts can be manipulated easily. Once the courts are manipulated your views mean nothing (since they are centered on laws). The US constituti
Where else did the guy get his money to help? Uh, oh that's right.. Capitalism!
I don't want to even get into that. Suffice to say, you don't seem to have a grasp of capitalism. Even capitalists will admit that people make money in EXCHANGE for labour. People don't get FREE MONEY. Maybe if capitalists just gave away money then you may have a point...
Sorry chief, I'm 90% liquid.
What YOU are is irrelevant (I don't mean that in a rude way). The reason is because YOU, like me, and everyone else, is part of the system. Others will have a greater impact on you than you imagine. So say you are rich and are fairly independent (ie. you don't rely on others, the economy, etc). If everyone else around you becomes poorer, there is a probability that crime will go up (you WILL feel the impact of that). If USA enters a deflation and never gets out of it, you WILL feel the impact of the unemployed. If the US currency depreciates a lot, you WILL lose hundreads or millions of dollars. And I haven't even touched on things like kids (if you have any), or the environment and so on. Even if YOU are "safe" your kids may not me... The question is: do you care?
Capitalism isn't pushed from debt, either.
That's what all capitalists say:) Capitalism does not create debt per se, but it relies on it heavily. Money is the oil that makes the wheels of capitalism turn. Therefore, debt is a big part of it. I'm not saying that capitalism is the only system which will create debt. But it is one relies on it a lot..
What do you suggest? Communism?
I'm a socialist but you don't have to follow me. I personally like a system called participative economics (parecon; www.parecon.org). But all I ask is that you consider the possibilities. Don't be a slave to capitalism!
Your dislike for capitalism is irrational.
When you talk about econopolitics, there is no such thing as rationality. If there were, ONE system will always be accepted by the vast majority of the people, but it hasn't happened. The reason is because the choice depends on value systems and what you desire. For instance, a fascist believes in fascism because he/she likes an elitist system where a certain group/ethnicity/religion/etc are valued more than others; a socialist on the other hand tries to create a egalitarian world (every equal; no classes) with utilitarian principles; and so on. The fascist would consider fascism to be the most rational to him/her; a socialist would consdier socialiasm; etc... If you try rationalizing the systems, you won't get anywhere. After all, how do you value something like equality? Can you really measure it?
No, I don't ignore them. You just assume I do. I just accept the good and the bad, and weigh them together. Which system do you think works?
I can't answer that. I don't KNOW what works. All I know is that capitalism does not work (especially looking at it from a world perspective). I personally prefer parecon but this is something that YOU must figure out yourself. I don't know. Maybe you do BELIEVE that capitalism is the best and will be forever. If that's the case, fine. You will be my enemy though... Just be prepared for the collapse of capitalism--I think it will happen within my lifetime (although I don't think it will happen in USA first)...
Sivaram_Velauthapill is a troll. He chooses an article, and tries to turn it into a manifesto...
That's nothe definition of troll. Troll is someone who says or does something to generate a reaction. The vast majority of the time, a troll simply says something inflamatory and then leaves (the troll doesn't even take part in the discussion).
In any case, if you don't like what I am saying or think I'm a troll, fine, you don't have to read my stuff. If you want to go around claiming that I'm a troll, that's ok too although it is a complete waste of time...
All the things the anti-capitalist folks living in the US have, wouldn't be there if it weren't for capitalism.
I just love how capitalists take credit for everything in the world. Some have even claimed that the free scientific research done is because of capitalism. Yeah right. What's next? Some guy helping the homeless is due to capitalism?:(.. Anyway, you capitalism-worshippers fail to realize one thing. Your so-called present "successes" are nothing more than an illusion. I'll tell you how you gained your "success". It's called DEBT. Maybe you have heard of it. USA has been doing well over the last 70 years or so for only one reason: debt. It's not just USA--any capitalist country. USA rose over a period of say 100 years and in that period it amassed 7 trillion(?) in debt. I just wonder if you'll even pay that off in the next 100 years. Your WHOLE life (what you would credit to capitalism) is nothing more than a life subsdized by imperialism and national debt. USA has trade deficits with nearly every country; Americans consume more than they can; the interest you pay on the debt will totally destroy you (along with every other country which relies on debt--which is like 80% of the countries); etc
You know... capitalism may not need any enemy to collapse. It already has one within. Since you love capitalism so much, I suggest that you get to work ASAP to avoid a debt default and a consequent collapse of the system...
Upper class pays more than anything, because they still buy just as much (usually more) of anything that the middle class buys. They also own more land, typically, thus providing more property tax.
I don't think that's true but I'm not too sure about USA. Since there is a massive discrepancy of wealth in USA, what you are saying may be true but I doubt it. I did the figures for Canada a while ago, and this is how it worked out: upper class pays most of the income tax, middle class+lower class pays most of the sales tax, and middle class+lower class pays most of the property tax. (NOTE: property tax is widely divergent and hard to figure out. There are rich areas and poor areas so it has more to do with the area than anything else (eg. I suspect if you did for California, it would be different from Nevada). However, from what I could gater about property tax, the middle and lower classes paid the most). Just to complete the discussion, let's include the other tax that is not mentioned: corporate tax. From what I can gather, most of the corporate tax is paid by large corporation (although I suspect that this will change over the next 50 years since small businesses already outnumber the large ones and are growing).
Upper class pays more than anything, because they still buy just as much (usually more) of anything that the middle class buys.
That's generally not true. The middle class buys the most by a long shot. You don't need to listen to me, just pay attention to what (capitalist) economists say. Then even point out that the economy is 2/3 run by consumption and it is mostly due to middle and (to some extent) lower classes. This is coming out of capitalists (people who live and breathe capitalism). The reason you are wrong is because there are FAR more middle class and lower class people than the upper class people. If I had to make a guess, I would say that for every upper class person, there is probably 1,000 in middle class, and probably 60 in lower class. The numbers just aren't there to support your view. The population is much larger!
They also own more land, typically, thus providing more property tax.
Irrelevant. People who rent the place pay the property tax in the form of rent.
If the upper 20% of the population (in terms of wage/net worth) disappeared the economy would crumble. In the lower 80% of the population disappeared, there would be a hard time finding replacement for the work.
It's interesting that you think freedom is granted, like it's a priviledge rather than a right of each and every human being. You probably object to the word "rights" has well, though.
Freedom, or any other right, is ALWAYS granted. You probably grew up assuming that you HAD a particular right but itn'st not rue. Yes, it sounds crazy but it's true. The reason is because the court systems are nothing more than fronts for the elites. So even if YOU have a certain right, it is next to meaningless. People get a right because the government says it is a right. Usually this is backed by some piece of law (often a constitution of some sort). But none of this really matters because the courts and the laws are manipulated. For instance, the vast majority of the people on earth have the right to free speech (nearly every country gives those rights). But very few people really have freedom of speech. Why? Because in most coutnries, the govt does not GRANT you the right. You may think a right is inherited but it is always GRANTED. What I'm saying is that you can LOSE your right (no, I'm not joking--just look at the loss of certain privacy rights in the last few years)
Furthermore, the vast majority of rights that you take for granted were actually fought for and won (incidentally by leftists). No one was ever born with these rights. Instead, we FORCED the govt to GRANT us these rights. Classic example would be equality. Did the govt assume that all people (of all ethnicities) were equal? Of course not. In fact, they assumed we weren't equal. But we fought and won. Consequently, it is a right that was granted--it did not exist 60 years ago.
There are many other examples that you can look at (worker rights such as the right to create a union, equality for gender, human rights such as children's rights (right to not be abused by parents, right to go to schools), etc).
You have simply been accepting the status quo without any thought. A dictator could take over, say USA and strip your freedoms in one day. The constitution and the courts aren't going to prevent anything (eg. Japanese Americans in 40's). So do you still think that you are BORN with rights such as freedom to speak? Some dictator could strip that right and you would lose it. So is it not granted?
What "freedoms" will the utilitarian overlords "grant" to their citizen-chattel in your glorious future?
Overlord is not the right word to use here, since no single person is in control of anything. The answer is whatever direction society takes us. It's tough to say what future freedoms will be gained but I can speculate. Right now, one freedom that leftists are aiming for is the freedom for people of varying sexualities to practice whatever they desire. I'm talking about homosexuals being given the right to do whatever they want. Another thing that we are pushing for right now is for the right of victims (of a major crime like genocide) to achieve justice. Other possible future rights (hypothetical at this point) include the right to not be fired from work for expressing political opinions, the right for citizen media to avoid being shut down by govt, etc. It's really tough to say what rights will be gained in the future...
So, "freedom," as long people's "freedom" doesn't interfere with your social engineering goals.
I'll bet that you don't even know what freedom is!As far as social engineering is concerned, we already live in a world like that--too bad you don't realize it. What do you call modern day (capitalist) economics? When the central bank increases interest rates by 0.25% in order to combat inflation, while putting hundreads of thousands out of work, that is not social engineering? When the neo-conservatives in power (in the US govt) send their military over to the Middle East (and other parts) to reshape the political landscape and take the oil, that's not social engineering? When the govt debt shoots up because of tax cuts, that's not social engineering? When the
Utilitarianism/socialism is enslavement to your fellow man.
And capitalism isn't? *rollseyes* It's just sad that you dont' consider it enslavement when the wealthy elites control every aspect of your life but cry foul when the population attempts to do something.
If it's the people at large, you have unconstrained rule-by-mob.
hmm... unless you have been living in a cave for a while;), that's called DEMOCRACY!!! I would rather be "ruled-by-mob" than by a few wealthy elites...
No it's not... the govt still has massive control over the economy, corporations, etc. For instance, you just need to look at their currency. In addition, doing business in China requires consent of the government, regardless of whether you are local or foreign. China is more capitalist than it ever was but it is nowhere near what I would call modern day capitalism. As a matter of fact, I don't think it will ever be capitalist because it is authoratarian.
A foreigner could express his views of overthrowing a govt and yet nothing happens; but when a local citizen does it, it's jail time:(
If you think this has nothing to do with his anti-government views, you have no fucking clue what is going on.
this shouldn't surprise anyone
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
This shouldn't surprise anyone... at the rate that USA is going, I guess I don't need to wait for the collapse of capitalism. Tyranny will take it down long before that...
The US govt has always treated anarchists very badly. You probably don't know this but the modern incarnation of May day was influenced by the execution of some anarchists. This person is just the recent victim...
I'm just wondering who is going to be next. Let's see which activist gets thrown in jail for 5 years next:(:(:(
Well, considering Microsoft didn't kill off any endangered species the analogy is incredibly flawed.
Microsoft destroyed it's competitors by using very shrewd (and in the case of Netscape, illegal) business tactics. They guaranteed their place in the world by making software that people buy.
I'm not understanding how that is evil.
Evil is probably too strong of a word (let me downgrade that to undesirable). I'm anti-capitalist so we clearly have different value systems. To me, the vast majority of corporations are nothing but exploiters of society and MS is no diffrent. Many who have worked for the company have profitted immensely but that doesn't mean anything...
BTW, I probably hate Microsoft less than most people here. Intel, for example, is far worse than MS IMO...
Yes, but the rich support the poor. So, you are biting the hand that feeds you.
Are you referring to income taxes? If yes, then you are right. But if you count all taxes, then the middle class probably pays more (on sales tax and property tax).
In any case, I was simply passing a moral judgement. I am neither poor nor rich and none of it matters. I am simply an observer. If I did take the food, I am sure I would be very grateful. But it doesn't change the value of the action...
You are right... however I am not poor (at least not yet, although at the rate my life is going...:( ). I do not want the bread. All I'm doing is passing judgement.
1) There will always be some asshole who wants to be in charge 2) There will always be people dumb enough to willingly help the asshole acheive his goals.
The first point is probably a somewhat strong critique of communism, although it is really a criticism against totalitarianism. Nevertheless I still dont' think that means communism will always fail like that. I can see two solutions to those problems (hypothetical for now):
Solution I: As long as others can block the power-hungry people from achieving their goals, the system will be fine. This is what has happened in the past. As long as you have "good" people blocking the "bad" people, it'll be fine. Of course, there is no guarantee that society will form like that. It is quite conceivable that the people will be bought out and brainwashed regardless of how "good" or intelligent they are (eg. Nazism).
Solution II: This is a scary solution for some but is really the only solution to communism as far as I can tell. Communism will become possible only if the system was run by a non-human, most likely a computer. You need some neutral entity to handle the situation or else it is so easy for it to be corrupted to a totalitarian state Communism in the past. (On another note, for communism to work we also need to have the capability to OPTIMALLY allocate resources. For this to happen I am guessing that we need to have the technology to predict the future (at least something like the weather but much much more advanced). Needless to say, we are nowhere near having the capability to predict the future nor to have the computer AI to manage even a simple task)
Anyway, Marx wasn't a tool; he is God;) I'm a socialist and I have to respect Marx. Without him, we wouldn't be where we are. Before Das Kapital (aka The Capital, his book) capitalism didn't even exist. People thought it was nature and whatever the businesses and free market was doing was right:(...
Nazi Germany was fascist -- it was, at best, a corporate state, not a capitalist one. It wasn't free.
Germany was fascist but it was capitalist too. Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system! Capitalism does not say anything about politics. You can run a political system on top of capitalism. In contrast, socialism, communism, and anarchism are economics+politics. So you have Nazi Germany (capitalism+fascism), you have modern USA (plutocracy+capitalism), you have modern day Iran (theocracy+captialism), you have modern day Cuba (Communism), you have modern day China ("socialism"), you have Norway (capitalism+socialist ideals), Vatican City (theocracy+capitalism), Saudi Arabia (monarchy+capitalism), North Korea (not sure what this is; dictatorship+some closed economics??) etc...
Read "The Mystery of Capital," by Hernando de Soto (a Peruvian economist).
This might sound dumb but I consider most economists to be a bunch of fools. They are all capitalists and economics is NOT a social science right now. It is nothing more than capitalist economics! Modern day economists are nothing more than the alchemists of 300 years ago. The day will come when they will all be discredited and true social scientists (in the vein of chemists) will take over... And no, I'm not a disgruntled economist--and I hope you aren't one for your sake either:)
What does that have to do with capitalism, though?
My theory is that capitalism leads to monopolies and oligopolies...just look around... the world is headed in that directed...
I imagine you consider some sort of bondage to the state to be "free" -- such as free healthcare, free tv, free food, free housing, freedom from work, etc.
No, I don't consider free health/free education/etc to have anything to do with freedom. Most socialists would even point that they are not free as in money (most of the time society, ie. the whole population, subsidizes them so you are still paying for them)...
Right. I so look forwaring to being enslaved by you and your ilk.
Actually I don't think we'll enslave you. We are not in the business of enslaving people. I think you guys are more tailored for that... Besides, the time when we truly win will be beyond our lifetimes. All you'll see for now (in the best case) is revolution, and (in the worst case) the status quo (of increasing corporate power, freer markets, weakening of governments, shredding of environmental regulations, increasing discrepancy in wealth, etc).
Presumably one's freedom to engage in trade is covered by freedom of speech, association, travel, and -- as you so eloquently put it -- "etc." Capitalism is based on freedom.
I misled you. Sorry about that. Your inference is correct based on my (misled) words. I should have pointed out that socialism (or nearly any left wing system, except anarchism) does not grant FULL freedom. So when I said freedom, I was speaking within this framework. Socialism is utilitarian so you are right: you won't have full freedom. Utilitarianism basically means that the action that benefits the most (i.e. society) is performed rather than that benefits the few. This clearly will not grant full rights, and it is opposite of capitalism, which is elitist. For example, socialism will not let you hoard a resource that is valuable to society (say oil, or the media). So you never will have full freedom. The govt (or some other entity, which acts as a proxy for the population) will force you to sell your oil to others, or to divest your media interests. Capitalism clearly is against that.
So the freedoms I mentioned will not grant to full freedom for commerce/trade/business. For example, minimum wage and rent control are anti-capitalist yet socialist countries will ALWAYS keep them--at least as long as we have some influence:) Capitalism calls for elimination of controls such as these...
Oh... this isn't just the computer industry... it is the case EVERYWHERE... companies sueing each other... people suing each other for the slightest thing... governments suing themselves (different departments)...
Right now, the whole software industry (and to some extent the computer industry) is not accountable for anything it does. You can buy a piece of software and it can corrupt all your financial statements that you had over the last 20 years and you wouldn't have much recourse. So whether something is commercial or not is irrlevant. Besides, by using the software, often you have to agree to no warranty, damages, etc.
The only argument that you can make against open-source software is that some hostile agent can insert code into the system. For instance, how do you know that Russian (for example) agents aren't inserting malicious code into some component of Linux or some open-source software. Sure, the key developers will have to approve it but I suspect that the controlling mechanisms are more lax... Having said this, you can make the counter-argument that having the code open means that others can inspect it so the chances of malicious code insertion is low. This depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Which is more likely: an agent successfully inserting malicious code into open-source software without anyone noticing, or an agent infiltrating Microsoft (for example) and rising to a key development position?
But anyone who thinks that formal proofs of correctness can eliminate all bugs, much less all security holes, is not living in the real world.
I don't think anyone is expecting a formal proof to ensure that a system will be perfect. Rather, they use it ot minimize the problems them will run into. It might not be perfect but it is better than not having it. This whole process is very expensive but I can see why governments would do it. At least it gives an assurance of the software. For commercial stuff, none of this matters since security isn't that important (often patches are deployed even if they are too late, customers really don't have much power (it costs too much to organize and get lawyers) and in the worst case violations are just swept under the carpet). But for the government it can be important. Imagine if some some hostile agent (can be local or foreign) manages to attack the systems that store or manage, say the tax records or pension plans. Of course, it gets even worse for military institutions. And the worst is for the evil agencies themselves (ie. CIA, FSB, CSIS, etc)...
It isn't perfect (some guy can come and blow up the building which can physically damage the systems) but at least with some sort of certification system, you can sure that what you have is better than the choices...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that means anything. Either you spend it on your kids, or you spend it on other stuff. The only difference is between (short-term) consumption and (long-term) investment...
You must have a short memory. USSR is responsible for a lot of high-tech, solid, reliable stuff. Their space program was pretty solid (1st country to put people in space), rocketry/ballistic missiles was very advanced, etc. I'm anti-war so I shouldn't be mentioning this but... perhaps the most famous product out of a Communist state (in this case USSR) is the AK-47 machine gun. It is very durable, efficient and reliable. It is the most popular machine gun of all time, and isn't about to be overtaken any time soon. It might seem a bit cheap now but it was the top weapon for almost 50 years.
The reason you don't know of any good products out of Communist countries is not because they suck but because Western countries didn't import them. There were trade embargoes against all Communist states (including modern day ones like Cuba; China, of course, is an exception because capitalists will sell their soul for money). If there were no embargoes, you would have seen more of it...
At no point is it in IBM's interest to hinder the development or adoption of Linux, since doing so only decreases their potential market.
Not true under two cases. First of all, even though IBM may not hinder the development of Linux, they will push it in a certain direction that will benefit them. It hasn't happened yet but the day may come when IBM basically takes Linux in a direction that may not benefit others. Second, IBM will try to monopolize the market at some point. If you look at that Microsoft example you gave, MS was very open and literally let everyone use MS-DOS early on. But they monopolized it by creating the WinTel monopoly. Windows wasn't as "open" as DOS and it was better supported on Intel machines than anything else. The WinTel monopoly basically enriched MS and Intel...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
My vote is that prisons should only consist of violent offenders.
:(
So you basically want to let all the white-collar criminals go while cracking down on the lower classes? If I break into your car and steal your notebook, I should end up in jail but if I defraud you through the stock market, I should be free?
They'd be trying to kill us no matter what we did.
You really believe that? How come they aren't bombing Norway or Denmark?
You sure are a liberatarian lol :) Check out this test...i ndex.html)...
www.politicalcompass.org (if that doesn't work, try http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'll respond later... don't feel like it now...
I took your test. I took that test before so I might be biased (but I think I got a similar score as before). My stance is:
Left-Liberal
Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 0%.
I think I am where I think I am (although I have a feeling that I am probably a bit more liberatarian).
That test, although seemingly simple, is actually accurate (at least from my impression).
Where are you placed? I'm guessing it's liberatarian-right, near the border between centrist and conservative. My guess for you is 60% personal self-got, 80% economic self-govt...
There is also another test which I like (I'll see if I can dig it up)...
RAM
We are not talking about that; we are talking about a typical person who spends his/her time helping others.
You mean like the fall of communism?
Yeah like that but... Collapse of any system (not just communism) will do that. Other examples include collapse of monarchy in France (during the French revolution), collapse of colonialism in African, Asian and South/Latin American countries. And so on..
Name one capitalist government that has fallen and maybe your stance is remotely justified.
Actually I'm not saying the capitalism has collapsed. If it did, it would fall like a deck of cards and few other countries would be practicisng it. My point is that it is going to happen. Capitalism almost collapsed during the 20's and 30's. The rise of Communism and fascism has more to do with what was happening with capitalism than anything else. Right now, I think most poor and developing countries are on the verge of collapsing. You already see signs in Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador(?), and Indonesia. Argentina, in particular, is a good one to track since it is the poster child for capitalists and their free-market ideals.
If capitalism fails in even one country, you'll feel its impact. I see a domino effect happening, with neigbours all doing teh same thing. For instance, if one country defaults fully on their debt, refuses to pay any of it, and possibly re-nationalizes their resources (no one has done that yet), I'm sure all their neighbours would copy that. This is the reason countries like USA pump billions (far more than they ever give as charitable money) into the IMF.
It works just fine. Why do you think it doesn't?
I'll make it quick:
- exploits workers (why do you think companies are moving to poor countries? Because they love the countries so much?
:( )
- destroys the environment (WTO agreements put business/commerce ABOVE environmental issues. There have been some cases where strong environmental laws were struck down because the free trade agreement calls for weaker standards)
- elitist: capitalism strengthens the class structure. Capitalism takes us further and further away from an egalitarian society.
- discrepancy in wealth: Under capitalism, a few hoard resources and wealth. This wouldn't matter in and of itself (I don't care if you are rich) but the problem is that wealth translates to POWER. If you are wealthy, you can control others, influence policies, gain more in return, etc. For instance, you almost need to be a millionare to run for the US govt nowadays. If you are not rich, the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, won't even look at you.
- leads to oliopolies and monopolies: Capitalists will deny this but my theory is that capitalism leads to oligopolies and monopolies. You just need to look at industries like cars, airplanes, media, banks, and so on. There are very few companies controlling these industries. Capitalism FORCES companies to merge and become larger and larger.
- different value system: Capitalism does not adhere to my value system so I don't like it. For instance, capitalism rewards and encourages greed, something I detest.
- many more...
Hope that gives an idea of why I hate capitalism.People think aliens are going to come liberate them and kill themselves off.
Do these people know what planet the aliens are coming from?
Just reject the capitalistic system and you don't matter.
I don't know what this means. So are you saying that if you DON'T reject capitalism then you matter? Do YOU matter? You are just a consumer and a worker--nothing more
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Capitalism means private ownership, and the use of private capital to fund profitable enterprises.
I agree that capitalism has nothing to do with freedom. However capitalism requires free flow of capital. China is still heavily controlled by the govt so it is still a command control economy. For instance, I think (not 100% sure since I don't track China) the Chinese currency is pegged to the US dollar. The govt decides how much a US dollar is worth, and it also controls how easily you can change the currency.
(NOT QUOTED IN ORDER--hope I'm not misrepresenting your views)
:)
... anyone.
More like "classical liberals" such as Thomas JEfferson.
There is little difference between the liberals of the past and the liberals of today. We have just been changing. Besides, you can't claim Jefferson was responsible for all of it. There are many key things that came afterwards. The most important are perhaps the worker movements, equality for different ethnicities, equality for different gender, and children's rights. Jefferson may have wrote that all men are created equal, but blacks (for instance) certainly weren't equal until very recently, and women weren't even "people" for a long time. If you simply relied on Jefferson's ideals without any of the recent advancements, you would turn into a conservative
The problem with liberatarians (if you truly are one) is that you guys never place yourself on the left-right spectrum. Libertarianism in and of itself means nothing without the econopolitical left-right ideology. Liberatarianism is simply a "concept", similar to democracy. In and of itself it means little. In any case, you seem to be liberatarian-right like most Americans, and the Liberatarian Party of USA (as opposed to liberatarian-left, aka anarchist).
That's a very sad view of life, considering oneself chattel to be used at will by
Yes it's sad but that's the reality. Just look around... perhaps you should look at the whole world, including other countries, other types of governments, etc..
You seem to think that the government (or "the people" or whoever) have a dvine right to rule, with unlimited power over anyone. Again, how sad!
I am not saying that an entity (whether be "people", government, police, corporation, etc) have a DIVINE right to rule. They don't and they SHOULDN'T! However, that is the reality. What you are saying would make more sense under anarchism (ie. no govt). But for now, govts have ABSOLUTE CONTROL over YOU, your family, your country, your military, your police, your school, etc.
We are all born with rights. People, including governments, regularly try to violate those rights. "We" did not force the government to grant us rights, we forced it to stop violating them.
That's the liberatarian view. You are close to the truth but not quite there. THe problem with the liberatarian view is that humans only LEARN what their rights are over time. Maybe humans ARE born with "full" rights but the problem is that we don't know it. If I said that slavery is bad 200 years ago, I would run out of town. If I said that 1,000 years ago, I would probably be killed. What does this mean? Well, 1000 years ago, the whole notion of being free didn't even exist. If I said that people have the right to be free and not be enslaved by another, people would think I'm crazy. According to your view, who took away your freedom 1000 years ago? The king/govt? Or society? Or you? As crazy as it might sound, a slave himself/herself would have said that slavery was normal 1000 years ago. If you were a liberatarian 1000 years ago, you would never even realize that you have the right to be free from slavery.
What does this all mean? People aren't born with rights; they are simply granted whatever society/govt/etc wants to.
Such as you, I suppose.
So you think I'm a dictator huh?
You're trying to change the debate from, "what powers is government allowed to have" -- what the U.S. was founded on -- into "what priviledges and subsidies shall the rulers grant their subjects?"
I'm not trying to change that; I'm saying that is what happens in the world. You are looking at it totally from a legal point of view, while I'm looking at it from an ideological point of view. As I said, the courts can be manipulated easily. Once the courts are manipulated your views mean nothing (since they are centered on laws). The US constituti
Where else did the guy get his money to help? Uh, oh that's right.. Capitalism!
:) Capitalism does not create debt per se, but it relies on it heavily. Money is the oil that makes the wheels of capitalism turn. Therefore, debt is a big part of it. I'm not saying that capitalism is the only system which will create debt. But it is one relies on it a lot..
I don't want to even get into that. Suffice to say, you don't seem to have a grasp of capitalism. Even capitalists will admit that people make money in EXCHANGE for labour. People don't get FREE MONEY. Maybe if capitalists just gave away money then you may have a point...
Sorry chief, I'm 90% liquid.
What YOU are is irrelevant (I don't mean that in a rude way). The reason is because YOU, like me, and everyone else, is part of the system. Others will have a greater impact on you than you imagine. So say you are rich and are fairly independent (ie. you don't rely on others, the economy, etc). If everyone else around you becomes poorer, there is a probability that crime will go up (you WILL feel the impact of that). If USA enters a deflation and never gets out of it, you WILL feel the impact of the unemployed. If the US currency depreciates a lot, you WILL lose hundreads or millions of dollars. And I haven't even touched on things like kids (if you have any), or the environment and so on. Even if YOU are "safe" your kids may not me... The question is: do you care?
Capitalism isn't pushed from debt, either.
That's what all capitalists say
What do you suggest? Communism?
I'm a socialist but you don't have to follow me. I personally like a system called participative economics (parecon; www.parecon.org). But all I ask is that you consider the possibilities. Don't be a slave to capitalism!
Your dislike for capitalism is irrational.
When you talk about econopolitics, there is no such thing as rationality. If there were, ONE system will always be accepted by the vast majority of the people, but it hasn't happened. The reason is because the choice depends on value systems and what you desire. For instance, a fascist believes in fascism because he/she likes an elitist system where a certain group/ethnicity/religion/etc are valued more than others; a socialist on the other hand tries to create a egalitarian world (every equal; no classes) with utilitarian principles; and so on. The fascist would consider fascism to be the most rational to him/her; a socialist would consdier socialiasm; etc... If you try rationalizing the systems, you won't get anywhere. After all, how do you value something like equality? Can you really measure it?
No, I don't ignore them. You just assume I do. I just accept the good and the bad, and weigh them together. Which system do you think works?
I can't answer that. I don't KNOW what works. All I know is that capitalism does not work (especially looking at it from a world perspective). I personally prefer parecon but this is something that YOU must figure out yourself. I don't know. Maybe you do BELIEVE that capitalism is the best and will be forever. If that's the case, fine. You will be my enemy though... Just be prepared for the collapse of capitalism--I think it will happen within my lifetime (although I don't think it will happen in USA first)...
Sivaram_Velauthapill is a troll. He chooses an article, and tries to turn it into a manifesto...
That's nothe definition of troll. Troll is someone who says or does something to generate a reaction. The vast majority of the time, a troll simply says something inflamatory and then leaves (the troll doesn't even take part in the discussion).
In any case, if you don't like what I am saying or think I'm a troll, fine, you don't have to read my stuff. If you want to go around claiming that I'm a troll, that's ok too although it is a complete waste of time...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
All the things the anti-capitalist folks living in the US have, wouldn't be there if it weren't for capitalism.
:( .. Anyway, you capitalism-worshippers fail to realize one thing. Your so-called present "successes" are nothing more than an illusion. I'll tell you how you gained your "success". It's called DEBT. Maybe you have heard of it. USA has been doing well over the last 70 years or so for only one reason: debt. It's not just USA--any capitalist country. USA rose over a period of say 100 years and in that period it amassed 7 trillion(?) in debt. I just wonder if you'll even pay that off in the next 100 years. Your WHOLE life (what you would credit to capitalism) is nothing more than a life subsdized by imperialism and national debt. USA has trade deficits with nearly every country; Americans consume more than they can; the interest you pay on the debt will totally destroy you (along with every other country which relies on debt--which is like 80% of the countries); etc
I just love how capitalists take credit for everything in the world. Some have even claimed that the free scientific research done is because of capitalism. Yeah right. What's next? Some guy helping the homeless is due to capitalism?
You know... capitalism may not need any enemy to collapse. It already has one within. Since you love capitalism so much, I suggest that you get to work ASAP to avoid a debt default and a consequent collapse of the system...
Upper class pays more than anything, because they still buy just as much (usually more) of anything that the middle class buys. They also own more land, typically, thus providing more property tax.
I don't think that's true but I'm not too sure about USA. Since there is a massive discrepancy of wealth in USA, what you are saying may be true but I doubt it. I did the figures for Canada a while ago, and this is how it worked out: upper class pays most of the income tax, middle class+lower class pays most of the sales tax, and middle class+lower class pays most of the property tax. (NOTE: property tax is widely divergent and hard to figure out. There are rich areas and poor areas so it has more to do with the area than anything else (eg. I suspect if you did for California, it would be different from Nevada). However, from what I could gater about property tax, the middle and lower classes paid the most). Just to complete the discussion, let's include the other tax that is not mentioned: corporate tax. From what I can gather, most of the corporate tax is paid by large corporation (although I suspect that this will change over the next 50 years since small businesses already outnumber the large ones and are growing).
Upper class pays more than anything, because they still buy just as much (usually more) of anything that the middle class buys.
That's generally not true. The middle class buys the most by a long shot. You don't need to listen to me, just pay attention to what (capitalist) economists say. Then even point out that the economy is 2/3 run by consumption and it is mostly due to middle and (to some extent) lower classes. This is coming out of capitalists (people who live and breathe capitalism). The reason you are wrong is because there are FAR more middle class and lower class people than the upper class people. If I had to make a guess, I would say that for every upper class person, there is probably 1,000 in middle class, and probably 60 in lower class. The numbers just aren't there to support your view. The population is much larger!
They also own more land, typically, thus providing more property tax.
Irrelevant. People who rent the place pay the property tax in the form of rent.
If the upper 20% of the population (in terms of wage/net worth) disappeared the economy would crumble. In the lower 80% of the population disappeared, there would be a hard time finding replacement for the work.
Neither of this is true IMO.
It's interesting that you think freedom is granted, like it's a priviledge rather than a right of each and every human being. You probably object to the word "rights" has well, though.
Freedom, or any other right, is ALWAYS granted. You probably grew up assuming that you HAD a particular right but itn'st not rue. Yes, it sounds crazy but it's true. The reason is because the court systems are nothing more than fronts for the elites. So even if YOU have a certain right, it is next to meaningless. People get a right because the government says it is a right. Usually this is backed by some piece of law (often a constitution of some sort). But none of this really matters because the courts and the laws are manipulated. For instance, the vast majority of the people on earth have the right to free speech (nearly every country gives those rights). But very few people really have freedom of speech. Why? Because in most coutnries, the govt does not GRANT you the right. You may think a right is inherited but it is always GRANTED. What I'm saying is that you can LOSE your right (no, I'm not joking--just look at the loss of certain privacy rights in the last few years)
Furthermore, the vast majority of rights that you take for granted were actually fought for and won (incidentally by leftists). No one was ever born with these rights. Instead, we FORCED the govt to GRANT us these rights. Classic example would be equality. Did the govt assume that all people (of all ethnicities) were equal? Of course not. In fact, they assumed we weren't equal. But we fought and won. Consequently, it is a right that was granted--it did not exist 60 years ago.
There are many other examples that you can look at (worker rights such as the right to create a union, equality for gender, human rights such as children's rights (right to not be abused by parents, right to go to schools), etc).
You have simply been accepting the status quo without any thought. A dictator could take over, say USA and strip your freedoms in one day. The constitution and the courts aren't going to prevent anything (eg. Japanese Americans in 40's). So do you still think that you are BORN with rights such as freedom to speak? Some dictator could strip that right and you would lose it. So is it not granted?
What "freedoms" will the utilitarian overlords "grant" to their citizen-chattel in your glorious future?
Overlord is not the right word to use here, since no single person is in control of anything. The answer is whatever direction society takes us. It's tough to say what future freedoms will be gained but I can speculate. Right now, one freedom that leftists are aiming for is the freedom for people of varying sexualities to practice whatever they desire. I'm talking about homosexuals being given the right to do whatever they want. Another thing that we are pushing for right now is for the right of victims (of a major crime like genocide) to achieve justice. Other possible future rights (hypothetical at this point) include the right to not be fired from work for expressing political opinions, the right for citizen media to avoid being shut down by govt, etc. It's really tough to say what rights will be gained in the future...
So, "freedom," as long people's "freedom" doesn't interfere with your social engineering goals.
I'll bet that you don't even know what freedom is!As far as social engineering is concerned, we already live in a world like that--too bad you don't realize it. What do you call modern day (capitalist) economics? When the central bank increases interest rates by 0.25% in order to combat inflation, while putting hundreads of thousands out of work, that is not social engineering? When the neo-conservatives in power (in the US govt) send their military over to the Middle East (and other parts) to reshape the political landscape and take the oil, that's not social engineering? When the govt debt shoots up because of tax cuts, that's not social engineering? When the
Utilitarianism/socialism is enslavement to your fellow man.
;), that's called DEMOCRACY!!! I would rather be "ruled-by-mob" than by a few wealthy elites...
And capitalism isn't? *rollseyes* It's just sad that you dont' consider it enslavement when the wealthy elites control every aspect of your life but cry foul when the population attempts to do something.
If it's the people at large, you have unconstrained rule-by-mob.
hmm... unless you have been living in a cave for a while
Modern day China is pretty much capitalist.
No it's not... the govt still has massive control over the economy, corporations, etc. For instance, you just need to look at their currency. In addition, doing business in China requires consent of the government, regardless of whether you are local or foreign. China is more capitalist than it ever was but it is nowhere near what I would call modern day capitalism. As a matter of fact, I don't think it will ever be capitalist because it is authoratarian.
A foreigner could express his views of overthrowing a govt and yet nothing happens; but when a local citizen does it, it's jail time :(
If you think this has nothing to do with his anti-government views, you have no fucking clue what is going on.
This shouldn't surprise anyone... at the rate that USA is going, I guess I don't need to wait for the collapse of capitalism. Tyranny will take it down long before that...
:(:(:(
The US govt has always treated anarchists very badly. You probably don't know this but the modern incarnation of May day was influenced by the execution of some anarchists. This person is just the recent victim...
I'm just wondering who is going to be next. Let's see which activist gets thrown in jail for 5 years next
Well, considering Microsoft didn't kill off any endangered species the analogy is incredibly flawed. Microsoft destroyed it's competitors by using very shrewd (and in the case of Netscape, illegal) business tactics. They guaranteed their place in the world by making software that people buy. I'm not understanding how that is evil.
Evil is probably too strong of a word (let me downgrade that to undesirable). I'm anti-capitalist so we clearly have different value systems. To me, the vast majority of corporations are nothing but exploiters of society and MS is no diffrent. Many who have worked for the company have profitted immensely but that doesn't mean anything...
BTW, I probably hate Microsoft less than most people here. Intel, for example, is far worse than MS IMO...
Yes, but the rich support the poor. So, you are biting the hand that feeds you.
Are you referring to income taxes? If yes, then you are right. But if you count all taxes, then the middle class probably pays more (on sales tax and property tax).
In any case, I was simply passing a moral judgement. I am neither poor nor rich and none of it matters. I am simply an observer. If I did take the food, I am sure I would be very grateful. But it doesn't change the value of the action...
You are right... however I am not poor (at least not yet, although at the rate my life is going... :( ). I do not want the bread. All I'm doing is passing judgement.
1) There will always be some asshole who wants to be in charge 2) There will always be people dumb enough to willingly help the asshole acheive his goals.
;) I'm a socialist and I have to respect Marx. Without him, we wouldn't be where we are. Before Das Kapital (aka The Capital, his book) capitalism didn't even exist. People thought it was nature and whatever the businesses and free market was doing was right :( ...
The first point is probably a somewhat strong critique of communism, although it is really a criticism against totalitarianism. Nevertheless I still dont' think that means communism will always fail like that. I can see two solutions to those problems (hypothetical for now):
Solution I: As long as others can block the power-hungry people from achieving their goals, the system will be fine. This is what has happened in the past. As long as you have "good" people blocking the "bad" people, it'll be fine. Of course, there is no guarantee that society will form like that. It is quite conceivable that the people will be bought out and brainwashed regardless of how "good" or intelligent they are (eg. Nazism).
Solution II: This is a scary solution for some but is really the only solution to communism as far as I can tell. Communism will become possible only if the system was run by a non-human, most likely a computer. You need some neutral entity to handle the situation or else it is so easy for it to be corrupted to a totalitarian state Communism in the past. (On another note, for communism to work we also need to have the capability to OPTIMALLY allocate resources. For this to happen I am guessing that we need to have the technology to predict the future (at least something like the weather but much much more advanced). Needless to say, we are nowhere near having the capability to predict the future nor to have the computer AI to manage even a simple task)
Anyway, Marx wasn't a tool; he is God
Nazi Germany was fascist -- it was, at best, a corporate state, not a capitalist one. It wasn't free.
:)
:) Capitalism calls for elimination of controls such as these...
Germany was fascist but it was capitalist too. Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system! Capitalism does not say anything about politics. You can run a political system on top of capitalism. In contrast, socialism, communism, and anarchism are economics+politics. So you have Nazi Germany (capitalism+fascism), you have modern USA (plutocracy+capitalism), you have modern day Iran (theocracy+captialism), you have modern day Cuba (Communism), you have modern day China ("socialism"), you have Norway (capitalism+socialist ideals), Vatican City (theocracy+capitalism), Saudi Arabia (monarchy+capitalism), North Korea (not sure what this is; dictatorship+some closed economics??) etc...
Read "The Mystery of Capital," by Hernando de Soto (a Peruvian economist).
This might sound dumb but I consider most economists to be a bunch of fools. They are all capitalists and economics is NOT a social science right now. It is nothing more than capitalist economics! Modern day economists are nothing more than the alchemists of 300 years ago. The day will come when they will all be discredited and true social scientists (in the vein of chemists) will take over... And no, I'm not a disgruntled economist--and I hope you aren't one for your sake either
What does that have to do with capitalism, though?
My theory is that capitalism leads to monopolies and oligopolies...just look around... the world is headed in that directed...
I imagine you consider some sort of bondage to the state to be "free" -- such as free healthcare, free tv, free food, free housing, freedom from work, etc.
No, I don't consider free health/free education/etc to have anything to do with freedom. Most socialists would even point that they are not free as in money (most of the time society, ie. the whole population, subsidizes them so you are still paying for them)... Right. I so look forwaring to being enslaved by you and your ilk.
Actually I don't think we'll enslave you. We are not in the business of enslaving people. I think you guys are more tailored for that... Besides, the time when we truly win will be beyond our lifetimes. All you'll see for now (in the best case) is revolution, and (in the worst case) the status quo (of increasing corporate power, freer markets, weakening of governments, shredding of environmental regulations, increasing discrepancy in wealth, etc).
Presumably one's freedom to engage in trade is covered by freedom of speech, association, travel, and -- as you so eloquently put it -- "etc." Capitalism is based on freedom.
I misled you. Sorry about that. Your inference is correct based on my (misled) words. I should have pointed out that socialism (or nearly any left wing system, except anarchism) does not grant FULL freedom. So when I said freedom, I was speaking within this framework. Socialism is utilitarian so you are right: you won't have full freedom. Utilitarianism basically means that the action that benefits the most (i.e. society) is performed rather than that benefits the few. This clearly will not grant full rights, and it is opposite of capitalism, which is elitist. For example, socialism will not let you hoard a resource that is valuable to society (say oil, or the media). So you never will have full freedom. The govt (or some other entity, which acts as a proxy for the population) will force you to sell your oil to others, or to divest your media interests. Capitalism clearly is against that.
So the freedoms I mentioned will not grant to full freedom for commerce/trade/business. For example, minimum wage and rent control are anti-capitalist yet socialist countries will ALWAYS keep them--at least as long as we have some influence
Welcome to capitalism...
Oh... this isn't just the computer industry... it is the case EVERYWHERE... companies sueing each other... people suing each other for the slightest thing... governments suing themselves (different departments)...
Right now, the whole software industry (and to some extent the computer industry) is not accountable for anything it does. You can buy a piece of software and it can corrupt all your financial statements that you had over the last 20 years and you wouldn't have much recourse. So whether something is commercial or not is irrlevant. Besides, by using the software, often you have to agree to no warranty, damages, etc.
The only argument that you can make against open-source software is that some hostile agent can insert code into the system. For instance, how do you know that Russian (for example) agents aren't inserting malicious code into some component of Linux or some open-source software. Sure, the key developers will have to approve it but I suspect that the controlling mechanisms are more lax... Having said this, you can make the counter-argument that having the code open means that others can inspect it so the chances of malicious code insertion is low. This depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Which is more likely: an agent successfully inserting malicious code into open-source software without anyone noticing, or an agent infiltrating Microsoft (for example) and rising to a key development position?
But anyone who thinks that formal proofs of correctness can eliminate all bugs, much less all security holes, is not living in the real world.
I don't think anyone is expecting a formal proof to ensure that a system will be perfect. Rather, they use it ot minimize the problems them will run into. It might not be perfect but it is better than not having it. This whole process is very expensive but I can see why governments would do it. At least it gives an assurance of the software. For commercial stuff, none of this matters since security isn't that important (often patches are deployed even if they are too late, customers really don't have much power (it costs too much to organize and get lawyers) and in the worst case violations are just swept under the carpet). But for the government it can be important. Imagine if some some hostile agent (can be local or foreign) manages to attack the systems that store or manage, say the tax records or pension plans. Of course, it gets even worse for military institutions. And the worst is for the evil agencies themselves (ie. CIA, FSB, CSIS, etc)...
It isn't perfect (some guy can come and blow up the building which can physically damage the systems) but at least with some sort of certification system, you can sure that what you have is better than the choices...