Really, the Internet, many of medical technologies, satellite communication, etc etc etc. Would not exist had it not been for initial government research.
That is a ludicrous, completely unscientific claim. Wherever there is value to human life, profit-seekers will work hard to create it. The government doesn't have any special ability in that regard, all it can do is use its guns to force some people to give there money to other people (taxes), or force everybody to do something a certain way.
As a matter of fact, the entire Renaissance/scientific/industrial revolution coincided with lowest point of government involvement in human lives.
I disagree. Economic power involves voluntary interactions, but political power involves forceful interactions. Even for a billion dollars, Redford can't make Demi sleep with him.
They don't understand the future value of sending someone to the moon
Value to whom? Things are not intrinsically valuable - but rather valuable to specific living things
Besides, many people are becoming environmentalists, why would they want to spread their pestilence and filth to the rest of the universe? The space program, besides being a huge carbon producer, is also an exporter of carbon to space and beyond.
We DON'T give a damn about the survival of the human race.
Environmentalism has led people to feel guilty for being alive (a la original sin). Why would people want to spread their pestilence and filth to the rest of the universe?
Besides, the space program is a fat pig of a pollution producer. (Not that I care, personally)
I have wondered what the 'Greens' think of NASA. It has a tremendous "carbon footprint", and surely they don't want our pollution to infect the rest of the universe...
You can't keep competitors out of a market - unless you are the government (who can legislate monopolies at gunpoint (see schools)). The idea that you could take big losses to drive out the competition then charge super high prices to recoup and get rich is an old, stale argument that has been thoroughly rebuked by many economists smarter than me.
The first problem with it is that as soon as you raise prices above market level you are creating profit potential for someone to come in and undercut you, forcing you to return prices back to market level or simply fail. Secondly, reputation counts (at least in a free market, less so in today's semi-Fascist nanny state), and people will not want to invest or do business with an unpredictable, unreliable company.
If the telephone company gave away newspapers, then the cost of DSL would go up, and people who don't give a crap about newspapers (like me) would be less inclined to purchase DSL.
Capitalism has nothing to do with "society-wide" good. The justification for Capitalism is that recognition that each individual has a right to exist for their own sake, not sacrificing themselves to others, nor others to themselves. Instead, dealing with one another voluntarily - through trade.
Information can and is controlled. It is not the intellectually challenging to understand the philosophical underpinnings of it, but I am not going to try and lecture you
You rail against greed a lot. I happen to be greedy for a lot of things - I am greedy for intellectual stimulation, family relationships, an organized household, health and long life, and many other things.
Ask yourself if, in each aspect of your life, you can do with less: money, food, entertainment,.. whatever. If so, why the double standard?
Giving away something free is often used when you plan to make money in other ways based on the giveaway. Nothing wrong with that.
Even if they decided to lose huge amounts of money now, hoping to regain it later by jacking prices way up, that would fail (and always has) because someone else will see the jacked up prices, spot the huge profit potential, and enter the market without having to recoup the losses that Microsoft already suffered. Microsoft would be forced to lower prices to market level, or go bankrupt by irrationally trying the low/high scheme
"abusive monopoly" is just a euphemism for "too successful". In this view, we the people are lowly idiots who need to huddle and be shepherded by the government.
In practice, these laws are largely just political tools, used to opportunistically feather the caps of ambitious government power-seekers, as well as to keep private enterprises from getting too uppity.
There are actually a lot of ways that a person can retain ownership of something while allowing people to have use of it. Capitalism is the system that frees people up to be creative in this regard so that both parties can attempt to reach a mutual level of maximal satisfaction.
For example, there are all sorts of rental and lease arrangements, and a huge assortment of "rights to use" arrangements whereby use of something is granted under very specific arrangements.
Actually the point of art is to recreate a portion of reality according to the artist's style and intentions. The question of what to do with the art is not up to me or you to decide - if an artist wants to disseminate it, fine. If not, fine. An artwork is the artist's intellectual property and you, nor any sized gang, have the right to seize it from him, nor dictate to what end the artist's efforts must be used.
I don't know what you do for a living, but would you like it if everything you produced were seized and distributed by the local gang in power; that you had no say or right to things you produce?
Resorting to name-calling indicates that you are resorting to ad-hominem and emotional based attacks. The government controls the military and the instigation of wars. If you think that the government and businesses are closely linked - then you are right, but that is not Capitalism, that is Fascism. In a Capitalist society, there is a separation between state and economics, just as there is separation between church and state
If you are interested in rational dialogue, consider reading the works of the late author Ayn Rand, such as Atlas Shrugged.
Food is more important than all these things, and yet would you really want the government to monopolize and heavily regulate grocery stores? The more crucial a thing is, the more important it be left to free men to innovate and compete.
The free market of Capitalism is the only system that leaves each individual free to deal with other individuals voluntarily, i.e., it abolishes force from human relationships. That is why Capitalism is the only moral system.
4) The only thing we know of at this time that could be causing this global warming trend is CO2
I am not a climatologist, (you don't sound like one either), but I've read that CO2 levels tend to lag, not lead, warming cycles.
6) If we keep increasing will will make the planet uninhabitable by us.
Your language is the Environmentalist equivalent of the Christian Armageddon. What is obvious about your statement is the irrational fear you convey to try and scare people into agreeing with your point of view.
What you are completely ignoring is the incredible life-enhancing and life-extending benefits that comes from altering the environment. The vast increase in quality and quantity of life that humans have over that of 150 years ago is scarcely mentioned in this ongoing debate.
What you are completely ignoring is the incredible life-enhancing and life-extending benefits that comes from altering the environment. The vast increase in quality and quantity of life that humans have over that of 150 years ago is scarcely mentioned in this ongoing debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, the Internet, many of medical technologies, satellite communication, etc etc etc. Would not exist had it not been for initial government research.
That is a ludicrous, completely unscientific claim. Wherever there is value to human life, profit-seekers will work hard to create it. The government doesn't have any special ability in that regard, all it can do is use its guns to force some people to give there money to other people (taxes), or force everybody to do something a certain way.
As a matter of fact, the entire Renaissance/scientific/industrial revolution coincided with lowest point of government involvement in human lives.
I disagree. Economic power involves voluntary interactions, but political power involves forceful interactions. Even for a billion dollars, Redford can't make Demi sleep with him.
Also, there is a difference between a coercive (government-forced) monopoly and an earned monopoly. See the case of how standard oil kicked everyone's ass by being the best, and in the process enhanced everyone's lives
They don't understand the future value of sending someone to the moon
Value to whom? Things are not intrinsically valuable - but rather valuable to specific living things
Besides, many people are becoming environmentalists, why would they want to spread their pestilence and filth to the rest of the universe? The space program, besides being a huge carbon producer, is also an exporter of carbon to space and beyond.
We DON'T give a damn about the survival of the human race.
Environmentalism has led people to feel guilty for being alive (a la original sin). Why would people want to spread their pestilence and filth to the rest of the universe?
Besides, the space program is a fat pig of a pollution producer. (Not that I care, personally)
I have wondered what the 'Greens' think of NASA. It has a tremendous "carbon footprint", and surely they don't want our pollution to infect the rest of the universe...
You can't keep competitors out of a market - unless you are the government (who can legislate monopolies at gunpoint (see schools)). The idea that you could take big losses to drive out the competition then charge super high prices to recoup and get rich is an old, stale argument that has been thoroughly rebuked by many economists smarter than me.
The first problem with it is that as soon as you raise prices above market level you are creating profit potential for someone to come in and undercut you, forcing you to return prices back to market level or simply fail. Secondly, reputation counts (at least in a free market, less so in today's semi-Fascist nanny state), and people will not want to invest or do business with an unpredictable, unreliable company.
Straw man argument.
If the telephone company gave away newspapers, then the cost of DSL would go up, and people who don't give a crap about newspapers (like me) would be less inclined to purchase DSL.
Capitalism has nothing to do with "society-wide" good. The justification for Capitalism is that recognition that each individual has a right to exist for their own sake, not sacrificing themselves to others, nor others to themselves. Instead, dealing with one another voluntarily - through trade.
You are right, there are other things wrong with the analogy that I should have focused on besides the man-made thing.
Information can and is controlled. It is not the intellectually challenging to understand the philosophical underpinnings of it, but I am not going to try and lecture you
You rail against greed a lot. I happen to be greedy for a lot of things - I am greedy for intellectual stimulation, family relationships, an organized household, health and long life, and many other things.
Ask yourself if, in each aspect of your life, you can do with less: money, food, entertainment, .. whatever. If so, why the double standard?
Giving away something free is often used when you plan to make money in other ways based on the giveaway. Nothing wrong with that.
Even if they decided to lose huge amounts of money now, hoping to regain it later by jacking prices way up, that would fail (and always has) because someone else will see the jacked up prices, spot the huge profit potential, and enter the market without having to recoup the losses that Microsoft already suffered. Microsoft would be forced to lower prices to market level, or go bankrupt by irrationally trying the low/high scheme
"abusive monopoly" is just a euphemism for "too successful". In this view, we the people are lowly idiots who need to huddle and be shepherded by the government.
In practice, these laws are largely just political tools, used to opportunistically feather the caps of ambitious government power-seekers, as well as to keep private enterprises from getting too uppity.
Why is it that if people aren't doing what you want (using Linux), then it's because MS is our uber-powerful evil overlord?
Are people incapable of thinking for themselves, in your view?
Do people's choices, desires, and comfort-level count for anything, in your view?
There are actually a lot of ways that a person can retain ownership of something while allowing people to have use of it. Capitalism is the system that frees people up to be creative in this regard so that both parties can attempt to reach a mutual level of maximal satisfaction.
For example, there are all sorts of rental and lease arrangements, and a huge assortment of "rights to use" arrangements whereby use of something is granted under very specific arrangements.
Art is only one small example of this
Actually the point of art is to recreate a portion of reality according to the artist's style and intentions. The question of what to do with the art is not up to me or you to decide - if an artist wants to disseminate it, fine. If not, fine. An artwork is the artist's intellectual property and you, nor any sized gang, have the right to seize it from him, nor dictate to what end the artist's efforts must be used.
I don't know what you do for a living, but would you like it if everything you produced were seized and distributed by the local gang in power; that you had no say or right to things you produce?
Resorting to name-calling indicates that you are resorting to ad-hominem and emotional based attacks. The government controls the military and the instigation of wars. If you think that the government and businesses are closely linked - then you are right, but that is not Capitalism, that is Fascism. In a Capitalist society, there is a separation between state and economics, just as there is separation between church and state
If you are interested in rational dialogue, consider reading the works of the late author Ayn Rand, such as Atlas Shrugged.
Food is more important than all these things, and yet would you really want the government to monopolize and heavily regulate grocery stores? The more crucial a thing is, the more important it be left to free men to innovate and compete.
The free market of Capitalism is the only system that leaves each individual free to deal with other individuals voluntarily, i.e., it abolishes force from human relationships. That is why Capitalism is the only moral system.
Only the government, through an act of legislative force, can prevent competition, just as it does with the Post Office and education.
4) The only thing we know of at this time that could be causing this global warming trend is CO2
I am not a climatologist, (you don't sound like one either), but I've read that CO2 levels tend to lag, not lead, warming cycles.
6) If we keep increasing will will make the planet uninhabitable by us.
Your language is the Environmentalist equivalent of the Christian Armageddon. What is obvious about your statement is the irrational fear you convey to try and scare people into agreeing with your point of view.
What you are completely ignoring is the incredible life-enhancing and life-extending benefits that comes from altering the environment. The vast increase in quality and quantity of life that humans have over that of 150 years ago is scarcely mentioned in this ongoing debate.
Imagine if Fox condoned the behavior, and then a wave of "OOooh Fox condones downloading of pirated movies" hits the blogosphere...
What you are completely ignoring is the incredible life-enhancing and life-extending benefits that comes from altering the environment. The vast increase in quality and quantity of life that humans have over that of 150 years ago is scarcely mentioned in this ongoing debate.
Bad analogy - the Earth is not man-made.
... save the people ... from comfort.
Has there ever been less ice than there is today?