First off this a clear case of "judge shopping". The ACLU finds some idealogical twin in the judicairy and brings thier case to them. This judgement is so rediculous, I expect it ot be reversed on appeal in a heartbeat. the NSA is an organization charted to do electronic survailence for purposes of National Security -- NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT, and is not bound by the same constraints. If they were going to charge you with breaking a law, the evidence would have to be thrown out. They are trying to found out how are enemies SO WE CAN KILL THEM -- NOT PUT THEM IN PRISION FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW The protections you have against criminal investigations do not exist for matters that are inherently militarisitc ones.
"Attacking the USA" is not in and upon itself illegal, as it has nothing to do with governmental, constitutional, intrantional, human rights etc. Its we kill you or you kill us. No lawyers, no debate, no indictments, no innocent till proven guilty -- just who can impose their will on the other.
Sure its not fair, but its just the way it is, and whether you like it our not, the US Government MUST act accordingly, because our enemies will NOT give us any such consideration.
the seond point is fairly obvious. The NSA didn't wiretap anyone, it simply analyzed calling patterns from phone logs like the one you receive for your cell phone and tracked them back to contact lists from terrorist's address books!! Analyzing phone logs is NOT WIRETAPPING. Wiretapping is actually listening in on the conversation. Calling this wiretapping is LIEING.
Thirdly, our enemy uses tactics which nessecitate using massive databases and sophisticated algorythims to weed out our enemies, because they hide amoung everyday people pretendeing not to be soldiers. If you have a problem with our government doing what it neesds to keep terrorists from ramming planes into our skyscrappers, then I suggest you take it up with Bin Laden and ask him to abide by the geneva conventions, and start making his followers wear uniforms with marks clearly distinguishable from a distance.
I mean what a world microsoft lives in. I wish I could tell my boss when he asks for an update on a project "I'm 50-90% complete, meet 3 out of 5 requirements, work exactly like the last product, except now our customers will be albe to view the defective results in MULTIPLE TABS now!".
Since when did a computer become not a "particular place or thing"? Since when did providing a password to access a secure file become self incrimination? Well Unless of course you want to maintain that a password in and of itself is incriminating, but most reasonable people would say you were full of it.
I don't know which Vth amendment you are talking about, but it's not the one in the US constitution, because the one in the US constitution does not say that you can withhold evidencce that judge has deemed "relevent and appropriate" to the case at hand -- Just that you can't be forced to admit to a crime.
Corporations are property of people who do have rights, therefore trampling over a corporation is trampling over the owners of that corporation. Corporations are legal constructs, but they have rights that are akin to "property rights" as in it is property of an owner. It cannot be searched without a warrent, it cannot be deprived of its property without just compensation, it has a right to face any accusser, and it has the right to sue. Why? Because it belongs to someone('s), and hence inherits some of the owner's inherent rights. when a coporation acts, its act's with the right's of its owner
But tell you what, why don't you show me where in the US Constitution where it says where you don't have to turn over evidence when a properly executed warrent or court order has been issued.
It is perfectly reasonable for the government to demand a key to obatin evidence upon a reciept of a warrent signed by a judge for a criminal investigation. Where in the world does anyone get the idea that don't have an obligation to comply with a lawful court order?
Does the poster believe thate people have the right to flout thier obligation to hand over evidence demanded by the governmnet or by the orther party in a civil proceeding.
Yes I can image how this line of reasoning would have worked in the Enron case,
Ken Lay> Ohh no, we have to give the prosecutor our finanical records, which will implicate us in a multi billion dollar stock fraud scheme
Lawyer>No you don't, all you have to do is encrypt them and refuse to hand over the keys!!
Ken Lay>Brilliant!!
Whawt kind of freedom is that when you deny victims of crimes and torts access to the information they lawfully demand? Sounds more like tyranny to me.
I for 1 appluad the British for standing up for justice over deranged cries of lost liberty.
You make a lot of claims that are simply not borne out by the facts and are, at best, highly controversial amongst historians.
I am saying its not controversial because quite frankly its not. And yes I have studied the depression. Some people may claim what I said is controversial, but they are most likely people who are simply partisan
Social Security: The problem of poverty amongst senior citizens was a huge one. As a result of the economic collapse, seniors who had managed to save money were often destitute and yet unable to find work or compete with younger workers for jobs. The low wages accompanying the Depression made it impossible for many working people to afford to support older relatives.
So in a depression, Young people starve less? Taking away thier money and giving it someone else somehow increases thier ability to support thier own grandparents/elderly. Lets just think about this for a minute, and this going to sound cold hearted, but do you think that for a minute, that taking away 15% of someone's $40k paycheck and giving it someone on Social security is really going to do anything to reduce poverty amoung the elderly long term? What Social Security has done, is make it more difficult for the working poor to 1) become upwardly mobile and 2)save for retirement. Is that what you want? is that "enlightened solutions" to poverty problems? Does it really make sense to take away money from working people who currently need it build thier lives right now and give it to people who didn't save and plan for retirement and can no longer contribute to society? Aren't those who are dieing suppoosed to be spreading the resources they accrused during thier youth to the younger generation so they can lead better lives rather than sucking money out of the kids to pay thier retirements? sure noone wants someone else to be poor, but I think its better to invest in what will actually give us a return.
Medicaid: You assume that there are no costs associated with not supplying public assistance for lower-income people to get health care. Have you been to Third World countries? Is it possible that public assistance might be allowing us to achieve some additional goals such as widespread immunization, a healthier workforce and reduced crime due to the ability of lower-income poeple to afford basic health care?
there is no correlation between crime and income. during the depression there was no crime wave that swept the nation. I think expecting people to make rational choices on how to live thier lives, and then holding them responsible for thier choices is a good idea. Time and Time again when you give people the freedom to choose, they will do a good job of it. In the end medicare/medicaid, is wasteful. Sure they say its to help the poor though if you actually notice somethign strange about it, even the wealthy get it by "pretending to be poor", by putting all thier assets into family trusts, and other vehicles. But if you want to give your paycheck away on a program thats wastes 87 cents on the dollar, you shoul be free to.
WWII and the Depression: The Depression was actually over long before the US entered the Second World War. The biggest problem at the time was that markets had still not recovered, there was very little consumer demand because the middle class had been so devastated, so that recovery was very slow.
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence? "we recovered but not really". if FDR had cut taxes instead of raising them, took us off of the rediculous gold standard that caused the depression, and not given away money to buy votes and create economic inefficiency the depression would have vanished. But he choose to do the opposite which explains why our economy had so much trouble recovering. yes the worst of it was over in a couple of years, but if he wasn't so arrogent as to beleive that he could control supply and demand much of the damage he wrought would not have been.
Alright then, what program did FDR create tbat had any lasting positive effect on the Economy?
Answer: None
FDR's economic policies prolonged the depression, and account for a great deal of current political, economic and social problems we have today, from welfare to Social Seucirty to the polotics that lead to the Medicaid/Medicare fiasco, which currently consume 62% of our federal budget. Next time you look at your paycheck's deductions, 62% of that (and growing) is going to pay for stupid programs concived in the hubris of the 1930's marxist/kenyanist class warfare social policies.
The only thing that brought us out of the depression was WW2. None of this is controversial, but accepted as fact by historians and economists.
there is a difference between what the terms conservative and liberal has meant over the past 160 years. In fact the terms have changed so much that when referring to liberals in the 1860's you would call them "classical liberals", which are basically the same as conservatives today. Duriong the 1930's communists tried co'optd the term to mean "socially progressive" policies which were implemented under FDR's "New Deal", which were an attempt to "control the laws of supply and demand". Needless to say aside from his brilliance as a president in a time of war, his economic policiies were a such a disacster that we are still recovering from them today.
So in short, what made someone conservatie in the south, by and large does not exsist as political philosphy anymore, that died out and was replaced by Marxist/Kenyanist ideals. While Classical Liberalism embodied by the Republican party, has not changed much since in its inception in 1856.
I am trying to find where I stated "People should be killed", perhaps you could point that out. well I guess "people have rights, even people you don't like" is a typical American attitude, you know with our insistence on certain inalienable rights getting in the way.
1) no one ever said life was easy.
2) People have rights, even people you don't like.
3) the question is whether journalists have a right or should have a right to withhold thier sources.
4) in no circumstance that you provided have you demonstrated that a right to withhold sources exsists or should exsist. You simply say that it is difficult at times but
5) Just because something is difficult for you, doesn't mean you should be able to unilaterally strip away the fundemental right to confront your accusser
6) if your company fires you for reporting a crime, the DA will be all over thier as*, and there will be no wait to go to trial, the DA will force them to settle or slap on even stiffer penalities and fines.
7) I don't know what employer would hold it agianst you that you turned in a bunch of thier competitors as crooks/fiends, I know my company wouldn't. If they would, you are probably in the wrong line of work.
8) An employee who is fired because they reported a crime is entitled to back wages plus punative damages in every state of the union. they might even require the corporation to fire the "bad actors" in the company as well.
No, You weren't being too hypothetical, your charecterization of the winess protection program was just plan wrong.
Am I saying that being able to speak without being held responsible has ever resulted in anything good happening, no. I am just saying its wrong that someoene whould be allowed to accuse someone of doing something illegal or criminal without having the right to defend themselves by using reporters as proxy and a shield.
If I knew a witness who told me who murdered your mother, wouldn't you andd the accused think you had a right to know who that witness was and question them? What would you think of my claim of being a member of the pressprotecting me from having to testify then?
As for the limited instance of the whistleblower, if you witness a crime, and are part of the organization that committed that crime, you have an obligation to report that crime to the authorities PERIOD. If your company punishes you for reporting, thats called witness tampering, and it is a crime wiith stiff penalities, as well as a tort where you can recover punatitive damages as well as government aid. I know it may seem harsh, but sometimes thats the way llife is. If my company was stealing or posining the water, I would report them.
so the neext time you decide to hide behind a reporter, just remember, you have no more protection to your identity than if you told anyone else.
Correct me and I am wrong, but the witness protection program is for people who stood up and taken responsibility for what they are saying. Those who try to hide from what have done/said don't need the witness protection program, because we don't know who they are.
Aside from that point, I think most people, as I surely do, that you have a right to stand up to accuser. Those that hide behind reporters deny the accussed that fundemental right.
Freedom of the Press is not the right to withold vital information from a criminal/civil case. It is the right to talk about what is going on by publishing information. Reporters have no more right to withold information than me or you -- They are not "Super Citizens" or a superior class with "Special Rights". I personal think its a pretty sh*tty thing that someone can use a reporter to slander or defame someone (and that is what is going on in the vast majority of cases of "undisclosed sources") and use reporters as thier proxies. If someone has something to say, they should stand up and say it and take responsibility for what they say
"2) Anti-Trust law prevents the owner from selling to any consenting party"
Anti trust laws that prevent owners from selling thier property to other parties are clearly unConstitutional.
"1) Eminent domain prevents the owner from selling at whatever price they choose to the government"
Thats clearly erronious thinking in several ways. 1) the government can't make you sell it for less than its worth, so in theory you could buy similar property, and you haven't been harmed. You can still sell your property at lower price if you want though. 2) forced disposession is a far different cry from forced possesion. Image being forced to sell your house so the government could build a road, as oppossed to not being able to sell it so your neighbors could sell theirs at higher prices -- which is exactly what is going on here. 3) the government can only use the power of eminent in limited cases when negotiations on an equitable price have failed, AND the property in question is for public use, which almost always mean land. 4) Just because the government can force you to sell does not mean that the Constitution does not protect property rights. Its like saying "because nailing Jesus on the cross granted us salvation, that means we should nail every jew we see to a stump of wood will be good for our souls" is clearly rediculous 5) tarrifs, taxes and regulations regarding the sale of property does not stop you from selling at a price of your choosing. they are a restriction on the right of buying!
Anti-Social Behaviour Legislation, Hey why stop at computers? I know a whole lot of "anti social behaviour" likely to lead to umm possible criminal behaviour
-Premarital sex. We all know that women who start having sex befor they get married are FAR more likely to become prostitutes, therefor any woman who flirts should be strapped with a chastity belt. -Buying a farrari. Not only does this potentially lead to "premarital sex" but it also leads to speeding! we need to outlaw hot rods! --Protesting the government -- This could lead to treason and (hopefully) "premartial sex" with some hot rebel chick
Obviously there needs to be a high standard of proof for freedom -- no wait I mean "anti-social" behaviour that possibly leads to criminal behaviour, and I am sure whatever standard of proof they have, it will never be quite low enough for "crime prevention"
"Wrong. Apparently you've never heard of eminent domain. Or of the history and rationale behind anti-trust laws. Both limit property rights in the United States."
Thats's funny, I thought the government had to pay you for your property if they take it from you?
"Wrong again. The universe has no concept of this fiction you call inalienable or natural rights. If you don't believe me, then go provoke a grizzly bear and then attempt to argue with him/her about your rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness."
It's an inalienable right because if you steal someone's property, they are likely to get mad and hurt/kill you. we have a constitution and laws to protect those property rights, so we can get gangs (police, military) to make the retribution state sancationed and orderly.
I think our efforts would be better spent ensuring efficient capital markets rather than trying to lopside the rules for underdogs. Owners of property have a right under our Constitution to sell thier property to another consenting party for whatever price they choose, and that right is an inalienable freedom.
Sometimes you just have ot accept that life isn't fair.
"This is about freedom, and liberty: the public's, not Microsofts'. You can't have it both ways."
How can the public be free when individuals aren't?
"Either the public has to intervene, intercede, and grant special rights to corporations in exchange for a healthy economy: or it doesn't."
I never said the government has no role in the private realm. If you read my posts carefully, you would have noticed I outlined a role for the government that very essential to the economy. BTW, what you put forward is what we call a false dichotomy. I am talking about a boundary between personal liberty and government control, a boundary that was clearly crossed when MS is being charged with being a monopolist for including a browser in their OS, which is rediculous.
"You can't say that we have to pay taxes to support small business grant money, give businesses special tax breaks not given to privately held assets, grant businesses special bankrupcy protection (ie. they don't have to pay their debts!), "
Business are privately held assets. Any tax on a business is a tax on an asset owned by an individual. Often the owners of business pay more than 2x on taxes for the SAME INCOME, while individuals only have to pay taxes once. every dollar that microsfot pays out in dividends will be taxed 2x. Bankruptcy laws give everyone in our country to brush off uncollectable debt, and start fresh. Are you against Bankruptcy Laws?
" grant corporations independent rights of the people who own them, and THEN turn around and say that the public doesn't get a say in what the corporations they're paying to support can do."
the public has every right to step in and intervene, stop buying thier products and services. trust me, they'll stop. water does not flow uphill.
" You can't grant corporations the right to sue, to hold it's officials harmless in cases of malfeasance, to sidestep the normal order of law, and THEN say that the public can't hold them to the rules that the public wants. "
I really have no clue what you are saying here, but if I had to guess I had a response it would be along the lines, of "just because the public wants something, doesn't mean it should have it". there is a line between public desire and private liberty that should never be crossed, otherwise you end up like the athenians who were swayed into diaster by sophists.
"You can't have it both ways. Either we bail out corporations, and we hold them accountable to a minimum standard of public good, or we don't. Microsoft got all the advantages, so it has to take the bad with the good. It's too late to say "I don't want to follow the same laws as everyone else! I should be a special case!" No. Every company gets the same treatment under the law; and using your advantage in one area to create a monopoly in another is not allowed."
I'm not for special treatment, rules, tax breaks, or any other kind of favourable treatment, corporation or private citizen. I certainly don't think we should spend the public treasury on bailing out any corporation or individual. I think the bargin you want is the devil's bargin.
"Monopolies are bad. You have to pay the monopoly price, or you can't get what you want. There is no other person you can get the resource from, and sometimes you need that resource. (eg. "Pay what I tell you for water from this oasis, or you can't drink")"
I would say "don't live in the desert", and you won't have to pay exorbant prices for precious and limited resources. Because of that monopoly price, it forces people to conserve thier consumption so more people can live off of it. Are you not for conservation?
"Leveraging a monopoly from one area into another is even worse (eg. "Pay what I tell you for water from this oasis, and agree neve to trade with anyone but me, nor to give away goods or accept for free goods that I've once sold, or you can't have any water". Oh, and it's over 100 degrees outside, and you'll die without a drink. Sound like slavery yet?)"
If you want to be dry, I suggest getting out of the rain. I think you didn't realize w
"Using monopoly powers unfairly is the same as fraud or extortion, it is against the law." Who deicdes whats whose a monopoly, and what is and what is not fair? Or as Junvenille put it, "who watches the watchers?" Actually the answer is pretty simple, those who buy or threaten the government. Just look what happened in France when they tried to make it legal to fire someone under the age of 27.
"This is economics 101, man" No this isn't about exonomics, this is about freedom and liberty. About the right to decide whether you can put a web browser in your OS regardless if what yur competitors want.
"You can't have a free market without protection against monopoly." Monopolies are not neccessarily bad. Last time I checked the government was a monopoly, perhaps you are suggesting we have competeing governments so loosing parties can have this own government too?
"We, the people, get to decide what our laws should be" No you have representative who decide what the law is, although in Europe they are not directly elected for the most part
"You may not like it, but that's the way it is, and trying to argue that what MS did is okay is pointless." Thats, fine but the point of the comments are about the EU declaring war on MS, and what the consquences would be. And if the US decides to retaliate, you wil have understand they we have the right to do so as well, as it is our country, and it will be our laws. Europe will just have to live with the fact that it is not onmipotent.
"MS is owned by far more than just Americans, it is a global company. But MS would never shoot itself in the foot by failing to comply with any sovereign nation's judgements. Once the put itself above the law, no other country in the world would ever trust them with their computing resources again."
I myself use a Mac. If people don't like MS, they should simply change instead of trying to control someone else's property.
Posining Someone = Putting a Web Browser on your OS
"Here's a hint: it's not a free market if someone is using their monopoly power in unfair ways" uh huh, and what does fairness have to do with the "free markets"? Life at times is very "unFair" especially when you are competing for market share. As long as you are not shooting people, engaging in fraud, extorition or other nefarious activity, your activities are protected under the US Constitution. Law is not about making life "fair" or ensuring "compensation", its about protecting property and personal liberty, everything else is a perversion of law, most likely bought and paid for by the special intrests who want to make it illegal for their competitor to win.
And this 1 company as I mentioned before is owned by MILLIONS of Americans. I don't think they will just shrug thier shoulders and say "oh well", they will demand punitive action against the EU, so the question for the EU would be, "Is IE worth starting a trade war over?"
Convicting someone of being a *oh horrible* monopolist is like convicting Tyra Banks of being "too good looking", thus must not be allowed to wear make or the latest fashions because is unfair to the morbidly obesse who could only make a living strutting themselves on the catwalk if you get rid of all the pretty girls.
Rediculous example? Not really. Being a monopolist is just as subjective and rediculous as being "too pretty" in a world where you can download a free OS with all the bells and whistles right off the internet at any time. Sure MS plays rough, but if you want to be able to compete against competitors like linux (various distros) who give away thier work for free, you are not going to pull any punches. Nothing MS has done warrents Millions of dollars in fines, because all they have done is "out compete" the competition. It is not like they shot someone, or engaged in any crimiinal activity. And before you say something is illegal = something being criminal, get a clue. If MS was charged with a crime, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead they were charged with violating an civil law, which is just perponderennce of the evidence.
If you think that for a moment, that the US government is going to idly stand by while Europe invalidates MS's copyrights in Europe, you have another thing coming. You could see the US invalidating every single european copyright in the US, which would destroy the European Software industry.
But if it really comes to blows, the US would not have to fire a shot. Just cut off the oil spigot and europe will have to surrender. likewise we could just just all trade between Europe and the rest of the world since we control the world's oceans.
For god sakes, you really shouldn't get worked up because MS decided to put a web browser and a media player in their OS. If they didn't, they would be the only consumer OS in the world without it. If MS has to cripple it's OS and give away its source code for you to compete, than really your OS belongs in the Special Olympics, not on people's desktops
As for europe decalring war on MS. I would suggest not doing that. The US tends to get angry when you try to bully and steal from one of our companies, which happens to be co-owned by millions of Americans. declare war on 1 of us, you declare war on all of us.
Its not entirely unreasonable that apple can "alter the terms" ofthe sale after the sale. I work in the music business, and one of the problems we have to deal with is when soemone comes to us and says they have the rights to sell a song, and in the ned they don't. iTunes can be forced to revoke your license if the copyright holder is unreasonable.
Yah I know it sucks, but if apple didn;t have loopsided terms it would be impossible to sell a bilion songs to every people around the world, it would be a nightmare legalistically, and too costly. Norway should shut up and let their citizens decide if the contract is unfair buy voting with thier feet. You don't like the terms, click "decline" and just use your ipod with a store like Emusic, www.emusic.com, which has no drm on thier music. Alternatively, you can buy cd's and rip them DRM free onto your ipod.
Slashdot Mirror
First off this a clear case of "judge shopping". The ACLU finds some idealogical twin in the judicairy and brings thier case to them. This judgement is so rediculous, I expect it ot be reversed on appeal in a heartbeat. the NSA is an organization charted to do electronic survailence for purposes of National Security -- NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT, and is not bound by the same constraints. If they were going to charge you with breaking a law, the evidence would have to be thrown out. They are trying to found out how are enemies SO WE CAN KILL THEM -- NOT PUT THEM IN PRISION FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW
The protections you have against criminal investigations do not exist for matters that are inherently militarisitc ones.
"Attacking the USA" is not in and upon itself illegal, as it has nothing to do with governmental, constitutional, intrantional, human rights etc. Its we kill you or you kill us. No lawyers, no debate, no indictments, no innocent till proven guilty -- just who can impose their will on the other.
Sure its not fair, but its just the way it is, and whether you like it our not, the US Government MUST act accordingly, because our enemies will NOT give us any such consideration.
the seond point is fairly obvious. The NSA didn't wiretap anyone, it simply analyzed calling patterns from phone logs like the one you receive for your cell phone and tracked them back to contact lists from terrorist's address books!! Analyzing phone logs is NOT WIRETAPPING. Wiretapping is actually listening in on the conversation. Calling this wiretapping is LIEING.
Thirdly, our enemy uses tactics which nessecitate using massive databases and sophisticated algorythims to weed out our enemies, because they hide amoung everyday people pretendeing not to be soldiers. If you have a problem with our government doing what it neesds to keep terrorists from ramming planes into our skyscrappers, then I suggest you take it up with Bin Laden and ask him to abide by the geneva conventions, and start making his followers wear uniforms with marks clearly distinguishable from a distance.
No Problem, and thanks for the compliment
I mean what a world microsoft lives in. I wish I could tell my boss when he asks for an update on a project "I'm 50-90% complete, meet 3 out of 5 requirements, work exactly like the last product, except now our customers will be albe to view the defective results in MULTIPLE TABS now!".
TRUE progress indeed.
Satan insists AntiChrist 50 - 90% like Jesus.... except better.
Since when did a computer become not a "particular place or thing"? Since when did providing a password to access a secure file become self incrimination? Well Unless of course you want to maintain that a password in and of itself is incriminating, but most reasonable people would say you were full of it.
I don't know which Vth amendment you are talking about, but it's not the one in the US constitution, because the one in the US constitution does not say that you can withhold evidencce that judge has deemed "relevent and appropriate" to the case at hand -- Just that you can't be forced to admit to a crime.
Corporations are property of people who do have rights, therefore trampling over a corporation is trampling over the owners of that corporation. Corporations are legal constructs, but they have rights that are akin to "property rights" as in it is property of an owner. It cannot be searched without a warrent, it cannot be deprived of its property without just compensation, it has a right to face any accusser, and it has the right to sue. Why? Because it belongs to someone('s), and hence inherits some of the owner's inherent rights. when a coporation acts, its act's with the right's of its owner
But tell you what, why don't you show me where in the US Constitution where it says where you don't have to turn over evidence when a properly executed warrent or court order has been issued.
It is perfectly reasonable for the government to demand a key to obatin evidence upon a reciept of a warrent signed by a judge for a criminal investigation. Where in the world does anyone get the idea that don't have an obligation to comply with a lawful court order?
Does the poster believe thate people have the right to flout thier obligation to hand over evidence demanded by the governmnet or by the orther party in a civil proceeding.
Yes I can image how this line of reasoning would have worked in the Enron case,
Ken Lay> Ohh no, we have to give the prosecutor our finanical records, which will implicate us in a multi billion dollar stock fraud scheme
Lawyer>No you don't, all you have to do is encrypt them and refuse to hand over the keys!!
Ken Lay>Brilliant!!
Whawt kind of freedom is that when you deny victims of crimes and torts access to the information they lawfully demand? Sounds more like tyranny to me.
I for 1 appluad the British for standing up for justice over deranged cries of lost liberty.
You make a lot of claims that are simply not borne out by the facts and are, at best, highly controversial amongst historians.
I am saying its not controversial because quite frankly its not. And yes I have studied the depression. Some people may claim what I said is controversial, but they are most likely people who are simply partisan
Social Security: The problem of poverty amongst senior citizens was a huge one. As a result of the economic collapse, seniors who had managed to save money were often destitute and yet unable to find work or compete with younger workers for jobs. The low wages accompanying the Depression made it impossible for many working people to afford to support older relatives.
So in a depression, Young people starve less? Taking away thier money and giving it someone else somehow increases thier ability to support thier own grandparents/elderly. Lets just think about this for a minute, and this going to sound cold hearted, but do you think that for a minute, that taking away 15% of someone's $40k paycheck and giving it someone on Social security is really going to do anything to reduce poverty amoung the elderly long term? What Social Security has done, is make it more difficult for the working poor to 1) become upwardly mobile and 2)save for retirement. Is that what you want? is that "enlightened solutions" to poverty problems? Does it really make sense to take away money from working people who currently need it build thier lives right now and give it to people who didn't save and plan for retirement and can no longer contribute to society? Aren't those who are dieing suppoosed to be spreading the resources they accrused during thier youth to the younger generation so they can lead better lives rather than sucking money out of the kids to pay thier retirements?
sure noone wants someone else to be poor, but I think its better to invest in what will actually give us a return.
Medicaid: You assume that there are no costs associated with not supplying public assistance for lower-income people to get health care. Have you been to Third World countries? Is it possible that public assistance might be allowing us to achieve some additional goals such as widespread immunization, a healthier workforce and reduced crime due to the ability of lower-income poeple to afford basic health care?
there is no correlation between crime and income. during the depression there was no crime wave that swept the nation. I think expecting people to make rational choices on how to live thier lives, and then holding them responsible for thier choices is a good idea. Time and Time again when you give people the freedom to choose, they will do a good job of it. In the end medicare/medicaid, is wasteful. Sure they say its to help the poor though if you actually notice somethign strange about it, even the wealthy get it by "pretending to be poor", by putting all thier assets into family trusts, and other vehicles. But if you want to give your paycheck away on a program thats wastes 87 cents on the dollar, you shoul be free to.
WWII and the Depression: The Depression was actually over long before the US entered the Second World War. The biggest problem at the time was that markets had still not recovered, there was very little consumer demand because the middle class had been so devastated, so that recovery was very slow. You do realize that you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence? "we recovered but not really". if FDR had cut taxes instead of raising them, took us off of the rediculous gold standard that caused the depression, and not given away money to buy votes and create economic inefficiency the depression would have vanished. But he choose to do the opposite which explains why our economy had so much trouble recovering. yes the worst of it was over in a couple of years, but if he wasn't so arrogent as to beleive that he could control supply and demand much of the damage he wrought would not have been.
Alright then, what program did FDR create tbat had any lasting positive effect on the Economy?
Answer: None
FDR's economic policies prolonged the depression, and account for a great deal of current political, economic and social problems we have today, from welfare to Social Seucirty to the polotics that lead to the Medicaid/Medicare fiasco, which currently consume 62% of our federal budget. Next time you look at your paycheck's deductions, 62% of that (and growing) is going to pay for stupid programs concived in the hubris of the 1930's marxist/kenyanist class warfare social policies.
The only thing that brought us out of the depression was WW2. None of this is controversial, but accepted as fact by historians and economists.
there is a difference between what the terms conservative and liberal has meant over the past 160 years. In fact the terms have changed so much that when referring to liberals in the 1860's you would call them "classical liberals", which are basically the same as conservatives today. Duriong the 1930's communists tried co'optd the term to mean "socially progressive" policies which were implemented under FDR's "New Deal", which were an attempt to "control the laws of supply and demand". Needless to say aside from his brilliance as a president in a time of war, his economic policiies were a such a disacster that we are still recovering from them today.
So in short, what made someone conservatie in the south, by and large does not exsist as political philosphy anymore, that died out and was replaced by Marxist/Kenyanist ideals. While Classical Liberalism embodied by the Republican party, has not changed much since in its inception in 1856.
I am trying to find where I stated "People should be killed", perhaps you could point that out. well I guess "people have rights, even people you don't like" is a typical American attitude, you know with our insistence on certain inalienable rights getting in the way.
1) no one ever said life was easy.
2) People have rights, even people you don't like.
3) the question is whether journalists have a right or should have a right to withhold thier sources.
4) in no circumstance that you provided have you demonstrated that a right to withhold sources exsists or should exsist. You simply say that it is difficult at times but
5) Just because something is difficult for you, doesn't mean you should be able to unilaterally strip away the fundemental right to confront your accusser
6) if your company fires you for reporting a crime, the DA will be all over thier as*, and there will be no wait to go to trial, the DA will force them to settle or slap on even stiffer penalities and fines.
7) I don't know what employer would hold it agianst you that you turned in a bunch of thier competitors as crooks/fiends, I know my company wouldn't. If they would, you are probably in the wrong line of work.
8) An employee who is fired because they reported a crime is entitled to back wages plus punative damages in every state of the union. they might even require the corporation to fire the "bad actors" in the company as well.
No, You weren't being too hypothetical, your charecterization of the winess protection program was just plan wrong.
Am I saying that being able to speak without being held responsible has ever resulted in anything good happening, no. I am just saying its wrong that someoene whould be allowed to accuse someone of doing something illegal or criminal without having the right to defend themselves by using reporters as proxy and a shield.
If I knew a witness who told me who murdered your mother, wouldn't you andd the accused think you had a right to know who that witness was and question them? What would you think of my claim of being a member of the pressprotecting me from having to testify then?
As for the limited instance of the whistleblower, if you witness a crime, and are part of the organization that committed that crime, you have an obligation to report that crime to the authorities PERIOD. If your company punishes you for reporting, thats called witness tampering, and it is a crime wiith stiff penalities, as well as a tort where you can recover punatitive damages as well as government aid. I know it may seem harsh, but sometimes thats the way llife is. If my company was stealing or posining the water, I would report them.
so the neext time you decide to hide behind a reporter, just remember, you have no more protection to your identity than if you told anyone else.
Correct me and I am wrong, but the witness protection program is for people who stood up and taken responsibility for what they are saying. Those who try to hide from what have done/said don't need the witness protection program, because we don't know who they are.
Aside from that point, I think most people, as I surely do, that you have a right to stand up to accuser. Those that hide behind reporters deny the accussed that fundemental right.
Freedom of the Press is not the right to withold vital information from a criminal/civil case. It is the right to talk about what is going on by publishing information. Reporters have no more right to withold information than me or you -- They are not "Super Citizens" or a superior class with "Special Rights". I personal think its a pretty sh*tty thing that someone can use a reporter to slander or defame someone (and that is what is going on in the vast majority of cases of "undisclosed sources") and use reporters as thier proxies. If someone has something to say, they should stand up and say it and take responsibility for what they say
ICANN is one of the few organizations on this planet that could learn a thing or 2 about ethics from the UN
"2) Anti-Trust law prevents the owner from selling to any consenting party"
Anti trust laws that prevent owners from selling thier property to other parties are clearly unConstitutional.
"1) Eminent domain prevents the owner from selling at whatever price they choose to the government"
Thats clearly erronious thinking in several ways.
1) the government can't make you sell it for less than its worth, so in theory you could buy similar property, and you haven't been harmed. You can still sell your property at lower price if you want though.
2) forced disposession is a far different cry from forced possesion. Image being forced to sell your house so the government could build a road, as oppossed to not being able to sell it so your neighbors could sell theirs at higher prices -- which is exactly what is going on here.
3) the government can only use the power of eminent in limited cases when negotiations on an equitable price have failed, AND the property in question is for public use, which almost always mean land.
4) Just because the government can force you to sell does not mean that the Constitution does not protect property rights. Its like saying "because nailing Jesus on the cross granted us salvation, that means we should nail every jew we see to a stump of wood will be good for our souls" is clearly rediculous
5) tarrifs, taxes and regulations regarding the sale of property does not stop you from selling at a price of your choosing. they are a restriction on the right of buying!
Anti-Social Behaviour Legislation, Hey why stop at computers? I know a whole lot of "anti social behaviour" likely to lead to umm possible criminal behaviour
-Premarital sex. We all know that women who start having sex befor they get married are FAR more likely to become prostitutes, therefor any woman who flirts should be strapped with a chastity belt.
-Buying a farrari. Not only does this potentially lead to "premarital sex" but it also leads to speeding! we need to outlaw hot rods!
--Protesting the government -- This could lead to treason and (hopefully) "premartial sex" with some hot rebel chick
Obviously there needs to be a high standard of proof for freedom -- no wait I mean "anti-social" behaviour that possibly leads to criminal behaviour, and I am sure whatever standard of proof they have, it will never be quite low enough for "crime prevention"
"Wrong. Apparently you've never heard of eminent domain. Or of the history and rationale behind anti-trust laws. Both limit property rights in the United States."
Thats's funny, I thought the government had to pay you for your property if they take it from you?
"Wrong again. The universe has no concept of this fiction you call inalienable or natural rights. If you don't believe me, then go provoke a grizzly bear and then attempt to argue with him/her about your rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness."
It's an inalienable right because if you steal someone's property, they are likely to get mad and hurt/kill you. we have a constitution and laws to protect those property rights, so we can get gangs (police, military) to make the retribution state sancationed and orderly.
I think our efforts would be better spent ensuring efficient capital markets rather than trying to lopside the rules for underdogs. Owners of property have a right under our Constitution to sell thier property to another consenting party for whatever price they choose, and that right is an inalienable freedom. Sometimes you just have ot accept that life isn't fair.
"This is about freedom, and liberty: the public's, not Microsofts'. You can't have it both ways." How can the public be free when individuals aren't? "Either the public has to intervene, intercede, and grant special rights to corporations in exchange for a healthy economy: or it doesn't." I never said the government has no role in the private realm. If you read my posts carefully, you would have noticed I outlined a role for the government that very essential to the economy. BTW, what you put forward is what we call a false dichotomy. I am talking about a boundary between personal liberty and government control, a boundary that was clearly crossed when MS is being charged with being a monopolist for including a browser in their OS, which is rediculous. "You can't say that we have to pay taxes to support small business grant money, give businesses special tax breaks not given to privately held assets, grant businesses special bankrupcy protection (ie. they don't have to pay their debts!), " Business are privately held assets. Any tax on a business is a tax on an asset owned by an individual. Often the owners of business pay more than 2x on taxes for the SAME INCOME, while individuals only have to pay taxes once. every dollar that microsfot pays out in dividends will be taxed 2x. Bankruptcy laws give everyone in our country to brush off uncollectable debt, and start fresh. Are you against Bankruptcy Laws? " grant corporations independent rights of the people who own them, and THEN turn around and say that the public doesn't get a say in what the corporations they're paying to support can do." the public has every right to step in and intervene, stop buying thier products and services. trust me, they'll stop. water does not flow uphill. " You can't grant corporations the right to sue, to hold it's officials harmless in cases of malfeasance, to sidestep the normal order of law, and THEN say that the public can't hold them to the rules that the public wants. " I really have no clue what you are saying here, but if I had to guess I had a response it would be along the lines, of "just because the public wants something, doesn't mean it should have it". there is a line between public desire and private liberty that should never be crossed, otherwise you end up like the athenians who were swayed into diaster by sophists. "You can't have it both ways. Either we bail out corporations, and we hold them accountable to a minimum standard of public good, or we don't. Microsoft got all the advantages, so it has to take the bad with the good. It's too late to say "I don't want to follow the same laws as everyone else! I should be a special case!" No. Every company gets the same treatment under the law; and using your advantage in one area to create a monopoly in another is not allowed." I'm not for special treatment, rules, tax breaks, or any other kind of favourable treatment, corporation or private citizen. I certainly don't think we should spend the public treasury on bailing out any corporation or individual. I think the bargin you want is the devil's bargin. "Monopolies are bad. You have to pay the monopoly price, or you can't get what you want. There is no other person you can get the resource from, and sometimes you need that resource. (eg. "Pay what I tell you for water from this oasis, or you can't drink")" I would say "don't live in the desert", and you won't have to pay exorbant prices for precious and limited resources. Because of that monopoly price, it forces people to conserve thier consumption so more people can live off of it. Are you not for conservation? "Leveraging a monopoly from one area into another is even worse (eg. "Pay what I tell you for water from this oasis, and agree neve to trade with anyone but me, nor to give away goods or accept for free goods that I've once sold, or you can't have any water". Oh, and it's over 100 degrees outside, and you'll die without a drink. Sound like slavery yet?)" If you want to be dry, I suggest getting out of the rain. I think you didn't realize w
"Using monopoly powers unfairly is the same as fraud or extortion, it is against the law."
Who deicdes whats whose a monopoly, and what is and what is not fair? Or as Junvenille put it, "who watches the watchers?"
Actually the answer is pretty simple, those who buy or threaten the government. Just look what happened in France when they tried to make it legal to fire someone under the age of 27.
"This is economics 101, man"
No this isn't about exonomics, this is about freedom and liberty. About the right to decide whether you can put a web browser in your OS regardless if what yur competitors want.
"You can't have a free market without protection against monopoly."
Monopolies are not neccessarily bad. Last time I checked the government was a monopoly, perhaps you are suggesting we have competeing governments so loosing parties can have this own government too?
"We, the people, get to decide what our laws should be"
No you have representative who decide what the law is, although in Europe they are not directly elected for the most part
"You may not like it, but that's the way it is, and trying to argue that what MS did is okay is pointless."
Thats, fine but the point of the comments are about the EU declaring war on MS, and what the consquences would be. And if the US decides to retaliate, you wil have understand they we have the right to do so as well, as it is our country, and it will be our laws. Europe will just have to live with the fact that it is not onmipotent.
"MS is owned by far more than just Americans, it is a global company. But MS would never shoot itself in the foot by failing to comply with any sovereign nation's judgements. Once the put itself above the law, no other country in the world would ever trust them with their computing resources again."
I myself use a Mac. If people don't like MS, they should simply change instead of trying to control someone else's property.
Posining Someone = Putting a Web Browser on your OS
"Here's a hint: it's not a free market if someone is using their monopoly power in unfair ways"
uh huh, and what does fairness have to do with the "free markets"? Life at times is very "unFair" especially when you are competing for market share. As long as you are not shooting people, engaging in fraud, extorition or other nefarious activity, your activities are protected under the US Constitution. Law is not about making life "fair" or ensuring "compensation", its about protecting property and personal liberty, everything else is a perversion of law, most likely bought and paid for by the special intrests who want to make it illegal for their competitor to win.
And this 1 company as I mentioned before is owned by MILLIONS of Americans. I don't think they will just shrug thier shoulders and say "oh well", they will demand punitive action against the EU, so the question for the EU would be, "Is IE worth starting a trade war over?"
Convicting someone of being a *oh horrible* monopolist is like convicting Tyra Banks of being "too good looking", thus must not be allowed to wear make or the latest fashions because is unfair to the morbidly obesse who could only make a living strutting themselves on the catwalk if you get rid of all the pretty girls.
Rediculous example? Not really. Being a monopolist is just as subjective and rediculous as being "too pretty" in a world where you can download a free OS with all the bells and whistles right off the internet at any time. Sure MS plays rough, but if you want to be able to compete against competitors like linux (various distros) who give away thier work for free, you are not going to pull any punches. Nothing MS has done warrents Millions of dollars in fines, because all they have done is "out compete" the competition. It is not like they shot someone, or engaged in any crimiinal activity. And before you say something is illegal = something being criminal, get a clue. If MS was charged with a crime, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead they were charged with violating an civil law, which is just perponderennce of the evidence.
If you think that for a moment, that the US government is going to idly stand by while Europe invalidates MS's copyrights in Europe, you have another thing coming. You could see the US invalidating every single european copyright in the US, which would destroy the European Software industry.
But if it really comes to blows, the US would not have to fire a shot. Just cut off the oil spigot and europe will have to surrender. likewise we could just just all trade between Europe and the rest of the world since we control the world's oceans.
So much for europe's third way.
For god sakes, you really shouldn't get worked up because MS decided to put a web browser and a media player in their OS. If they didn't, they would be the only consumer OS in the world without it. If MS has to cripple it's OS and give away its source code for you to compete, than really your OS belongs in the Special Olympics, not on people's desktops
As for europe decalring war on MS. I would suggest not doing that. The US tends to get angry when you try to bully and steal from one of our companies, which happens to be co-owned by millions of Americans. declare war on 1 of us, you declare war on all of us.
Its not entirely unreasonable that apple can "alter the terms" ofthe sale after the sale. I work in the music business, and one of the problems we have to deal with is when soemone comes to us and says they have the rights to sell a song, and in the ned they don't. iTunes can be forced to revoke your license if the copyright holder is unreasonable.
Yah I know it sucks, but if apple didn;t have loopsided terms it would be impossible to sell a bilion songs to every people around the world, it would be a nightmare legalistically, and too costly. Norway should shut up and let their citizens decide if the contract is unfair buy voting with thier feet. You don't like the terms, click "decline" and just use your ipod with a store like Emusic, www.emusic.com, which has no drm on thier music. Alternatively, you can buy cd's and rip them DRM free onto your ipod.