Democratic governments are supported by taxation--the theft of income from the individual to support the state. Democratic states are thieves.
Correct, to a greater extent when they have socialist policies.
Capitalism implies mandatory work
Nope. Physical laws implies that you have to work to get things, that's hardly slavery. Mandatory means someone forces you to do something.
I can do it too!
Well you tried, but you failed
This statement seems to rest on the unstated assumption that there is a natural right to property ownership , and it exists only insofar as it is enforced by the state, or lacking the state, by individual force.
Whether a right exists or not is independent of its enforcement, I am talking about de jure right, not de facto. There is indeed a natural right to property arising from our nature as rational being. Property is the extension of justice defining the legitimate party in conflicts arising on limited resources. If there is a just order then it must define a set of property rights, thereby the existence of private property is equivalent to the existence of justice. Besides, your argument would make a defense of communism, not socialism which the parent was advocating over communism.
I guess they don't sell it but lease if for perpetuity for a fixed fee. Same with some cable decoders I think. It's perfectly fine that the Scientology prevents its member from reselling the stuff. As for ebay, should they abuse the power, their would be probably be a complaint and they'd be in serious trouble. Much a do about nothing. For the record, the scientologist are a bunch of manipulative people with crazy ideas. They feed on stupidity which is fairly abundant.
Socialism relies on the nationalization of the means of production and the state planning of production. Nationalization implies theft. Socialists are thiefs. State planning of production implies mandatory work. Socialists are pro slavery.
The summary shows anti-trust regulation for what it is : people with guns raiding private property.
Did we see Intel raiding AMD offices with guns ? No.
Did we see Intel raiding their customers with guns ? Hell, no!
I fully agree. The only way to morally deal with the possibility of judicial errors is to make the jury legally responsible for the error. You send an innocent to the death row? You're convicted of murder (at least manslaughter).
Actually I was under the impression from occasional picks at travel sites that the price of airline tickets closely followed the price of oil, but it was just an impression. It'd be interesting to read.
According to British Airways, a 747-400 plane cruises at 927 km/h, burns 12,788 liters of fuel per hour and carries 409 passengers when full. 1 barrel of oil is 158.987296 liters. If the fuel were crude oil, it would burn 80.5 barrels an hour, at 87.25 a barrel, that's $7024 an hour. For a 6 hour flight that's $42142 or $100 per passenger. The plane doesn't burn light sweet crude oil, but the price variations are likely to match. The typical 6 hours New-York / Paris flight booked well in advance can be found at around $600, but it's also known that the flight is almost paid by business and first class passenger, it'd say it doubles the average price in the plane.
I think the data is mixed, but overall it looks like you're right, the price of fuel is not a significant cost for passenger travel.
Privilege means private law, it is a regime of exception granted by a government. Freedom is not granted by governments, it is not a privilege. What government sometimes do is protect some freedoms through the enforcement of laws. They generally do a poor job. Basically you're mistaking freedom and enforcement of freedom. We are indeed entitled freedom, but we are not entitled to protection of freedom. For example you are entitled not to be robbed but you are not entitled to have a policeman chase robbers.
If Microsoft refrained from using roads, electric infrastructure and water lines, would the State still tax them? You bet.
You can put legitimate in bold, it doesn't make it so. No Microsoft does not maintain roads, yes it benefits from state provided infrastructure. That does not imply a duty or a responsibility to pay taxes. Not being a slave means you can lead your life by your own judgment, this means that you cannot have any unchosen duties. Microsoft did not contract the US government to build roads, infrastructures, everything. Does it benefit from it? Sure, but that doesn't constitute a contract agreement nor a duty.
This is true if the amount of tax collected remains constant, i.e. if the state increases pressure as a result. While this may be the case, the only guilty party would be the state and not Microsoft.
A group of travelers and I are captured by bandits and held for ransom... I have a chance to escape, but if I do, I know they will torture other travelers to know where I went. While it may be a moral dilemma for me, I am certainly not to blame for taking my chance and escaping.
have you actually considered the consequences of dissolving the State apparatus
Hum, yes pretty much everyday:)
- I don't want a standing army and don't think it's needed. It worked fine for Switzerland.
- If you want to pay for the healthcare and education of those who can't afford to, I won't stop you, just don't force other people. Actually education can be pretty cheap, in the poorest country private schools are striving and catter to every budget, take Kenya for example. Healthcare is a need like any other, we didn't have such high standard of living 100 years ago. If people can't afford it and no one wants to help them, so be it. I can't afford many things I would like either. Need / want is an artificial distinction.
- Yes I do want a private judiciary. And no it doesn't mean justice depends on your ability to pay. Microsoft and the RIAA are not held on a leash, quite the contrary they are given copyright by the state.
Natural right is independent of the world in which we live in. The existence of a state does not warrant exceptions. Just as the state is no exception to the rule that theft is wrong, it is no exception to the rule that there are no unchosen duties. The only duty of the state is restitution of taxes and reparations to its victims, it is not to build roads or bridges or whatever.
For me it won't. The state has no right to Microsoft's profit but it doesn't have duties either, and it doesn't have the duty to maintain the bridges.
The fact that MS "benefits" from the state is irrelevant. I benefit from firefox developpers, it doesn't mean I owe them something. I might show gratefulness, I might donate, but I don't have an enforceable debt towards them.
I am not making that claim, Microsoft is indeed benefiting from free roads, free education providing a better labor supply, and - most of all - patent and copyright laws. So I'm not saying Microsoft is responsible for all the profits made in the corporation, far far from it.
What I do claim is that they own their profit, regardless of "effort". If I build something with someone's help, I don't owe him anything just because he helped me, but because we agreed on compensation beforehand. There is no valid contract between the State and Microsoft.
is generally defined as the use of private mean of production on a free market. Regardless of one's opinion on the news, the title of the news is inaccurate, and let's say it stupid.
I for one cheer for anyone protecting money from the prying hands of the State.
Warren Anderson is considered a fugitive by Indian law, he has been charged with manslaughter there. The US did not grant extradition though, I do not know why. The case is a bit more complicated than you make it look.
Other than that I agree, some big corporations can get away with crime more easily than individuals as they have leverage on governments. It's no surprise that a monopoly a justice produces justice that sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Would be definitely cool, both for server-client communication and display.
I guess they don't sell it but lease if for perpetuity for a fixed fee. Same with some cable decoders I think. It's perfectly fine that the Scientology prevents its member from reselling the stuff. As for ebay, should they abuse the power, their would be probably be a complaint and they'd be in serious trouble. Much a do about nothing. For the record, the scientologist are a bunch of manipulative people with crazy ideas. They feed on stupidity which is fairly abundant.
Socialism relies on the nationalization of the means of production and the state planning of production. Nationalization implies theft. Socialists are thiefs. State planning of production implies mandatory work. Socialists are pro slavery.
Slave owning thiefs qualify as evil in my book.
Not to mention that it stinks. I don't know about you, but I can't stand the smell of ozone, not even a tiny bit.
The summary shows anti-trust regulation for what it is : people with guns raiding private property. Did we see Intel raiding AMD offices with guns ? No. Did we see Intel raiding their customers with guns ? Hell, no!
I fully agree. The only way to morally deal with the possibility of judicial errors is to make the jury legally responsible for the error. You send an innocent to the death row? You're convicted of murder (at least manslaughter).
Actually I was under the impression from occasional picks at travel sites that the price of airline tickets closely followed the price of oil, but it was just an impression. It'd be interesting to read.
According to British Airways, a 747-400 plane cruises at 927 km/h, burns 12,788 liters of fuel per hour and carries 409 passengers when full. 1 barrel of oil is 158.987296 liters. If the fuel were crude oil, it would burn 80.5 barrels an hour, at 87.25 a barrel, that's $7024 an hour. For a 6 hour flight that's $42142 or $100 per passenger. The plane doesn't burn light sweet crude oil, but the price variations are likely to match. The typical 6 hours New-York / Paris flight booked well in advance can be found at around $600, but it's also known that the flight is almost paid by business and first class passenger, it'd say it doubles the average price in the plane.
I think the data is mixed, but overall it looks like you're right, the price of fuel is not a significant cost for passenger travel.
Incorret
Dumbass. Privi-lege, private-law. Open a history book for once.
Privilege means private law, it is a regime of exception granted by a government. Freedom is not granted by governments, it is not a privilege. What government sometimes do is protect some freedoms through the enforcement of laws. They generally do a poor job. Basically you're mistaking freedom and enforcement of freedom. We are indeed entitled freedom, but we are not entitled to protection of freedom. For example you are entitled not to be robbed but you are not entitled to have a policeman chase robbers.
If Microsoft refrained from using roads, electric infrastructure and water lines, would the State still tax them? You bet.
You can put legitimate in bold, it doesn't make it so. No Microsoft does not maintain roads, yes it benefits from state provided infrastructure. That does not imply a duty or a responsibility to pay taxes. Not being a slave means you can lead your life by your own judgment, this means that you cannot have any unchosen duties. Microsoft did not contract the US government to build roads, infrastructures, everything. Does it benefit from it? Sure, but that doesn't constitute a contract agreement nor a duty.
Freedom is not a privilege, it's a right.
This is true if the amount of tax collected remains constant, i.e. if the state increases pressure as a result. While this may be the case, the only guilty party would be the state and not Microsoft.
A group of travelers and I are captured by bandits and held for ransom... I have a chance to escape, but if I do, I know they will torture other travelers to know where I went. While it may be a moral dilemma for me, I am certainly not to blame for taking my chance and escaping.
Hum, yes pretty much everyday
- I don't want a standing army and don't think it's needed. It worked fine for Switzerland.
- If you want to pay for the healthcare and education of those who can't afford to, I won't stop you, just don't force other people. Actually education can be pretty cheap, in the poorest country private schools are striving and catter to every budget, take Kenya for example. Healthcare is a need like any other, we didn't have such high standard of living 100 years ago. If people can't afford it and no one wants to help them, so be it. I can't afford many things I would like either. Need / want is an artificial distinction.
- Yes I do want a private judiciary. And no it doesn't mean justice depends on your ability to pay. Microsoft and the RIAA are not held on a leash, quite the contrary they are given copyright by the state.
Ride different, take the iWay, or take the Linux Road, given enough eyeballs, every pothole is shallow.
Natural right is independent of the world in which we live in. The existence of a state does not warrant exceptions. Just as the state is no exception to the rule that theft is wrong, it is no exception to the rule that there are no unchosen duties. The only duty of the state is restitution of taxes and reparations to its victims, it is not to build roads or bridges or whatever.
For me it won't. The state has no right to Microsoft's profit but it doesn't have duties either, and it doesn't have the duty to maintain the bridges.
The fact that MS "benefits" from the state is irrelevant. I benefit from firefox developpers, it doesn't mean I owe them something. I might show gratefulness, I might donate, but I don't have an enforceable debt towards them.
I am not making that claim, Microsoft is indeed benefiting from free roads, free education providing a better labor supply, and - most of all - patent and copyright laws. So I'm not saying Microsoft is responsible for all the profits made in the corporation, far far from it.
What I do claim is that they own their profit, regardless of "effort". If I build something with someone's help, I don't owe him anything just because he helped me, but because we agreed on compensation beforehand. There is no valid contract between the State and Microsoft.
is generally defined as the use of private mean of production on a free market. Regardless of one's opinion on the news, the title of the news is inaccurate, and let's say it stupid.
I for one cheer for anyone protecting money from the prying hands of the State.
I personally don't call for small government, I call for no government.
I don't see how this article relates to people starving on the street. "Need" does not constitute a legitimate claim to anything.
I am glad Microsoft managed to lower its taxes, it's theirs.
In the case of tobacco companies, the customers are the one who decide to take a risk, not the company.
Union carbide on the other hand was a good example of a corporation imposing risk on people.
Warren Anderson is considered a fugitive by Indian law, he has been charged with manslaughter there. The US did not grant extradition though, I do not know why. The case is a bit more complicated than you make it look.
Other than that I agree, some big corporations can get away with crime more easily than individuals as they have leverage on governments. It's no surprise that a monopoly a justice produces justice that sucks.
For example?
Given his stance on immigration, I don't think so ^^, but I'll grant you that the other candidates are definitely worse.
Everything can be dangerous to other people.