When has stealing NOT been a capital offense in China, and a host of other countries? I'm (certainly!) not defending them, but this has been the norm there.
Of course, this isn't as bad as when Pol Pot (A Communist revolutionary) killed all the people he could find in Cambodia who wore glasses because he wanted to eliminate the "intellectuals" from his country. That would be "News for Nerds!" You might think this is just ignorant savagery, but he studied Political Science at the prestigous University of Paris, Sorbonne.
Theives are regularly condemned to death in China. This probably has little to do with his use of a computer. This is not News for Nerds, and such as most of us thankfully are not subject to China's laws, it is not Stuff That Matters. Maybe I'm wrong, and there are ways to read Slashdot from China.
This is absurd silly shit. You actually think businesses are only occasionally taxed, regulated, and made to follow detailed policies. you are truly benighted. Okay, here's a clue. There is a set of volumes called the Federal Register, containing all of the myriad Federal regulations on business. Now, as an individual, we have to obey the criminal and civil code, both of which are together a few hundred pages. But the Federal Register passed 100,000 pages just before Clinton took office, and has grown ever since. This is only the simplest comparison of the relative restrictions on corporations versus individuals.
No, you don't have to have your house inspected by OSHA regularly, so don't give me any of that baloney, either.
Finally, you do not understand the nature of the WTO at all. It doesn't run roughshod over sovereignty. NO STATE IS REQUIRED TO BELONG! And once a state joins, they can leave anytime. I thought this was obvious and pivotal, but maybe not to you. Additionally, your assertion that the WTO exists to jack up tariffs is hilarious. Please read about what they agree to after this session. Please read just a little bit of coverage about the decisions made. They are finding ways to open up trade, NOT to stifle it.
Well, I doubt you were actually looking for a defense of capitalism. Anyway, since it is real (not fictitious like "Everybody is motivated by economic judgements only") it is difficult to explain.
If you werén't choosing to be so ignorant, we wouldn't need, for example, a walk through the chamber of horrors of Marxism in this century. How about just the deaths? Pol Pot three million killed, for offenses as trivial as wearing glasses ("being an intellectual"), Stalin and his 60 million murdered, and so many of them murdered through the torture of labor camps. China and a few dozen millions killed in the name of the People. It goes on and on. Isn't Marxism wonderful.
Oh, and a clue about the economic policies of Marxism - um... they really don't work very well. Did you ever notice those perpetual bread lines in the USSR?
Outside the convention center, you'll be educated by thugs looting stores, spoiled upper-middle-class students chanting "Down with Capitalism," and union workers angry because their extortion scheme is slightly threatened. If that's the rational thought you want, well, your ignorance is your own burden.
BTW, thanks for the hint about the definition of 'fallacious.' Next time you run into somebody with his head stuck up his ass, you might be able to tell him something he doesn't know already.
How can you believe in the free market and find incorporation repugnant? Anyway, the corporations do have responsibilities. No they cannot be spanked or incarcerated, but they can be fined, totally regulated, purchased, dismembered, dissolved, sued, whatever. Just ask any corporate lawyer. And anybody who has had to comply with corparate regulations knows their responsibilites are much greater than those met by individuals. Is your house regulated by OSHA? Do you file taxes four times a year?
As far as whether the WTO is beholden to only corporate interests, that is entirely debateable. But you have not offered an arguement, or evidence, only an empty assertion.
Finally, I did not say I would prefer to purchase things at the lowest possible price (though I might). I was simply responding to the assertion about maximizing freedom. It is a fact that lowering trade tarrifs and regulations increases the liberty of the buyer and seller.
they gathered to enact the LARGEST protest and civil demonstration in all of american history, including the civil rights movement. It's not just 'seattleites', but indeed upwards of 40 to 50 thousand people
You are totally wrong about that. A number of protests and demonstrations have been larger in US history. For example, Martin Luther King's famous March on Washington in 1963 drew a quarter of a million people. Somehow they managed to avoid looting and rioting, too..
Protests in DC over such contemporary issues as abortion have drawn larger crowds, as well. You really need to get your facts straight. However, considering you support the protest, it's unlikely you are intrigued by facts.
Lowering trade barriers does quite the opposite. It increases my individual right (NB ALL rights are individual rights) to buy products without state interference and taxation. This benefits the buyer and seller.
It's utter nonsense to think the quality of education (at least in America) suffers from lack of funding. Some of the worst school districts in America (DC and Chicago for example) have some of the highest spending per capita in the nation. This assertion has been thoroughly discredited. I'll eat my tennis shoes at the Superbowl halftime show if somebody can name a study that proves the contrary.
To give you an idea of just how discredited it is, a few years ago Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the very liberal (American sense) Senator from New York, obeserved that the statistical correlation between eductional quality and per capita spending was so tiny, that even the Latitude of the school's location had more bearing. So he mockingly suggested we move all schools North 100 miles. Keep in mind that Sen. Moynihan is hardly known as a budget hawk.
The clamor for jacked-up school budgets comes from fatcat educrats who know nothing about efficient management. Catholic school systems, just as an example, operate at 1/3 the per capita spending but get higher test scores and graduation rates with worse kids.
UN (as any other democratic institution) works as long as its members permit it to work. On the other hand, if majority of people supports the UN and minority does not it may result in a political isolation of the minority (I mean US).
The first sentence is just an empty tautology that ignores whether or not the UN can ever "work" by either its own or any other definition of the word. Your second assertion assumes the US would not be isolated politically if we went along with the "majority". Even then, who cares if the US is politically isolated in the UN? It is simply a fact that UN conventions are whispy nothings. Little pieces of paper. For example, do you think the Cold-War era Soviet Union ever honored the UN Declaration on Human Rights? Did China? More importantly, name a UN resolution or convention that has had some real impact in the policies of a majority, or even a minority, of member nations.
If market fluctuations fit to curves we would all be millionaires. Some of the most sophisticated supercomputers in America are owned by financial institutions, in part to run their extremely sophisticated computer models of certain areas of the market. Even their methods aren't all that accurate. It's an interesting area to do research in, though - and there's quite a potential payoff.
I am waiting for Star Trek-like devices: 'portable submillimeter wormhole generator' and 'personal parallel universe transmitter' to appear on the market.:-)"
If I get one, I'm zapping to a universe with no First Post DUDEZ!! and no Bill Shithook Clinton.
Do you really think Queen Victoria would have encouraged people to talk context-free smack like that?
Anyway, you guys played. It's obviously the output of the ubiquitous Automated Rant Generator, with one or two words changed. Somebody is having some fun seeing if you guys can tell the difference.
No casualties unless you count the poor folks hit by the missiles. Most of them were civilians. At least Bush whupped up on a real threat to regional peace. And he aimed his guns at the soldiers, not the civvies.
I know a lot of staffers who might say Alt-Ctrl-Delete. And it's not that Gore could have found the time to write it. It's that it would be very very unlikely that he would.
By the way, you overestimate the abilities of staff who ghostwrite articles and op-eds for politicos.
I am totally grown up. It's the kiddies who think "being a human being" is an excuse to lie to Congress, lie to a Grand Jury, lie to the American people, get the entire cabinet to lie on TV for you, put your friends through legal nightmares, and be an international embarassment and joke.
Anyway, my comment never mentioned his shenanigans. By "his legacy" I was referring to his awful record as a President. What is his political legacy? Name one serious poilitical accomplishment of his, besides getting himself elected. Name one significant piece of legislation he got passed.
With respect to your comments about Bush and Reagan, everybody is welcome to their ignorance. You just got a bigger helping.
Now THAT would be a trick. Almost every staffer on the Hill is a PoliSci or Econ grad, usually from a fufu liberal arts school. All the Technologically Aware people I know are over the river in VA.
I did look before I spouted off. And if you could parse English with more skill, you'd see that you are demonstrating my point. To wit: that in the absence of "hate crime" legislation, there is already great consideration for intent and motivation in our legal system.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, this isn't as bad as when Pol Pot (A Communist revolutionary) killed all the people he could find in Cambodia who wore glasses because he wanted to eliminate the "intellectuals" from his country. That would be "News for Nerds!" You might think this is just ignorant savagery, but he studied Political Science at the prestigous University of Paris, Sorbonne.
Theives are regularly condemned to death in China. This probably has little to do with his use of a computer. This is not News for Nerds, and such as most of us thankfully are not subject to China's laws, it is not Stuff That Matters. Maybe I'm wrong, and there are ways to read Slashdot from China.
No, you don't have to have your house inspected by OSHA regularly, so don't give me any of that baloney, either.
Finally, you do not understand the nature of the WTO at all. It doesn't run roughshod over sovereignty. NO STATE IS REQUIRED TO BELONG! And once a state joins, they can leave anytime. I thought this was obvious and pivotal, but maybe not to you. Additionally, your assertion that the WTO exists to jack up tariffs is hilarious. Please read about what they agree to after this session. Please read just a little bit of coverage about the decisions made. They are finding ways to open up trade, NOT to stifle it.
If you werén't choosing to be so ignorant, we wouldn't need, for example, a walk through the chamber of horrors of Marxism in this century. How about just the deaths? Pol Pot three million killed, for offenses as trivial as wearing glasses ("being an intellectual"), Stalin and his 60 million murdered, and so many of them murdered through the torture of labor camps. China and a few dozen millions killed in the name of the People. It goes on and on. Isn't Marxism wonderful.
Oh, and a clue about the economic policies of Marxism - um... they really don't work very well. Did you ever notice those perpetual bread lines in the USSR?
Outside the convention center, you'll be educated by thugs looting stores, spoiled upper-middle-class students chanting "Down with Capitalism," and union workers angry because their extortion scheme is slightly threatened. If that's the rational thought you want, well, your ignorance is your own burden.
BTW, thanks for the hint about the definition of 'fallacious.' Next time you run into somebody with his head stuck up his ass, you might be able to tell him something he doesn't know already.
...on the rare occasion where it's appropriate.
As far as whether the WTO is beholden to only corporate interests, that is entirely debateable. But you have not offered an arguement, or evidence, only an empty assertion.
Finally, I did not say I would prefer to purchase things at the lowest possible price (though I might). I was simply responding to the assertion about maximizing freedom. It is a fact that lowering trade tarrifs and regulations increases the liberty of the buyer and seller.
I've read a lot of books about both capitalism and Marxism. And you sir, are completely full of shit.
I disagree
You are totally wrong about that. A number of protests and demonstrations have been larger in US history. For example, Martin Luther King's famous March on Washington in 1963 drew a quarter of a million people. Somehow they managed to avoid looting and rioting, too..
Protests in DC over such contemporary issues as abortion have drawn larger crowds, as well. You really need to get your facts straight. However, considering you support the protest, it's unlikely you are intrigued by facts.
It's not likely the protesters themselves have a clue what they're protesting about.
Lowering trade barriers does quite the opposite. It increases my individual right (NB ALL rights are individual rights) to buy products without state interference and taxation. This benefits the buyer and seller.
To give you an idea of just how discredited it is, a few years ago Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the very liberal (American sense) Senator from New York, obeserved that the statistical correlation between eductional quality and per capita spending was so tiny, that even the Latitude of the school's location had more bearing. So he mockingly suggested we move all schools North 100 miles. Keep in mind that Sen. Moynihan is hardly known as a budget hawk.
The clamor for jacked-up school budgets comes from fatcat educrats who know nothing about efficient management. Catholic school systems, just as an example, operate at 1/3 the per capita spending but get higher test scores and graduation rates with worse kids.
The first sentence is just an empty tautology that ignores whether or not the UN can ever "work" by either its own or any other definition of the word. Your second assertion assumes the US would not be isolated politically if we went along with the "majority". Even then, who cares if the US is politically isolated in the UN? It is simply a fact that UN conventions are whispy nothings. Little pieces of paper. For example, do you think the Cold-War era Soviet Union ever honored the UN Declaration on Human Rights? Did China? More importantly, name a UN resolution or convention that has had some real impact in the policies of a majority, or even a minority, of member nations.
Maybe because nobody in their right mind gives a sack of batshit about UN Conventions?
Looks like one of those John Dvorak Notes and Asides columns.
If market fluctuations fit to curves we would all be millionaires. Some of the most sophisticated supercomputers in America are owned by financial institutions, in part to run their extremely sophisticated computer models of certain areas of the market. Even their methods aren't all that accurate. It's an interesting area to do research in, though - and there's quite a potential payoff.
If I get one, I'm zapping to a universe with no First Post DUDEZ!! and no Bill Shithook Clinton.
Anyway, you guys played. It's obviously the output of the ubiquitous Automated Rant Generator, with one or two words changed. Somebody is having some fun seeing if you guys can tell the difference.
No casualties unless you count the poor folks hit by the missiles. Most of them were civilians. At least Bush whupped up on a real threat to regional peace. And he aimed his guns at the soldiers, not the civvies.
By the way, you overestimate the abilities of staff who ghostwrite articles and op-eds for politicos.
Anyway, my comment never mentioned his shenanigans. By "his legacy" I was referring to his awful record as a President. What is his political legacy? Name one serious poilitical accomplishment of his, besides getting himself elected. Name one significant piece of legislation he got passed.
With respect to your comments about Bush and Reagan, everybody is welcome to their ignorance. You just got a bigger helping.
Now THAT would be a trick. Almost every staffer on the Hill is a PoliSci or Econ grad, usually from a fufu liberal arts school. All the Technologically Aware people I know are over the river in VA.
I did look before I spouted off. And if you could parse English with more skill, you'd see that you are demonstrating my point. To wit: that in the absence of "hate crime" legislation, there is already great consideration for intent and motivation in our legal system.
As I mentioned above, Senators in safe seats have soooo much more free time than VP's running for President.