Basically GP is saying that the gov't is working its people so gradually that eventually it will be able to do whatever it wants.
The GP goes on to say (this is where it gets good) that there is a definitive tipping point, it has been crossed, and basically implies that the US populace consists of idiots (for not recognize this tipping point(s)) and\or cowards (for not doing anything about it).
"Of course, most importantly is -- it doesn't matter if a million people murder a million other people with guns. Taking away MY rights based on the action of others is as unfair as a teacher sending a whole class to detention because 1 person chewed gum (been there, done that). Revolution is a basic human right, and only possible with a handgun. As they say -- freedom isn't free. Freedom comes with a price. You'd rather be in a locked cage, protected by the government... Much like an indoor cat. In the real world, bad guys have guns -- no matter what the ban. And using their actions to justify taking away MY right to protect MY life and MY family is plain wrong. Statistics don't truly matter."
Since I commented on your questionable statistical skills, it's probably only appropriate to give credit where credit is due. This is one fine, concise paragraph, and I'm quoting it here for those with low post size limits.
"If their murder rate is 25%, but they have, say, 5% of the gun ownership -- Then that pretty much points to people finding other ways to kill people, even if their guns are taken away."
But that's silly. Looking at those numbers, it would look like not owning a gun is a deterrent to killing, even if it doesn't stop everyone from killing.
It's actually very similar to if there was a country where murder was legal, then saying "but in a country where murder is illegal, the murder rate is still 10% of the country where murder is legal, so what's even the point of making murder illegal?"
Well, let's see. 5% of the guns and 60% of the murders. so way less guns = 40% less chance of being murdered. Gee, if you're trying to get me to take an anti-gun stance, you're doing a fine job.
Personally I always thought someone would've invented a good stun gun by now, bypassing the need to actually kill in defense (a little less handy in a revolution, I guess).
Then get something else. If it's not a fair deal for a fair price, do without. If it's theirs to sell and there's no legal alternate source, you're out of luck. Why you think this should be any different than any other situation is beyond me.
I'm mostly on your side, I guess, but allow me to enlighten you with the difference you don't see. When you steal IP, the other party isn't losing anything (at least not if you were seriously not going to pay for it, but even so, they would be missing out on a gain). When you steal something physical, not only does the victim not get the money you would have paid, but they also incur a loss in the form of the variable cost of producing the product you stole. In the first case, if you hadn't existed, the company wouldn't be any better\worse off, in the second case, they are worse off for your existence.
Whether you personally think that's an important factor or not is irrelevant, whether you think it's immoral to have others pay for the R&D while pirates take a free ride is irrelevant; the fact remains that there is a clear difference.
The big advantage is that Sony knows most people are dumbasses while Toshiba doesn't (or didn't). In an executive corporate environment, over-estimating the intelligence of the average consumer is probably the top cause of failure.
However, I realized in my 30's that the libertarian philosophy breaks down when anyone gets much over 100 times the resources of the average citizen
From my POV it's a close call. There are different types of checks and balances for this kind of thing and using taxes to do so, while not libertarian in itself, doesn't stop someone from being largely libertarian just because they think it's a good idea.
It's like saying someone isn't conservative just because they support gay marriage.
You have to admit the lock-in is pretty fierce. An OS could be better and cheaper than Windows (an uphill battle since OSs are an economy of scale), we'd still be screwed because without the market share, no one will make apps for it. The way the OS market works (especially in the business sector), the head start 3.1 got (from being better, among other things) has carried over and made it more and more impossible over time for anyone else to penetrate the market even if they have a way better OS.
If somehow the coffee market became this way, and the lone company providing coffee charged $50 for a terrible tasking venti latte, and sold them in cheap cups that were known to leak frequently, I wouldn't be thrilled with that either. But stealing them wouldn't be fair to coffee manufacturers, right?
Stop complaining and put Point Blank Trilogy on the Wii. Thanks!
Re:Now there are 3 Liberals to decide between..
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, they should totally address that question, especially since it is frequently asked to them.
That last line was just fighting fire with fire.
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 1
I'm actually a bit of a bleeding heart myself but listening to an argument like this makes me sick. The GP never said they wouldn't lend a helping hand to people thrown into uncontrollable circumstances, that's the kind of thing that might make them hated.
GP is talking about the good-for-nothing types that just bitch and moan and take money without putting in any effort. Hating lazy people who won't help themselves is so damn far away from being lonely and miserable that your post can only be interpreted as an ad hominem troll. Though I guess that's appropriate.
(I don't want to write this last line because then I'll have to hear your painful masturbatory comments about how you've raised a wonderful family, etc, but here I go anyway)
But seriously, a/. troll, bet the ladies are all over you.
When a charity does something ridiculous you can vote with your dollar to not support that organization anymore. You cannot do that with the government.
Well said sir.
I always figured the best way to "phase-in" Libertarianism would be to lower taxes, but force donations of the same percentage cut. Then as the gov't cuts spending, the forced donations to charities would fill in the need. Eventually, you might be able to stop forcing the donations, the idea being that people would be socially ostracized for not donating. That would be "true" libertarianism. Obviously, some jerks would stop that particular system from being perfect, as opposed to the perfect system we have now (forced payment to a basically unaccountable government).
Mods, I know that sounds like a troll, but it's not. The "Nobel prize" in Economics is really the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" and not a real Nobel prize. Calling it the "Special Olympics" is cruel, but not really a troll.
Speaking of sweet irony, I love all these arguments saying "people in x location are more racist than people in y location". Not really criticizing it, just love the irony.
hehe, gotta love the mod who didn't see this as a troll or flamebait, just simply off-topic. Too bad there's no "funny" metamod.
Poor Soulskill. Of course, he knew (or should've known) what he was getting into signing up for a/. editor job. Hang in there long enough and we'll eventually respect you as much as the other editors:P
Oh right, the slippery slope argument. Not allowing large football broadcasts without a license (obviously a basic human right) is just one step from not allowing large hockey broadcasts without a license, which in turn is one more step away from implementing a nightly curfew, and a third step away from having all dissenters annihilated.
Thanks, you made this paranoid wreck feel a little more sane in comparison. If you're saying the churches should broadcast the game anyway, I agree. If you're saying it's time to get out the ammo box... no.
And you know, I wouldn't consider myself conservative, but what's wrong with having control over your own product? Ok, so it's too much control in this case, it doesn't make sense, and I don't agree with it. But it's not like professional football is a naturally occurring resource that people have an inalienable right to. The "first they came for...." speech or even a "first they took away..." speech, I'm not buying in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why all villains should continuously assess their strengths and weaknesses. You don't want to go down like this.
(The list)
Here's the summary then:
Basically GP is saying that the gov't is working its people so gradually that eventually it will be able to do whatever it wants.
The GP goes on to say (this is where it gets good) that there is a definitive tipping point, it has been crossed, and basically implies that the US populace consists of idiots (for not recognize this tipping point(s)) and\or cowards (for not doing anything about it).
Think that's a fair summary Crypto?
"If their murder rate is 25%, but they have, say, 5% of the gun ownership -- Then that pretty much points to people finding other ways to kill people, even if their guns are taken away." But that's silly. Looking at those numbers, it would look like not owning a gun is a deterrent to killing, even if it doesn't stop everyone from killing.
It's actually very similar to if there was a country where murder was legal, then saying "but in a country where murder is illegal, the murder rate is still 10% of the country where murder is legal, so what's even the point of making murder illegal?"
Well, let's see. 5% of the guns and 60% of the murders. so way less guns = 40% less chance of being murdered. Gee, if you're trying to get me to take an anti-gun stance, you're doing a fine job.
Personally I always thought someone would've invented a good stun gun by now, bypassing the need to actually kill in defense (a little less handy in a revolution, I guess).
Whether you personally think that's an important factor or not is irrelevant, whether you think it's immoral to have others pay for the R&D while pirates take a free ride is irrelevant; the fact remains that there is a clear difference.
... and they could give a catchy title, like "XBox Live", "Wii Ware" or "Steam".
They don't use it for all games (yet) because you would need to buy a huge HD, and need an internet connection with lots of bandwidth, etc.
The big advantage is that Sony knows most people are dumbasses while Toshiba doesn't (or didn't). In an executive corporate environment, over-estimating the intelligence of the average consumer is probably the top cause of failure.
See also: Psychological pricing.
It's like saying someone isn't conservative just because they support gay marriage.
You have to admit the lock-in is pretty fierce. An OS could be better and cheaper than Windows (an uphill battle since OSs are an economy of scale), we'd still be screwed because without the market share, no one will make apps for it. The way the OS market works (especially in the business sector), the head start 3.1 got (from being better, among other things) has carried over and made it more and more impossible over time for anyone else to penetrate the market even if they have a way better OS.
If somehow the coffee market became this way, and the lone company providing coffee charged $50 for a terrible tasking venti latte, and sold them in cheap cups that were known to leak frequently, I wouldn't be thrilled with that either. But stealing them wouldn't be fair to coffee manufacturers, right?
Don't forget self-powering In The Groove cabinets :)
(Or for the other 99.9% of you who don't know what ITG is... Dance Dance Revolution cabinets)
Tamagotchi didn't involve Namco. (At least AFAIK... they didn't merge until 2005 according to the Wiki).
IMO Pac-man is more famous.
In fact, forget about the tentacles and blackjack.
Stop complaining and put Point Blank Trilogy on the Wii. Thanks!
Yeah, they should totally address that question, especially since it is frequently asked to them.
I'm actually a bit of a bleeding heart myself but listening to an argument like this makes me sick. The GP never said they wouldn't lend a helping hand to people thrown into uncontrollable circumstances, that's the kind of thing that might make them hated.
/. troll, bet the ladies are all over you.
GP is talking about the good-for-nothing types that just bitch and moan and take money without putting in any effort. Hating lazy people who won't help themselves is so damn far away from being lonely and miserable that your post can only be interpreted as an ad hominem troll. Though I guess that's appropriate.
(I don't want to write this last line because then I'll have to hear your painful masturbatory comments about how you've raised a wonderful family, etc, but here I go anyway)
But seriously, a
Because the mods have control over their property and liberty. (The property being mod points)
:)
Although since they voted against libertarianism, I guess they should have given some of their mod points to the state
Yes, and China is a democracy, better stop using democracy.
One word: Diebold ;)
Mods, I know that sounds like a troll, but it's not. The "Nobel prize" in Economics is really the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" and not a real Nobel prize. Calling it the "Special Olympics" is cruel, but not really a troll.
Speaking of sweet irony, I love all these arguments saying "people in x location are more racist than people in y location". Not really criticizing it, just love the irony.
hehe, gotta love the mod who didn't see this as a troll or flamebait, just simply off-topic. Too bad there's no "funny" metamod.
/. editor job. Hang in there long enough and we'll eventually respect you as much as the other editors :P
Poor Soulskill. Of course, he knew (or should've known) what he was getting into signing up for a
I must be evil because whenever I take in all of that trinity I start speaking incoherently and eventually my body rejects it.
Oh right, the slippery slope argument. Not allowing large football broadcasts without a license (obviously a basic human right) is just one step from not allowing large hockey broadcasts without a license, which in turn is one more step away from implementing a nightly curfew, and a third step away from having all dissenters annihilated.
Thanks, you made this paranoid wreck feel a little more sane in comparison. If you're saying the churches should broadcast the game anyway, I agree. If you're saying it's time to get out the ammo box... no.
And you know, I wouldn't consider myself conservative, but what's wrong with having control over your own product? Ok, so it's too much control in this case, it doesn't make sense, and I don't agree with it. But it's not like professional football is a naturally occurring resource that people have an inalienable right to. The "first they came for...." speech or even a "first they took away..." speech, I'm not buying in this case.