Yes, that's the number one reason to build your own computer: quality components, hand-picked by yourself, that are more stable and last longer. But here's another good reason to build: it's a great hobby and you learn a lot from it. I've gotten into the silent thing recently, and it really is addicting. Check out the forums at silentpcreview.com if you're interested.
No, it is not an attack on freedom of speech. It is an attack on the right to voluntary association, which is every bit as fundamental a human right as freedom of speech.
That's a load of crap, almost something I would expect the RIAA to publish. Are you punishing Honda when you buy a '92 Civic? How about the engineers who design new cars?
There is nothing remotely unethical about buying a used product, whether a car, house, clothing, or a music album. In fact, you'd be helping to save the environment.
I suggest going down to the store and buying a non DRMed audio CD and rip it yourself
Damn straight. If you want the real deal, you're going to have to puchase the actual cd. Or better yet, buy it used from secondspin.com (no I don't work there). I buy about 5 used cd's from them every couple of months, copy them to my hard disk in FLAC format, and put them away for storage. Most of them are in excellent condition, certainly worth the $5-$8 I spend on them. The selection is huge. And, when you buy used, you're not giving a cent to the RIAA.
Having the original cd opens up all the possibilities. You can convert to any format you want, lossy or lossless. You have the original disc and book inserts. It's 100% legal. You aren't locked in by DRM or any one format. Buying used is really the perfect way to build your music collection.
You're forgetting the most fundamental requirement of capitalism: voluntary association. Government is not voluntary. It is pure force, the exact opposite of what drives free trade.
To a certain extent, business still has to compete on voluntary grounds, but this can be superceded by any application of force whenever possible. Unfortunately, brute force trumps voluntary association.
Being able to work the system in your favor (being able to "bribe government") is what gives a business the real competitive edge nowadays. You will find that the most successful corporations are the ones who are most accomplished at this practice. That's no coincidence. Why spend effort on persuading your customers that you have the best product, when you can simply force them to buy your product? Why spend effort on competing on voluntary grounds, when you can just eliminate your competition? Government makes this all possible. I tend to call it "bribing" because all of this benefits government too. Any time government gets to spend tax money, make new laws, or generally increase its power over the people, government benefits.
Government collecting wealth by force, and then distributing it, is the exact opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is the people deciding for themselves where, if, and when to spend their earnings. If that crucial element of voluntary choice is removed from the equation -- i.e. if force is interjected into the equation -- then free trade (and hence capitalism) is compromised.
Nice try, but what we have in the US is not capitalism, not by a long shot. What we have in the US is a bastardized form of capitalism, where the competitive edge is found not in being able to produce the best product at the lowest price, but in having the ability to bribe government to tilt the scales in your favor. Throw in a large helping of socialist welfare policy and you have the US. Again, this is NOT capitalism.
This, is why a monopoly shouldn't be allowed to bundle software.
No, I'd rather win by working hard, not by crying to government to tilt the playing field. If you can't win through voluntary means, then can you really win at all?
So get the hell out of the way and let Firefox stand on its own merit. If Firefox truly is better, then it will succeed. If you'd open your eyes, you'd realize this is already happening, without the "aid" of government.
The wording of the article submission doesn't help either. They're going to "clamp down" on mods? This implies that mods somehow naturally represent aggression (as in theft, fraud, or some other initiation of force) -- i.e. mods are somehow criminal by nature -- and thus far modders have been getting a free ride.
What a load of bull.
The person who submitted this article would do better to use the correct term, criminalize. They are not planning to "clamp down" on mods, because there was nothing aggressive or unethical about mods in the first place. What they are doing is criminalizing mods: turning a peaceful, voluntary activity into a crime.
You cannot blame MS for playing according to the rules
I agree. MS doesn't write the rules. They can try to influence the rules, but they don't hold any actual power (defined as the right to initiate force as a means to an end, which is the only universal, unambiguous way to define power). Only government -- or agencies acting on behalf of government -- actually hold the power to change the rules. MS may be acting unethically in trying to bribe government, but in the end, they are at the mercy of government just like anyone else.
nor can one blame the policticians
I disagree fully. If government doesn't hold the key, then who does? Government is 100% responsible for any abuses of government, because government and government only holds the key to that abuse. At the very least, power (remember the definition) can't be abused unless power exists in the first place. The only agency that can invoke, create, or destroy power is government. Therefore, government is 100% responsible for any abuses of the power it creates.
I am truly astonished to see people directing their anger at the lobbyists for attempting to bribe government, while at the same time, giving government the benefit of the doubt for accepting the bribe. Are you out of your freaking minds?
what do you think the Chinese government is going to conclude if they set up a task force to look into their possible human rights abuses
Oh come on, everybody knows that the Chinese government operates in their own interest, while the US government operates in the interest of the people.
You wanted big government, you got big government.
(This isn't directed at you personally. Just a reminder to those who vote/advocate big government, "conservative" OR "liberal": this is it. And it's only going to get worse. The bigger the government, the more abuse of power. Period.)
But do you wish you could? You can, without giving a cent to the RIAA. Buy used! I buy 2-3 cds a month from secondspin.com, stuff that I've always wanted but never got around to it. My limit is $8, which is their average price for a used cd. Some are as low as $5, and most are in excellent condition. They have a pretty extensive selection and a good search feature. I buy the cds, copy them to my hard drive in FLAC format (lossless), and just put them away in storage. I've bought 20-30 cds this way so far and I think it really is the perfect way to acquire music: (1) it's perfectly legal, (2) it's the real deal, cd quality, book inserts and everything, (3) I'm not giving a cent to the RIAA.
Let's take a hypothetical poll. Can you actually sit there and claim, with a straight face, that there could be any less than a 99.99999% majority who agree with this:
No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten
Realistically, the only individuals who would disagree with that are mentally ill. Even thieves, murderers, and rapists admit that they were wrong to commit their crimes, or at least admit that they wouldn't accept being a victim themselves (which is really the same thing as admitting they were wrong to commit the crime). That's the human nature part.
nor to delegate its initiation
This is where it gets ugly. Logically, if a person has no right to initiate force as a means to an end, then he has no right to delegate that ability to another person on his behalf. BUT, the widespread disease of statism has instilled in people a general belief that if enough people get together (a majority), then they DO somehow acquire the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end (to ignore the zero-aggression principle). Much like a thief who knows that stealing is wrong, but somehow convinces himself that it's justified because he "needs it".
aggression has been the constant companion of mankind. Don't take my word for it - go and read a history book. You'll see that it reads as a series of wars, with descriptions of participants between them.
Good observation, but you forgot the correlation: centralized power, acting on behalf of its "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, is behind every single one of those atrocities. This doesn't prove that aggression is moral and just; it only proves that centralized power is guaranteed to result in aggression.
Why is the zero-aggression principle a product of human nature? Because none of us naturally accepts being a victim (except perhaps the mentally ill). Every single one of us knows it's wrong to be the victim of theft, fraud, murder, or rape. Nobody has to tell us this: we know because we are human beings. The question is whether we can put our money where our mouths are (obviously, judging by the proliferation of statism, most people can't).
Re:Absolutely, Insanely, Mind-Bogglingly Complex
on
Open Source Tax Products?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Precisely, the tax code is insanely complex. Stop right there: we have arrived at the root of the problem. The tax code needs to be simplified. Until the tax code is simplified, it will continue to act as a black hole, vaccuming up your earnings year after year. The best solution is, obviously, flat taxes. However, it will take a lot of pressure to convince government to give up one of their most exploitable programs.
Let me get this straight. Never mind the root of the problem (that the government's tax code is insanely complex and ripe for abuse) let's expand government once again to solve the problems created by government in the first place? You should run for office -- you'd go a long way.
life for everyone gets better in proportion to the number of ideolists around and in power
Wrong, life gets better for YOU in that case. Don't try to tell me what I think. For me, and others who believe in the same principles, you're pulling us in the car and taking us down the road to hell. But that is the one common trait that all statists share (those who believe in using force as a means to an end) -- they actually believe that their little vision of the world is grand enough that it should be forced on everyone else, regardless of their beliefs.
For me, life gets better as the amount of power decreases. It doesn't matter worth a damn who's in power -- what matters is that power exists and will be abused. The less of it, the better.
The only law I believe in is the zero-aggression principle. Discrimination is not aggression; it is simply human nature. The act of refusing to associate with another person is an example of voluntary association (or lack thereof), not aggression. It may be unpopular, or untasteful, but it is not aggression.
I assume you wouldn't support Intel charging $SPECIFIC_ETHNIC_GROUP more simply b/c they are a member of that group, even though it is voluntary?
I wouldn't consider it an example of aggression. Bad business, yes, but not aggression. In a sufficiently free society, bad business practices dig their own grave.
I have a feeling you would not make it far as a lawyer. You are replacing the legal meaning of words with your own interpretation of them.
Precisely. The only law I believe in and consider myself morally obligated to follow is the zero-aggression principle. I do obey the arbitrary laws of government however, but only because government holds the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end (in other words, I have no choice but to obey government). But you're right of course, I would probably never make it as a lawyer in today's society because I don't believe in the arbitrary laws of government. (Unless I focused exclusively on the few laws which actually uphold the zero-aggression principle.)
I commend you on how well you have been educated by the current regime.
You sure that comment wasn't supposed to be posted in another thread? The current regime stands for everything BUT the zero-aggression principle.
According to your own arbitrary definition. Not according to human nature (the zero-aggression principle).
Just what do you think AMD would say about such a buyout? "Yes, we voluntarily accepted the deal, but it's still an initiation of force on Intel's part?" Come on now.
If human beings (i.e. human nature) cannot define what is right or wrong behavior for human beings, then what possibly can?
I'll show you a myth: The idea that an arbitrary majority of less than 99.99999% (or some "representative" acting on behalf of an arbitrary majority) is what defines right and wrong.
A boss that makes such a demand gets what he deserves: the entire story revealed to the public (or to the higher-ups), and the consequences thereof.
And, did you actually claim with a straight face that "monopolistic practices" (hell, let's raise that to actual theft, fraud, or extortion) are equally as immoral and unjust as rape? Sure, theft is immoral, but equivalant to rape? Are you out of your mind?
Slashdot Mirror
Let's call a spade a spade. The big winner here is government.
And you call yourself a nerd? Two-minute penalty.
Yes, that's the number one reason to build your own computer: quality components, hand-picked by yourself, that are more stable and last longer. But here's another good reason to build: it's a great hobby and you learn a lot from it. I've gotten into the silent thing recently, and it really is addicting. Check out the forums at silentpcreview.com if you're interested.
No, it is not an attack on freedom of speech. It is an attack on the right to voluntary association, which is every bit as fundamental a human right as freedom of speech.
That's a load of crap, almost something I would expect the RIAA to publish. Are you punishing Honda when you buy a '92 Civic? How about the engineers who design new cars?
There is nothing remotely unethical about buying a used product, whether a car, house, clothing, or a music album. In fact, you'd be helping to save the environment.
Damn straight. If you want the real deal, you're going to have to puchase the actual cd. Or better yet, buy it used from secondspin.com (no I don't work there). I buy about 5 used cd's from them every couple of months, copy them to my hard disk in FLAC format, and put them away for storage. Most of them are in excellent condition, certainly worth the $5-$8 I spend on them. The selection is huge. And, when you buy used, you're not giving a cent to the RIAA.
Having the original cd opens up all the possibilities. You can convert to any format you want, lossy or lossless. You have the original disc and book inserts. It's 100% legal. You aren't locked in by DRM or any one format. Buying used is really the perfect way to build your music collection.
Stay the hell out of my business, I'd guess.
You're forgetting the most fundamental requirement of capitalism: voluntary association. Government is not voluntary. It is pure force, the exact opposite of what drives free trade.
To a certain extent, business still has to compete on voluntary grounds, but this can be superceded by any application of force whenever possible. Unfortunately, brute force trumps voluntary association.
Being able to work the system in your favor (being able to "bribe government") is what gives a business the real competitive edge nowadays. You will find that the most successful corporations are the ones who are most accomplished at this practice. That's no coincidence. Why spend effort on persuading your customers that you have the best product, when you can simply force them to buy your product? Why spend effort on competing on voluntary grounds, when you can just eliminate your competition? Government makes this all possible. I tend to call it "bribing" because all of this benefits government too. Any time government gets to spend tax money, make new laws, or generally increase its power over the people, government benefits.
Government collecting wealth by force, and then distributing it, is the exact opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is the people deciding for themselves where, if, and when to spend their earnings. If that crucial element of voluntary choice is removed from the equation -- i.e. if force is interjected into the equation -- then free trade (and hence capitalism) is compromised.
Nice try, but what we have in the US is not capitalism, not by a long shot. What we have in the US is a bastardized form of capitalism, where the competitive edge is found not in being able to produce the best product at the lowest price, but in having the ability to bribe government to tilt the scales in your favor. Throw in a large helping of socialist welfare policy and you have the US. Again, this is NOT capitalism.
No, I'd rather win by working hard, not by crying to government to tilt the playing field. If you can't win through voluntary means, then can you really win at all?
So get the hell out of the way and let Firefox stand on its own merit. If Firefox truly is better, then it will succeed. If you'd open your eyes, you'd realize this is already happening, without the "aid" of government.
The wording of the article submission doesn't help either. They're going to "clamp down" on mods? This implies that mods somehow naturally represent aggression (as in theft, fraud, or some other initiation of force) -- i.e. mods are somehow criminal by nature -- and thus far modders have been getting a free ride.
What a load of bull.
The person who submitted this article would do better to use the correct term, criminalize. They are not planning to "clamp down" on mods, because there was nothing aggressive or unethical about mods in the first place. What they are doing is criminalizing mods: turning a peaceful, voluntary activity into a crime.
I agree. MS doesn't write the rules. They can try to influence the rules, but they don't hold any actual power (defined as the right to initiate force as a means to an end, which is the only universal, unambiguous way to define power). Only government -- or agencies acting on behalf of government -- actually hold the power to change the rules. MS may be acting unethically in trying to bribe government, but in the end, they are at the mercy of government just like anyone else.
nor can one blame the policticians
I disagree fully. If government doesn't hold the key, then who does? Government is 100% responsible for any abuses of government, because government and government only holds the key to that abuse. At the very least, power (remember the definition) can't be abused unless power exists in the first place. The only agency that can invoke, create, or destroy power is government. Therefore, government is 100% responsible for any abuses of the power it creates.
I am truly astonished to see people directing their anger at the lobbyists for attempting to bribe government, while at the same time, giving government the benefit of the doubt for accepting the bribe. Are you out of your freaking minds?
Oh come on, everybody knows that the Chinese government operates in their own interest, while the US government operates in the interest of the people.
Now excuse me while I go throw up.
You wanted big government, you got big government.
(This isn't directed at you personally. Just a reminder to those who vote/advocate big government, "conservative" OR "liberal": this is it. And it's only going to get worse. The bigger the government, the more abuse of power. Period.)
It's a funny quote from a movie, Sherlock.
But do you wish you could? You can, without giving a cent to the RIAA. Buy used! I buy 2-3 cds a month from secondspin.com, stuff that I've always wanted but never got around to it. My limit is $8, which is their average price for a used cd. Some are as low as $5, and most are in excellent condition. They have a pretty extensive selection and a good search feature. I buy the cds, copy them to my hard drive in FLAC format (lossless), and just put them away in storage. I've bought 20-30 cds this way so far and I think it really is the perfect way to acquire music: (1) it's perfectly legal, (2) it's the real deal, cd quality, book inserts and everything, (3) I'm not giving a cent to the RIAA.
No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten
Realistically, the only individuals who would disagree with that are mentally ill. Even thieves, murderers, and rapists admit that they were wrong to commit their crimes, or at least admit that they wouldn't accept being a victim themselves (which is really the same thing as admitting they were wrong to commit the crime). That's the human nature part.
nor to delegate its initiation
This is where it gets ugly. Logically, if a person has no right to initiate force as a means to an end, then he has no right to delegate that ability to another person on his behalf. BUT, the widespread disease of statism has instilled in people a general belief that if enough people get together (a majority), then they DO somehow acquire the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end (to ignore the zero-aggression principle). Much like a thief who knows that stealing is wrong, but somehow convinces himself that it's justified because he "needs it".
aggression has been the constant companion of mankind. Don't take my word for it - go and read a history book. You'll see that it reads as a series of wars, with descriptions of participants between them.
Good observation, but you forgot the correlation: centralized power, acting on behalf of its "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, is behind every single one of those atrocities. This doesn't prove that aggression is moral and just; it only proves that centralized power is guaranteed to result in aggression.
Why is the zero-aggression principle a product of human nature? Because none of us naturally accepts being a victim (except perhaps the mentally ill). Every single one of us knows it's wrong to be the victim of theft, fraud, murder, or rape. Nobody has to tell us this: we know because we are human beings. The question is whether we can put our money where our mouths are (obviously, judging by the proliferation of statism, most people can't).
Precisely, the tax code is insanely complex. Stop right there: we have arrived at the root of the problem. The tax code needs to be simplified. Until the tax code is simplified, it will continue to act as a black hole, vaccuming up your earnings year after year. The best solution is, obviously, flat taxes. However, it will take a lot of pressure to convince government to give up one of their most exploitable programs.
Let me get this straight. Never mind the root of the problem (that the government's tax code is insanely complex and ripe for abuse) let's expand government once again to solve the problems created by government in the first place? You should run for office -- you'd go a long way.
Wrong, life gets better for YOU in that case. Don't try to tell me what I think. For me, and others who believe in the same principles, you're pulling us in the car and taking us down the road to hell. But that is the one common trait that all statists share (those who believe in using force as a means to an end) -- they actually believe that their little vision of the world is grand enough that it should be forced on everyone else, regardless of their beliefs.
For me, life gets better as the amount of power decreases. It doesn't matter worth a damn who's in power -- what matters is that power exists and will be abused. The less of it, the better.
The only law I believe in is the zero-aggression principle. Discrimination is not aggression; it is simply human nature. The act of refusing to associate with another person is an example of voluntary association (or lack thereof), not aggression. It may be unpopular, or untasteful, but it is not aggression.
I assume you wouldn't support Intel charging $SPECIFIC_ETHNIC_GROUP more simply b/c they are a member of that group, even though it is voluntary?
I wouldn't consider it an example of aggression. Bad business, yes, but not aggression. In a sufficiently free society, bad business practices dig their own grave.
Precisely. The only law I believe in and consider myself morally obligated to follow is the zero-aggression principle. I do obey the arbitrary laws of government however, but only because government holds the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end (in other words, I have no choice but to obey government). But you're right of course, I would probably never make it as a lawyer in today's society because I don't believe in the arbitrary laws of government. (Unless I focused exclusively on the few laws which actually uphold the zero-aggression principle.)
I commend you on how well you have been educated by the current regime.
You sure that comment wasn't supposed to be posted in another thread? The current regime stands for everything BUT the zero-aggression principle.
According to your own arbitrary definition. Not according to human nature (the zero-aggression principle). Just what do you think AMD would say about such a buyout? "Yes, we voluntarily accepted the deal, but it's still an initiation of force on Intel's part?" Come on now.
I'll show you a myth: The idea that an arbitrary majority of less than 99.99999% (or some "representative" acting on behalf of an arbitrary majority) is what defines right and wrong.
And, did you actually claim with a straight face that "monopolistic practices" (hell, let's raise that to actual theft, fraud, or extortion) are equally as immoral and unjust as rape? Sure, theft is immoral, but equivalant to rape? Are you out of your mind?