It was government that created the legal structure for corporations and decided that they would be largely shielded from liability for their actions.
As the OP pointed out, the free market allows for 'torts' (damages). Government has decided to grant special privileges to an elite few however, making them largely immune from such torts. The damages for which corporations are held responsible are rarely sufficient to be a deterrent against future malfeasance.
Then suddenly, we need a bunch of new government regulations and bureaucracies to mitigate the negative consequences resulting from the fact that corporations have these special privileges?
Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
The government isn't going to carpet bomb the cities with their vastly superior weapons. People resisting the government are not going to stand out in the middle of a field and identify themselves as the resistance.
Government will send in their thugs to kidnap people off the street or kick down doors in the middle of the night and arrest people. Exactly when a personal defense weapon will be useful.
"Most gun-related deaths are due to improperly stored guns being mishandled by someone"
Totally inaccurate. In the USA, MOST gun-related deaths are suicides. Roughly 20K in 2012. Another 10-11K gun-related deaths are homicides.
There were fewer than 1K deaths by "unintentional discharge" and some fraction of those are obviously due to mishandling by the rightful owner.
I don't see how this solves anything. Very few people are going to buy a firearms with the anticipation that their weapon is going to be found by a kid or an irresponsible adult.
The ability of corporations to generate massive profits through government bailouts, handouts and subsidies IS proof that government is a failure and a fundamentally corrupt institution.
If government is NOT a failure, then how is the arrangement you describe even possible?
"... if those people don't value the product or service, then why are they forced to support it?"
It's called "government". They authorize themselves to steal your wealth and then use it to provide goods and services whether you want them or not. I don't want to pay for public schools, but I'm forced to support them anyway.
It's a matter of personal belief, but the fact that governments apply restrictions to people doesn't mean you have to accept the idea that your rights are null and void because government says so.
I believe our rights are inherent and that we, as human beings possess those rights, regardless of what draconian restrictions governments attempt to impose on us. For example, many governments put restrictions on criticizing the government. I don't think this means that people no longer have the "right" to free speech. It only means that someone is forcefully preventing them from exercising their rights.
I always found it rather strange that bacterial infections could spread so easily in a "sanitary" environment like a hospital. Bacteria can spread through the air, i.e. by someone sneezing and someone else inhaling it, but contact (touching surfaces containing the bacteria) is the most common method of transmission.
When the hospital staph only wash their hands 30% of the time when they interact with patients, it's no wonder that this crap can spread so easily.
It's ridiculous that something which should be a matter of habit has to be enforced with security cameras.
A government that does not enforce the rule of law UNIFORMLY throughout the nation has given up its just power to govern.
Wall St. banks engage in thousands of acts of fraud, forgery and perjury yet continue to operate with none of their employees investigated and prosecuted? Government employees smuggle guns to the Mexican drug cartels and those guns are used to commit murder yet nobody is prosecuted. Where's this "rule of law" you mention?
Like the OP said, the money monopoly is the cornerstone of the banker-government's power. This has nothing to do with "order and stability" or "regulating business". It has to do with the banker-government keeping the vast bulk of the population in debt servitude while they grow fabulously wealthy.
Governments get a lot of things "right", but it's usually for the benefit of an elite minority and to the detriment of the bulk of humanity.
Not true. They can only engage in "issues" advertising. They can give candidates "ratings", but they cannot run ads which explicitly say "Vote for ___________"
I was part of "Campaign for Liberty", a 501c(4), for a while, and that was one of the specific prohibitions.
"you've got to make people strong enough to handle it. That could mean more self-confidence, better friends,"
You're going to make the social outcasts have "better friends"? How exactly? The victims of bullying are chosen for a reason. Among other things, they're the kids who don't have a lot of friends.
I just wish these kids would do the world a favor and kill the bullies instead of themselves.
Have you ever engaged in any political activism? As an employer, I can see how you might be too busy to do so. If not, can you inform me of a more effective means of organizing people or promoting an event than facebook?
I'm smart and independent minded and I resisted getting a FB account for as long as I could. In the end however, it's just too damned useful as a coordinating tool.
Personally, I don't think FB is responsible, but the question of whether or not the girl had an account seems irrelevant. People could have been using FB to disparage her even if she didn't have a FB account of her own. It's not like her personal account is what 'enabled' other people to post a video and pictures of her.
Do you think that demonstrating defamation should also require that the organization prove that they suffered some sort of harm from the statement? That's my opinion, and I think there are only a few ways this is possible.
1. The statement contained verifiable facts. If that's the case, it might cause harm, but should the organization be able to sue? If not, why should the person's identity be made public?
2. The comment revealed confidential information that would have been known only to "insiders". I suppose they might be justified in suing at this point to find out if a breach of contract occurred.
This is a YRO story. Can the courts compel HuffPo to turn over the identities of the users? Under what circumstances? If the courts have the legal power to do this, SHOULD they have this power?
I tend to err strongly on the side of free speech. I don't like the idea of courts having this power, because the circumstances under which they could compel disclosure of identities are always subject to change. Today it might be defamation, tomorrow it might be legitimate criticism of the government.
Leaving aside the question of existing law, I would argue that rantings of an AC on an internet forum can't meet a standard of causing "harm" to a person or organization. Regardless of how libelous or scandalous the comment, an AC has zero credibility unless they are able to provide facts which can then be independently verified. If the facts harm the reputation of a person or group, then truth should be an absolute defense (although in many countries that's not the case). Otherwise, any anonymous and unsubstantiated accusations should be dismissed out of hand and deemed 'harmless'.
I follow these stories closely and I've never heard of a single incident where an armed citizen interrupting a crime has been mistakenly shot by another armed citizen.
In the U.S., it's the POLICE you need to worry about. They shoot a lot more innocent civilians than armed citizens.
They managed to wound NINE innocent bystanders when they fired a fusillade of bullets at a killer outside the Empire State Building. They killed a little girl in Detroit attempting to execute an arrest warrant on a person that wasn't in that house. In Cleveland, two groups of cops fired 140 bullets at each other across a middle school parking lot after chasing a vehicle onto the property. No weapon was found in the suspect vehicle.
I feel entirely comfortable with my fellow citizens. It's the trigger-happy government employees that worry me.
The idea that a firearm renders you invulnerable is a strawman set up by the anti-gun crowd. No firearms freedom advocates are claiming that carrying a firearm is a panacea for personal safety. A firearm merely gives you a fighting chance against an armed or physically superior attacker.
Speaking of the Boston bombings, are pressure cookers and fireworks banned in your country? Do the anti-gun laws extend into Ireland and did they prevent the IRA from carrying out attacks?
Considering the fact that the criminals didn't attack anyone else in the general vicinity, I don't think their goal was to murder as many people as possible. If they were intent on mass murder, they would have found a means to that end.
Perhaps nothing would have saved the victim, but the odds of his survival would have been much better with a firearm.
The gun manufacturers, like very single other industry, have their own lobbying group. The National Shooting Sports Foundation. The NRA by contrast, is made up of FIVE MILLION dues-paying members. Obviously the members think that the NRA is doing a good job of protecting our civil liberties. Neither the organization, nor the vast majority of the members have any sort of financial stake in the firearms industry.
It's hardly remarkable that the interests of the firearms manufacturers and firearms owners largely coincide. Can you think of an instance where they diverge and where the NRA has sided with the manufacturers?
I don't always agree with the NRA. e.g. I hated the fact that they endorsed Mitt Romney. However, I think they are doing a very good job in protecting our civil liberties. It's the one organization which gives the little people a voice in DC.
He's not the first anti-gun politician to get his "facts" from Hollywood films.
The original "plastic gun" (polymer framed) which Senator Howard Metzenbaum demanded that we ban was a fiction described in the film "Die Hard 2". A character claimed that a Glock ### wouldn't show up on an airport metal detector. Metzenbaum repeated this, only it wasn't in a movie.
I have more sympathy than some here. I know from experience that all of the regulatory hurdles associated with hiring full time employees are a pain in the ass. Going from 0 to 1 is a big leap.
If you can't afford $100K (don't forget benefits, matching FICA taxes, etc.) forget looking for an underling well versed in multiple languages. I think you should be looking for a business partner instead of trying to get a developer on the cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
It was government that created the legal structure for corporations and decided that they would be largely shielded from liability for their actions.
As the OP pointed out, the free market allows for 'torts' (damages). Government has decided to grant special privileges to an elite few however, making them largely immune from such torts. The damages for which corporations are held responsible are rarely sufficient to be a deterrent against future malfeasance.
Then suddenly, we need a bunch of new government regulations and bureaucracies to mitigate the negative consequences resulting from the fact that corporations have these special privileges?
Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
The government isn't going to carpet bomb the cities with their vastly superior weapons. People resisting the government are not going to stand out in the middle of a field and identify themselves as the resistance.
Government will send in their thugs to kidnap people off the street or kick down doors in the middle of the night and arrest people. Exactly when a personal defense weapon will be useful.
"Can we get to negative numbers of gun deaths?"
Firearms are frequently used in self defense, in most cases with no shots being fired. At least a few of those have to be negative deaths, right?
"Most gun-related deaths are due to improperly stored guns being mishandled by someone"
Totally inaccurate. In the USA, MOST gun-related deaths are suicides. Roughly 20K in 2012. Another 10-11K gun-related deaths are homicides.
There were fewer than 1K deaths by "unintentional discharge" and some fraction of those are obviously due to mishandling by the rightful owner.
I don't see how this solves anything. Very few people are going to buy a firearms with the anticipation that their weapon is going to be found by a kid or an irresponsible adult.
The ability of corporations to generate massive profits through government bailouts, handouts and subsidies IS proof that government is a failure and a fundamentally corrupt institution.
If government is NOT a failure, then how is the arrangement you describe even possible?
"... if those people don't value the product or service, then why are they forced to support it?"
It's called "government". They authorize themselves to steal your wealth and then use it to provide goods and services whether you want them or not.
I don't want to pay for public schools, but I'm forced to support them anyway.
It's a matter of personal belief, but the fact that governments apply restrictions to people doesn't mean you have to accept the idea that your rights are null and void because government says so.
I believe our rights are inherent and that we, as human beings possess those rights, regardless of what draconian restrictions governments attempt to impose on us. For example, many governments put restrictions on criticizing the government. I don't think this means that people no longer have the "right" to free speech. It only means that someone is forcefully preventing them from exercising their rights.
I always found it rather strange that bacterial infections could spread so easily in a "sanitary" environment like a hospital. Bacteria can spread through the air, i.e. by someone sneezing and someone else inhaling it, but contact (touching surfaces containing the bacteria) is the most common method of transmission.
When the hospital staph only wash their hands 30% of the time when they interact with patients, it's no wonder that this crap can spread so easily.
It's ridiculous that something which should be a matter of habit has to be enforced with security cameras.
Exactly.
$85B/month = $1,020B in a year. The projected federal deficit for 2013 is $960B.
If it wasn't for the Fed monetizing the debt, the government would not be able to finance its spending at these insanely low interest rates.
A government that does not enforce the rule of law UNIFORMLY throughout the nation has given up its just power to govern.
Wall St. banks engage in thousands of acts of fraud, forgery and perjury yet continue to operate with none of their employees investigated and prosecuted? Government employees smuggle guns to the Mexican drug cartels and those guns are used to commit murder yet nobody is prosecuted. Where's this "rule of law" you mention?
Like the OP said, the money monopoly is the cornerstone of the banker-government's power. This has nothing to do with "order and stability" or "regulating business". It has to do with the banker-government keeping the vast bulk of the population in debt servitude while they grow fabulously wealthy.
Governments get a lot of things "right", but it's usually for the benefit of an elite minority and to the detriment of the bulk of humanity.
Minor correction:
"501(c)4's are allowed to ... endorse candidates"
Not true. They can only engage in "issues" advertising. They can give candidates "ratings", but they cannot run ads which explicitly say "Vote for ___________"
I was part of "Campaign for Liberty", a 501c(4), for a while, and that was one of the specific prohibitions.
"you've got to make people strong enough to handle it. That could mean more self-confidence, better friends,"
You're going to make the social outcasts have "better friends"? How exactly? The victims of bullying are chosen for a reason. Among other things, they're the kids who don't have a lot of friends.
I just wish these kids would do the world a favor and kill the bullies instead of themselves.
Have you ever engaged in any political activism? As an employer, I can see how you might be too busy to do so. If not, can you inform me of a more effective means of organizing people or promoting an event than facebook?
I'm smart and independent minded and I resisted getting a FB account for as long as I could. In the end however, it's just too damned useful as a coordinating tool.
Personally, I don't think FB is responsible, but the question of whether or not the girl had an account seems irrelevant. People could have been using FB to disparage her even if she didn't have a FB account of her own. It's not like her personal account is what 'enabled' other people to post a video and pictures of her.
I agree with a lot of what you say about parental responsibility.
However, people could be circulating information about someone even if that person didn't have a facebook account of their own.
Do you think that demonstrating defamation should also require that the organization prove that they suffered some sort of harm from the statement? That's my opinion, and I think there are only a few ways this is possible.
1. The statement contained verifiable facts. If that's the case, it might cause harm, but should the organization be able to sue? If not, why should the person's identity be made public?
2. The comment revealed confidential information that would have been known only to "insiders". I suppose they might be justified in suing at this point to find out if a breach of contract occurred.
? ...
This is a YRO story. Can the courts compel HuffPo to turn over the identities of the users? Under what circumstances? If the courts have the legal power to do this, SHOULD they have this power?
I tend to err strongly on the side of free speech. I don't like the idea of courts having this power, because the circumstances under which they could compel disclosure of identities are always subject to change. Today it might be defamation, tomorrow it might be legitimate criticism of the government.
Leaving aside the question of existing law, I would argue that rantings of an AC on an internet forum can't meet a standard of causing "harm" to a person or organization. Regardless of how libelous or scandalous the comment, an AC has zero credibility unless they are able to provide facts which can then be independently verified. If the facts harm the reputation of a person or group, then truth should be an absolute defense (although in many countries that's not the case). Otherwise, any anonymous and unsubstantiated accusations should be dismissed out of hand and deemed 'harmless'.
At least she was circulating information ASKING people to do something. Most ultra-left-wingers want the government to FORCE you to do something.
I follow these stories closely and I've never heard of a single incident where an armed citizen interrupting a crime has been mistakenly shot by another armed citizen.
In the U.S., it's the POLICE you need to worry about. They shoot a lot more innocent civilians than armed citizens.
They managed to wound NINE innocent bystanders when they fired a fusillade of bullets at a killer outside the Empire State Building. They killed a little girl in Detroit attempting to execute an arrest warrant on a person that wasn't in that house. In Cleveland, two groups of cops fired 140 bullets at each other across a middle school parking lot after chasing a vehicle onto the property. No weapon was found in the suspect vehicle.
I feel entirely comfortable with my fellow citizens. It's the trigger-happy government employees that worry me.
The idea that a firearm renders you invulnerable is a strawman set up by the anti-gun crowd. No firearms freedom advocates are claiming that carrying a firearm is a panacea for personal safety. A firearm merely gives you a fighting chance against an armed or physically superior attacker.
Speaking of the Boston bombings, are pressure cookers and fireworks banned in your country? Do the anti-gun laws extend into Ireland and did they prevent the IRA from carrying out attacks?
Considering the fact that the criminals didn't attack anyone else in the general vicinity, I don't think their goal was to murder as many people as possible. If they were intent on mass murder, they would have found a means to that end.
Perhaps nothing would have saved the victim, but the odds of his survival would have been much better with a firearm.
The gun manufacturers, like very single other industry, have their own lobbying group. The National Shooting Sports Foundation. The NRA by contrast, is made up of FIVE MILLION dues-paying members. Obviously the members think that the NRA is doing a good job of protecting our civil liberties. Neither the organization, nor the vast majority of the members have any sort of financial stake in the firearms industry.
It's hardly remarkable that the interests of the firearms manufacturers and firearms owners largely coincide. Can you think of an instance where they diverge and where the NRA has sided with the manufacturers?
I don't always agree with the NRA. e.g. I hated the fact that they endorsed Mitt Romney. However, I think they are doing a very good job in protecting our civil liberties. It's the one organization which gives the little people a voice in DC.
He's not the first anti-gun politician to get his "facts" from Hollywood films.
The original "plastic gun" (polymer framed) which Senator Howard Metzenbaum demanded that we ban was a fiction described in the film "Die Hard 2". A character claimed that a Glock ### wouldn't show up on an airport metal detector. Metzenbaum repeated this, only it wasn't in a movie.
I have more sympathy than some here. I know from experience that all of the regulatory hurdles associated with hiring full time employees are a pain in the ass. Going from 0 to 1 is a big leap.
If you can't afford $100K (don't forget benefits, matching FICA taxes, etc.) forget looking for an underling well versed in multiple languages. I think you should be looking for a business partner instead of trying to get a developer on the cheap.
... what was the Xbox before Xbox 2?
What's the next number in the sequence
1, 2, 360, 1 ... ?
If they're dealing with AMD, I think they mean 45nm.