I choose not to remain silent by donating money to organizations that routinely speak out on my views, such as Mises.org, LewRockwell.com, etc. They will eventually make more difference than voting ever will.
Democracy is not a privilege, it is every bit as immoral as any other form of government force. Voting to me really is a complete waste of time, given that it won't change anything. Actually, it costs me time and gas to participate. And after that, I'll still be giving up to 50% of my income to the government with no real alternative. Being able to choose which corrupt, pork-laden politician who will take the money from me is no consolation. Yes, I'd gladly sell my right to vote for an Ipod. Especially an Ipod Touch. Any takers? If so, please reply to this message.
You think artificially low interest rates are a good thing? Well, there is considerable evidence that they are what causes the boom and bust cycles in the economy, so I would say they are quite detrimental to the average joe. The subprime mess the FED has gotten us into would seem to agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory
If you don't vote you don't have the right to complain, no matter how bad your choices are.
Actually, if you vote you have no right to complain, because you essentially agree to participate in a democratic system that is utterly, completely, hopelessly corrupt.
Apple made a conscious decision to use an all touch-screen face, and the reasons are pretty obvious. A physical keyboard takes away from screen space and/or thickness.
Seems like the slide-out keyboard on the upcoming Nokia N810 pretty much takes care of that. Not to mention the 800x480 screen that fits in your pocket. With no expensive data plan included... the list goes on. I'm glad your happy with the iPhone, but I'll be waiting for the N810 to come out.
Did you read the link I provided? Natural monopolies are a myth perpetuated as another excuse for government regulation. As Murray Rothbard said:
The very term "public utility" is an absurd one. Every good is useful
"to the public," and almost every good may be considered "neces-
sary." Any designation of a few industries as "public utilities" is
completely arbitrary and unjustified.
Let there be 3-4 cable companies and utilities competing in my area and watch the price drop and customer service increase.
Perhaps most people assume that they won't be able to enforce it very effectively. How exactly would they know if I play a $1 hold 'em tournament on Poker Stars?
Unless they get their internet from AT&T... hmm it's all coming together now.
Which makes sense, else you'd have power lines from a hundred different companies running through your neighborhood, which more or less used to be the case. In the early days, you had dozens of power companies supplying different electrical needs, using different equipment and voltages and whatnot. The same was true for early phone companies, but it was even worse. So regulation and the formation of a natural monopoly made sense in order to ensure efficient and widespread delivery of power.
You might be interested in reading "The Myth of Natural Monopoly" by Thomas Di Lorenzo: http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf
Personally, I wouldn't mind having a few different providers running cable into my house. I seriously doubt it would really be all that inconvenient. And the added competition could only have the effect of decreasing prices and increasing quality of service. It never makes sense to artificially limit competition when there is no need. And I would say my link demonstrates that there wasn't a need. The following paragraph from the link you posted is very telling:
Early industry leaders began to think that if the franchise granting process and the rates charged by utilities were overseen by a nonpartisan state agency instead of a city council, financing might be easier and cheaper to obtain.
So the main goal of the providers in pushing for state regulation was to make money easier. I don't appreciate people using my tax dollars to line their pockets.
The most meaningful thing we can do to their job security is remove their source of funding. More participation won't change the system in any way. There will simply be more people taking part in the corruption. There's no basis whatsoever for you to say that not paying taxes would lead to a dictatorship. That's is just ridiculous. And paying taxes sure has helped our current crumbling infrastructure. Get real, voting isn't gonna solve anything. Expecting government to spend taxes wisely is the most dangerously naive thing I've ever heard. They obviously haven't been spending our taxes on keeping up bridges. Why would they start now? If you're willing to continue having innocent blood on your hands, by all means keep enabling the people who are doing the killing by giving them your money.
Right. Apple has certainly wrestled control away from the carriers. Now, instead of just paying the carrier blood money and selling our soul for two years, we get to pay both Apple AND the carrier...
Haha, that was my exact response to that statement as well. Actually, I think there's a better chance of Nokia ending this madness than anyone. Their N800/N810 holds some great promise. I really wanted to like the N800 but it just wouldn't connect to the wifi at work. It's not exactly a phone, but I will be keeping a close eye on those devices. I would love to use one as a skype phone (and dump AT&T completely) if the wifi connectivity gets better. The N810 really does look like a great product, and it's completely open.
If Al Gore were in office, your money would still be used to kill innocent people. After seeing how "business as usual" works in Washington for the past 28 years of my life, I have to respectfully disagree that it is capable of changing within. When you think about how so-called top democrats are supporting bills like this, and how they are nothing but paid thugs for the RIAA, I don't see how you can say otherwise. The candidates sponsoring this bill are the ones people elected to office. They are the same ones who repeatedly get elected to office, year in and year out... despite pulling this type of crap. It's time to stop funding this nonsense.
Your kind of mentality is exactly what they expect from people. They that people like you won't try to stand for anything that's right, thus allowing them to do whatever they want with your money. As far as I'm concerned, they do next to nothing that is actually worthwhile. And considering they are using your money to kill innocent people in Iraq, it actually becomes a moral imperative to stop them. Unless, of course, you just don't care what they do, like 50% of this country. The government is not us. It's whoever has enough money to get elected.
Resiting taxes because of corrupt government is not "lunatic fringe". There is a long tradition of this... even practiced by Gandhi. Of course it makes more sense if more people do it. Get enough people involved, and what could the IRS do? Throw millions of people in jail? Democracy itself only functions (poorly I would add) because enough people believe in it. So if enough of us start advocating resistance, it might force these sleaze bag politicians to reconsider what they are doing. Might be more effective than these fluffy orgs like "downsize dc". And there are many methods of tax resistance, including self employment and not filing a return. I am researching what I can right now, and am willing to consider changing how I work in the future.
That sounds all well and good, but IMO the only real way to fight them is to hit em where it hurts - their pocketbook. In other words, stop paying taxes to the federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance
The more people who resist, the more they will have to change their utterly, completely corrupt policies. How can you honestly say it's working when crap like this story keep coming up? Don't get me wrong, I love Ron Paul, and contributed to his campaign, but I still don't think it's possible to place any faith in honest politicians to really change things.
Nobody is getting the money. Less money is paid by the company, by the act of the briber who is lowering the price of their goods. That is worlds different than paying someone to steal something. It is amazing you keep equating this with theft.
The company did not voluntarily select the highest bidder - they hired someone to select the best suited supplier. They were defrauded. Now if you want to argue that this isn't equivalent to theft, then the agent didn't commit a crime either.
How can you say it is fraud when the company doing the purchasing still knows what they are getting for their purchase? The one taking the bribe is the one to blame, not the briber. The briber is simply trying to get a contract.
Well then Mr Entitlement - try living somewhere else. Try living somewhere where the government is weak. And as for the low quality of government - people like you who think paying taxes is such a hard burden have a lot to do with that, and your absurd scheme to promote corruption is yet another contribution to it.
You're accusing me of entitlement? It's the voters who continue to approve greater theft of my money who are the ones that somehow feel entitled to it... even though I am the one who worked for the money. And how do I have something to do with the low quality of government? Your reasoning is stunning. Stunning I tell you.
So you're basing your assessment on one desktop app? I thought we were talking about JME, not J2SE. Anyway, speaking as an enterprise Java developer, for distributed business apps Java is hard to beat.
What's worse is that this will be justified under the guise of anti-terrorism. As bills get passed to erode the freedom of American's, I'm watching the US slowly descend into totalitarianism.
This is nothing new. It was all part of the neoconservative plan against communism before the Soviet Union fell. The new focus on terrorism is allowing them to continue their Big Government agenda. Lest you doubt what I'm saying, here it is straight from William F Buckley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F_Buckley#First_books
We have got to accept Big Government for the duration--for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.... And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington...
He is not offering a discount to the purchaser, he's bribing his agent.
There is no functional difference between a bribe and a discount. In both cases, the company is paying less money for services offered by the briber than would normally be paid. And it's still a voluntary contract. Stealing is not a voluntary contract. Hopefully you'd see the difference.
Says someone who lives in a country which allows him to hold private property, who was able to get a good education, has access to clean water, drives on pulic streets
Yeah... and a government that takes almost half my money (all levels combined). Doesn't seem like a good deal to me. Personally I would rather purchase the services I want voluntarily. The phrase "happiness in slavery" comes to mind. And they're not exactly doing anything to prevent an invasion by a neighboring country. In fact they're doing quite a lot to provoke the wrath of other countries.
All (B) is doing is offering a discount up front for his product. Why should that be illegal, and how does that make our economy less efficient? If I'm the company who accepts the bribe, I am the one who is doing a real disservice to my shareholders in going with a shoddier product. And as far as corrupting the government goes... since the state is completely immoral in the first place, I don't blame people for finding ways to get around their unjust laws and restrictions. Is it too much to ask state officials to not accept the bribe in the first place? They are the ones who are doing us wrong.
So I guess posting your opinions on Google and Facebook and a host of other topics on Slashdot is more secure? Do you not think that anyone could look at the IP address that you posted from and find out anything they want about you?
I don't know, a lot of people value communication with friends. I know I do, and I've been able to reconnect with some old friends on Facebook and Myspace that otherwise I wouldn't have been able to contact.
Slashdot Mirror
I choose not to remain silent by donating money to organizations that routinely speak out on my views, such as Mises.org, LewRockwell.com, etc. They will eventually make more difference than voting ever will.
I prefer to vote with my dollars, the only real form of voting. Thanks for the inspiring comments though.
Democracy is not a privilege, it is every bit as immoral as any other form of government force. Voting to me really is a complete waste of time, given that it won't change anything. Actually, it costs me time and gas to participate. And after that, I'll still be giving up to 50% of my income to the government with no real alternative. Being able to choose which corrupt, pork-laden politician who will take the money from me is no consolation. Yes, I'd gladly sell my right to vote for an Ipod. Especially an Ipod Touch. Any takers? If so, please reply to this message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
You think artificially low interest rates are a good thing? Well, there is considerable evidence that they are what causes the boom and bust cycles in the economy, so I would say they are quite detrimental to the average joe. The subprime mess the FED has gotten us into would seem to agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/11/0342213
I hear tractor beams are much more effective at stopping large mobile objects.
Perhaps most people assume that they won't be able to enforce it very effectively. How exactly would they know if I play a $1 hold 'em tournament on Poker Stars?
Unless they get their internet from AT&T... hmm it's all coming together now.
Like I said, if there were enough people resisting them they might have a hard time enforcing anything.
The most meaningful thing we can do to their job security is remove their source of funding. More participation won't change the system in any way. There will simply be more people taking part in the corruption. There's no basis whatsoever for you to say that not paying taxes would lead to a dictatorship. That's is just ridiculous. And paying taxes sure has helped our current crumbling infrastructure. Get real, voting isn't gonna solve anything. Expecting government to spend taxes wisely is the most dangerously naive thing I've ever heard. They obviously haven't been spending our taxes on keeping up bridges. Why would they start now? If you're willing to continue having innocent blood on your hands, by all means keep enabling the people who are doing the killing by giving them your money.
If Al Gore were in office, your money would still be used to kill innocent people. After seeing how "business as usual" works in Washington for the past 28 years of my life, I have to respectfully disagree that it is capable of changing within. When you think about how so-called top democrats are supporting bills like this, and how they are nothing but paid thugs for the RIAA, I don't see how you can say otherwise. The candidates sponsoring this bill are the ones people elected to office. They are the same ones who repeatedly get elected to office, year in and year out... despite pulling this type of crap. It's time to stop funding this nonsense.
Your kind of mentality is exactly what they expect from people. They that people like you won't try to stand for anything that's right, thus allowing them to do whatever they want with your money. As far as I'm concerned, they do next to nothing that is actually worthwhile. And considering they are using your money to kill innocent people in Iraq, it actually becomes a moral imperative to stop them. Unless, of course, you just don't care what they do, like 50% of this country. The government is not us. It's whoever has enough money to get elected.
Resiting taxes because of corrupt government is not "lunatic fringe". There is a long tradition of this... even practiced by Gandhi. Of course it makes more sense if more people do it. Get enough people involved, and what could the IRS do? Throw millions of people in jail? Democracy itself only functions (poorly I would add) because enough people believe in it. So if enough of us start advocating resistance, it might force these sleaze bag politicians to reconsider what they are doing. Might be more effective than these fluffy orgs like "downsize dc". And there are many methods of tax resistance, including self employment and not filing a return. I am researching what I can right now, and am willing to consider changing how I work in the future.
That sounds all well and good, but IMO the only real way to fight them is to hit em where it hurts - their pocketbook. In other words, stop paying taxes to the federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance The more people who resist, the more they will have to change their utterly, completely corrupt policies. How can you honestly say it's working when crap like this story keep coming up? Don't get me wrong, I love Ron Paul, and contributed to his campaign, but I still don't think it's possible to place any faith in honest politicians to really change things.
So you're basing your assessment on one desktop app? I thought we were talking about JME, not J2SE. Anyway, speaking as an enterprise Java developer, for distributed business apps Java is hard to beat.
All (B) is doing is offering a discount up front for his product. Why should that be illegal, and how does that make our economy less efficient? If I'm the company who accepts the bribe, I am the one who is doing a real disservice to my shareholders in going with a shoddier product. And as far as corrupting the government goes... since the state is completely immoral in the first place, I don't blame people for finding ways to get around their unjust laws and restrictions. Is it too much to ask state officials to not accept the bribe in the first place? They are the ones who are doing us wrong.
So I guess posting your opinions on Google and Facebook and a host of other topics on Slashdot is more secure? Do you not think that anyone could look at the IP address that you posted from and find out anything they want about you?
I don't know, a lot of people value communication with friends. I know I do, and I've been able to reconnect with some old friends on Facebook and Myspace that otherwise I wouldn't have been able to contact.