As Murray Rothbard adeptly shows in America's Great Depression, it was government intervention in the marketplace, not unfettered capitalism, which caused the greatest economic crisis of our time.
Oh yeah, and just so you know I've never read any of Rand's writings. I have Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard to thank for their great contributions to individual freedom.
The proper response to Rand inspired idiots like yourself, is to start quoting Marx.
Removing regulations and allowing unfettered capitalism is a very good way to awake class consciousness in the proletariat.
Why don't we ask Russia how well Marx's system works. I'm sure the millions of people murdered under their collectivist system would wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments.
This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of capitalism.
I'm afraid that you, good sir, are the one who does not understand how free markets work. The reason our "capitalism" has collapsed into cartels and monopolies is that we have seen a vast influx of socialism into our modern system.
Government regulations are never fair. They almost always favor a select few who have something to gain from these restricitons. In other words, it is nothing more than pure cronyism. The market always finds ways to fund the things that are of the most public worth, precisely because people always spend their own hard earned money on what is worth the most to them.
I don't see how you can say that monopolies aren't so bad, and in the same breath claim they are managed badly. The reason they are managed badly is because they are in fact a government granted monpopoly. They don't have to worry about going out of business due to lack of service or customer satisfaction. I would like to see even one government granted monopoly that's not managed badly and doesn't give horrible service.
The real problem is the wonderfully corrupt US government who is making these intellectual property laws in the first place. Anyone can get laws passed if they throw enough money at important members of congress.
One time while going to a concert in Detroit, myself and a group of friends decided to stop at a bar downtown before hand. Things seemed kind of different in there for a moment, and when we looked around we started to notice some guys talking to each other and a few rainbows posted around the place. Since none of us are gay, it was fun laughing about how none of us noticed the type of place we were going into.
It seems like having people's interests on there is kind of the whole point of social networking though. I actually found things out about regular friends that I didn't even know by reading their Facebook profiles. But, I personally don't put all that much info on mine. And as soon as it turns into a glut of advertising I'll probably stop using it.
And it's not exactly exploitation when people are giving up their information to build networks of friends. It's an exchange of value where both parties are benefitting. Ah, the gloriy of markets.
You make some good points, but where you lost me somewhat was here:
By making it difficult to impossible to pass documents easily to other programs, Microsoft has forced a monopoly of convenience. An ODF standard, with enough large organization participants, can make interactivity simpler, make translation seamless, and open the door for other players in the Office Suite game.
Microsoft only has guns/monopoly because of government protection of their patents. Without this cartel, open standards would probably be much more in use than they are now. In a market setting, MS would only have power so long as their products are able to maintain relevance. Otherwise customers wouldn't be forking over cash to them left and right.
Yes, I suppose ODF is open precisely because it can be used by anyone, including the government. I don't know, maybe I'll have to go back and rethink some things.
If you really wanted to discuss what I believe, I think you'd want to at least be a little more civil rather than resorting to name calling. I was trying to be a little more civil in my post than I have been in the past but I guess it's still lost on some people.
Yes, I do believe all governments, including the USA, are evil. Also, your point about them being in bed with Microsoft is well taken.
I have a lot of reservations about getting the government involved with open source standards. The whole idea of government in the first place seems anti open source, anti competitive to me.
Then there are privacy concerns. Nowadays, governments all over the world are bent on destroying our civil liberties. Especially since they are so involved in forcing DRM and copyrights on us. Once they are involved, what's to stop them from forcing design decisions upon the standards which make it easier for them to control and watch us?
Also, governments have a great track record of using technology to kill, murder and destroy societies. I wasn't personally involved with ODF, but if I was, and saw that they made the government more effecient killing machines in war, I know I would definitely be opposed to this usage.
So here's a question for you: Is murder ok as long as it's done by the State? Because history has shown that war (murder) is the unquestionable result of concentrating a whole nation's resources in one stong government. Regardless of whether you are dealing with fascism, democracy, communism, etc. Maybe you wouldn't get away with it, but our government gets away with it every day.
I disagree. Like I said in another post, I was born here and this is where my life is. I shouldn't have to leave just because I don't like people's greedy little hands in my wallet. And any other country I go to will have the same problem.
I don't like your post, so I think you should leave. There now, doesn't that make you feel great?
What you're saying is like saying that cable thievery is justified, because the cable company is stealing from people by charging for their service.
The cable service is not thievery because you are entering into a direct, voluntary agreement with them, to give them money so you can view their programming. Moreover, if you grow tired of this programming you are free to cancel this service and remain free from any further obligation with them. I never entered into such a voluntary agreement with the US government.
So who's the thief, here, again? The government providing services and charging for them, or the person taking advantage of the country while not contributing?
Once again, I never agreed to receive any of these services. They are pretty much forced on me by virtue of being born and raised in this country. Furthermore, if I don't like the services there are no other options for me but to accept.
If they don't want to pay taxes, then they can move somewhere they don't have to pay taxes. If they want to stay here and take advantage of what the country offers, then they need to realize that they have a responsibility as a citizen to pay the taxes.
Why should I be forced to move from my home where I was born and raised because I don't want to pay these thugs who are extorting money from me? I would like to move somewhere where I don't have to pay any taxes but I don't think there's any such place in the world that exists, besides desert islands. And saying that I should move to a desert island if I don't want to be extorted isn't exactly a fair proposition.
By living in the United States, a citizen agrees to give a percentage of their own income to the government. That's one of the rules of this club that we're all in. If you don't like that, you are free to leave and join a different club.
I don't recall personally signing any documents stating this agreement. If you have it I would gladly like to see. Thanks.
Trade involves a voluntary transaction between two parties. Taxes are not trade because if I don't want to pay them, I have to go to jail. End of story.
You gain benefit from the actions of the government, and in return, if you are able, you pay taxes.
The benefits I get are for the United States government to spend my money taking over foreign countries, installing harsh dictators all over the world, and imprisoning its own citizens for doing things that should be legal in a truely free society. Sorry but no thanks. Any direct benefit that I receive personally is so small that it would probably cost a small percentage of everyone's taxes.
Just because you didn't ask the govenment to do these things for you does not release you from this arrangement.
I don't see any reason why not. If the government's services really are necessary, people would gladly volunteer to pay for them. Right?
If you would like to suggest improvements to this arrangement, please, be bold and post themere. We'd love to hear from you.
I would suggest allowing people the choice of paying for the services they would like to receive. Anything else isn't really freedom.
Why was the parent modded funny? Am I completely missing a sarcastic joke here or what?
IMHO, taxes are nothing more than theft, and I have no moral problems with those who are able to find ways to get out of it. Just because the government has the ability to steal money from you at gunpoint doesn't mean they are right in doing so. However, if you are comfortable with financing the murder of thousands/millions of foreigners, as well as the burgeoning police State at home, by all means rail against those who refuse to do so.
Oh no, not the "Giant Laser". I suppose they will also turn the moon into a "Death Star" to shoot it from. And I guess we'll all have to watch out when Mini Bush (Bush Jr) starts humping it.
Well ok, it's not quite as funny online. Guess you have to imagine those quotes are actually air quotes.
The various governments of the US are in bed with large corporations. So what else is new? I think it's been like this for awhile now. It's funny, the very people who are charged with protecting us from these so called evil companies abusive consumer practices are pandering to them left and right. This is what you get when the government has the power to grow uncontrollably and make practically any new laws they want. Sure they still need a majority, but with how things are going the majority who are in control are only interested in furthering their own wealth and power at the expense of the rest of us.
I figured if 1 million freedom lovers would each spend US$1000 a year and hire our own law firm permanently, we could continuously file lawsuits against every government agency for the slightest constitution (State or National) violation. Keep THEM bottled up in lawsuits and they will leave us alone. Or go bankrupt fighting them.
They would probably send their security thugs after us and make our life generally difficult. Going bankrupt might be the most likely result. Even a billion dollars a year can't hope to match the resource of taxes stolen from 260 million people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that money would be better spent in assisting the poor and helpless living in streets and ghettos. We could probably gain a large following through charity. Basically, rather than fight the government, pour our resources into beating it at what it's supposed to do.
I think the State already has more promises than it can ever hope to fulfill. The people living on the handouts just haven't realized it yet. It's only a matter of time until the credit bubble bursts and it falls under its own weight.
I also don't want to move out of the US. I think when people say you should move if you don't like it are totally missing the point. This is my home and it's much better to stay and try to make things better.
So, I guess we should actually vote for every single tax increase and restraint on freedom that gets proposed...
The theaters are threatened because a lot of people DO prefer watching movies at home, and they're losing their major advantage. If they don't like it, they should try to make their experience better, not bitch and moan about quick DVD releases.
I am definitely one of those who prefer watching DVDs at home. Not only that, since I've had a widescreen television the viewing experience really isn't that much worse either. Eventually I plan on moving up to a projecter too. Also since I'm now on netflix full time (screw that $100/month digital cable) it would be even better if I could watch new releases.
It's a pretty rare occasion that I go to a theater nowadays. And that's only when there's a movie I really really want to see. Like, for instance, I'm going to see V for Vendetta, which will be my first movie of the year.
Slashdot Mirror
As Murray Rothbard adeptly shows in America's Great Depression, it was government intervention in the marketplace, not unfettered capitalism, which caused the greatest economic crisis of our time.
Oh yeah, and just so you know I've never read any of Rand's writings. I have Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard to thank for their great contributions to individual freedom.
Removing regulations and allowing unfettered capitalism is a very good way to awake class consciousness in the proletariat.
Why don't we ask Russia how well Marx's system works. I'm sure the millions of people murdered under their collectivist system would wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments.
Would you care to elaborate or are you just trying to dismiss my views because you don't agree with them?
I'm afraid that you, good sir, are the one who does not understand how free markets work. The reason our "capitalism" has collapsed into cartels and monopolies is that we have seen a vast influx of socialism into our modern system.
Government regulations are never fair. They almost always favor a select few who have something to gain from these restricitons. In other words, it is nothing more than pure cronyism. The market always finds ways to fund the things that are of the most public worth, precisely because people always spend their own hard earned money on what is worth the most to them.
I don't see how you can say that monopolies aren't so bad, and in the same breath claim they are managed badly. The reason they are managed badly is because they are in fact a government granted monpopoly. They don't have to worry about going out of business due to lack of service or customer satisfaction. I would like to see even one government granted monopoly that's not managed badly and doesn't give horrible service.
The real problem is the wonderfully corrupt US government who is making these intellectual property laws in the first place. Anyone can get laws passed if they throw enough money at important members of congress.
As a Java programmer, please allow me to roll my eyes and groan.
Damn, I should have tried this on my ex girlfriend when she broke up with me. Maybe there's still hope after all - she's quite a coffee addict...
One time while going to a concert in Detroit, myself and a group of friends decided to stop at a bar downtown before hand. Things seemed kind of different in there for a moment, and when we looked around we started to notice some guys talking to each other and a few rainbows posted around the place. Since none of us are gay, it was fun laughing about how none of us noticed the type of place we were going into.
And it's not exactly exploitation when people are giving up their information to build networks of friends. It's an exchange of value where both parties are benefitting. Ah, the gloriy of markets.
By making it difficult to impossible to pass documents easily to other programs, Microsoft has forced a monopoly of convenience. An ODF standard, with enough large organization participants, can make interactivity simpler, make translation seamless, and open the door for other players in the Office Suite game.
Microsoft only has guns/monopoly because of government protection of their patents. Without this cartel, open standards would probably be much more in use than they are now. In a market setting, MS would only have power so long as their products are able to maintain relevance. Otherwise customers wouldn't be forking over cash to them left and right.
Yes, I suppose ODF is open precisely because it can be used by anyone, including the government. I don't know, maybe I'll have to go back and rethink some things.
Yes, I do believe all governments, including the USA, are evil. Also, your point about them being in bed with Microsoft is well taken.
I have a lot of reservations about getting the government involved with open source standards. The whole idea of government in the first place seems anti open source, anti competitive to me.
Then there are privacy concerns. Nowadays, governments all over the world are bent on destroying our civil liberties. Especially since they are so involved in forcing DRM and copyrights on us. Once they are involved, what's to stop them from forcing design decisions upon the standards which make it easier for them to control and watch us?
Also, governments have a great track record of using technology to kill, murder and destroy societies. I wasn't personally involved with ODF, but if I was, and saw that they made the government more effecient killing machines in war, I know I would definitely be opposed to this usage.
So here's a question for you: Is murder ok as long as it's done by the State? Because history has shown that war (murder) is the unquestionable result of concentrating a whole nation's resources in one stong government. Regardless of whether you are dealing with fascism, democracy, communism, etc. Maybe you wouldn't get away with it, but our government gets away with it every day.
I disagree. Like I said in another post, I was born here and this is where my life is. I shouldn't have to leave just because I don't like people's greedy little hands in my wallet. And any other country I go to will have the same problem.
I don't like your post, so I think you should leave. There now, doesn't that make you feel great?
The cable service is not thievery because you are entering into a direct, voluntary agreement with them, to give them money so you can view their programming. Moreover, if you grow tired of this programming you are free to cancel this service and remain free from any further obligation with them. I never entered into such a voluntary agreement with the US government.
So who's the thief, here, again? The government providing services and charging for them, or the person taking advantage of the country while not contributing?
Once again, I never agreed to receive any of these services. They are pretty much forced on me by virtue of being born and raised in this country. Furthermore, if I don't like the services there are no other options for me but to accept.
If they don't want to pay taxes, then they can move somewhere they don't have to pay taxes. If they want to stay here and take advantage of what the country offers, then they need to realize that they have a responsibility as a citizen to pay the taxes.
Why should I be forced to move from my home where I was born and raised because I don't want to pay these thugs who are extorting money from me? I would like to move somewhere where I don't have to pay any taxes but I don't think there's any such place in the world that exists, besides desert islands. And saying that I should move to a desert island if I don't want to be extorted isn't exactly a fair proposition.
I don't recall personally signing any documents stating this agreement. If you have it I would gladly like to see. Thanks.
Trade involves a voluntary transaction between two parties. Taxes are not trade because if I don't want to pay them, I have to go to jail. End of story.
You gain benefit from the actions of the government, and in return, if you are able, you pay taxes.
The benefits I get are for the United States government to spend my money taking over foreign countries, installing harsh dictators all over the world, and imprisoning its own citizens for doing things that should be legal in a truely free society. Sorry but no thanks. Any direct benefit that I receive personally is so small that it would probably cost a small percentage of everyone's taxes.
Just because you didn't ask the govenment to do these things for you does not release you from this arrangement.
I don't see any reason why not. If the government's services really are necessary, people would gladly volunteer to pay for them. Right?
If you would like to suggest improvements to this arrangement, please, be bold and post themere. We'd love to hear from you.
I would suggest allowing people the choice of paying for the services they would like to receive. Anything else isn't really freedom.
IMHO, taxes are nothing more than theft, and I have no moral problems with those who are able to find ways to get out of it. Just because the government has the ability to steal money from you at gunpoint doesn't mean they are right in doing so. However, if you are comfortable with financing the murder of thousands/millions of foreigners, as well as the burgeoning police State at home, by all means rail against those who refuse to do so.
Well ok, it's not quite as funny online. Guess you have to imagine those quotes are actually air quotes.
The various governments of the US are in bed with large corporations. So what else is new? I think it's been like this for awhile now. It's funny, the very people who are charged with protecting us from these so called evil companies abusive consumer practices are pandering to them left and right. This is what you get when the government has the power to grow uncontrollably and make practically any new laws they want. Sure they still need a majority, but with how things are going the majority who are in control are only interested in furthering their own wealth and power at the expense of the rest of us.
They would probably send their security thugs after us and make our life generally difficult. Going bankrupt might be the most likely result. Even a billion dollars a year can't hope to match the resource of taxes stolen from 260 million people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that money would be better spent in assisting the poor and helpless living in streets and ghettos. We could probably gain a large following through charity. Basically, rather than fight the government, pour our resources into beating it at what it's supposed to do.
I also don't want to move out of the US. I think when people say you should move if you don't like it are totally missing the point. This is my home and it's much better to stay and try to make things better.
So, I guess we should actually vote for every single tax increase and restraint on freedom that gets proposed...
I am definitely one of those who prefer watching DVDs at home. Not only that, since I've had a widescreen television the viewing experience really isn't that much worse either. Eventually I plan on moving up to a projecter too. Also since I'm now on netflix full time (screw that $100/month digital cable) it would be even better if I could watch new releases.
It's a pretty rare occasion that I go to a theater nowadays. And that's only when there's a movie I really really want to see. Like, for instance, I'm going to see V for Vendetta, which will be my first movie of the year.