Technically, the government can't just seize your land; they have to pay you for it. Maybe with beads or smallpox blankets, but they do have to pay for it.
But i don't want to be in your shoes matey. Your democracy is in danger. From the rest of the world : "Please, act now, it's not too late to make critical changes in your great nation"
My recommendation is to stop reading newspapers and watching television "news" programs written by deranged socialist/communist maniacs.
they tend to create an elite "politburo" class of elite rich while everyone else remains poor,
10% of the American population owns 80% of the wealth.
Since I declared the GP poster mentally ill for implicitly drawing the comparisons you are, I guess you should be on anti-psychotic medication as well.
Please, what a lot of fearmongering and nonsense. Communist governments spend vast sums of nonexistant money, they tend to create an elite "politburo" class of elite rich while everyone else remains poor,
By comparing the savage inequalities of power and wealth in communist nations such as Cuba and North Korea with "income inequality" non-issues of freer nations, I can only conclude that you're mentally ill.
they begin wars and conquor countries to control resources they otherwise wouldn't have and couldn't afford,
However, the grant of a monopoly back in 1600 didn't count for an awful lot. Granted, the company could defend it's monopoly in England against English competitors, but the real competition came from other national trading companies. That market, I think you'll agree was very deregulated, if for no other reason than the powerless of the governments involved to enforce their edicts so far from home. The result was the Company setting up its own private army to defend it's interests.
Government monopolies competing with other government monopolies is not a deregulated environment.
Consider how Time Warner Cable benefits from having high HBO prices. HBO is one of the subsidiaries in the Time Warner empire IIRC. They charge a ton for "any cable company" to carry them. This hurts the price competitiveness of all cable/sat providers besides Time Warner cable. Don't know about you, but I consider HBO the must have channel.
If Time Warner charges other cable companies too much, the other cable companies will have to raise subscription rates for their customers. If the subscription rates get too high, average people will start finding out about this thing called "BitTorrent" where they can download all the HBO shows they want for free. A couple months after canceling their HBO subscription, they'll probably figure out the ways they can watch the downloaded video in their living rooms.
Needless to say, Time Warner doesn't see any money from that.
If I remember correctly the East India Company used to maintain a private army to enforce its self proclaimed monopoly over trade in India.
The same East India Company that was repeatedly granted trade monopolies by the British government and later functioned as an arm of the British government?
I know, no one's allowed to compare anything to the Nazis lest we actually learn a lesson from history.
Trouble is, the comparison put forth was bullshit.
Which is "worse" doesn't even concern me. I'm merely drawing parallels (or agreeing with the parallels drawn), and the parallels are many.
There are many "parallels" that may be drawn with Hitler. Most of them are bullshit.
Do you think Hitler went about decrying the poor jew who begged on the streets and hurt no one? No, he decried the jew who oppressed the poor German people due to his wealth, who robbed them with his money-changing ways.
When one reifies an entire group of people, he does not care to take notice of the differences between individuals within such a group.
McCarthy didn't just categorically expel from any influential position people born into a group they didn't choose,
One cannot help it if his parents are commies.
But one can choose whether or not he is a commie himself.
he categorically expelled
McCarthy didn't have the power or authority to expel anyone from anything.
all those who believed in equality, social justice and democracy of the whole people - ie those opposed to American freedom.
To commies, Pol Pot's Cambodia, China under Mao, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, and the USSR were all examples of "equality, social justice and democracy".
More relevantly, there were lots of Jews who were communits and evil bankers, just like Hitler claimed. Being right, or partially right, isn't a difference here.
Comparing McCarthy with Hitler is deranged madness.
Nazis speak of Jews as though they are one uniform conspiratorial group acting in unison. The Nazis intended to murder all Jews.
McCarthy's only interest was in exposing communists in the federal government, and wealthy and priviliged communists in positions of influence. He did not go after all communists. He did not intend to kill communists.
McCarthy claimed that there was a huge communist conspiracy trying to destroy the USA.
If not a huge conspiracy, there were certainly a lot of pinkos in influential positions who received their marching orders from the Kremlin.
He then painted himself the savior of USA,
No, he did not.
who would exterminate communism and rid USA of it.
McCarthy only went after a very small number of privileged and wealthy leftists in positions of influence; Hollywood writers and actors, professors at top universities, etc.
However, he did his best to destroy his victims lives,
He didn't do a very good job of it, considering all 20 or so of his alleged victims remained alive and free.
Without society, those ordinary people can opt to kill me, and if they're successful, then obviously that so-called inalienable human right to life didn't exist in the first place.
If you kill someone who says something you don't like, you forfeit your right to live.
Without society, you can climb up on a rock and declare your right to free speech, but if I don't like what you're saying and I decide to kill you because of it, then
Ordinary people will see you as a threat to themselves, and you will then be killed.
Despite its near-mythical status in the computer industry, all of the Cairo technologies are now available except one.
RPC shipped in Windows NT 3.1. The User Interface shipped (in stripped-down form) in Windows 95. X.500 shipped as part of Active Directory in Windows 2000. X.400 shipped as part of Microsoft Exchange Server. Content Indexing is now a part of Internet Information Server and MSN Search.
The remaining component is the object file system, now called WinFS. It was originally planned as part of Windows Vista but has currently been removed. Microsoft says it is going to be added back in as a product update and has made a beta release of the technology available to MSDN subscribers.
The thing is, a lot of that media in the ground, though owned (on paper) by the big players, was laid with taxpayer monies.
Yes, I know a lot of that copper is put there at the expense of private corporations, and that is a whole different argument. But a sizeable amount of the media in the ground is put there by municipalities or state or even in some cases federal funding. Taxpayers allow it because, frankly, it makes our lives easier no matter who owns it.
How much is a "sizable amount"? How much media was paid for with taxpayer funds?
Can you be seized if you received federal student grants at one point in time?
Two years ago, I took the job of Internet Marketing Manager for a international company, with a crazy idea that I could convince senior management that the internet wasn't a fad.
Two years ago? A lot of people were convinced of that ten years ago.
Not only do URLs not open in explorer.exe windows, IE 7 won't browse local folders in its own window. I used to run instances of IE 6 as an administrator for this reason, so I could easily access local programs, files and folders with administrative privileges (and yes, I was careful to avoid accessing anything on the Internet other than Windows Update when using IE 6 in this manner).
While that is still up for debate, if said reports do exists one would think that they would have been better publicized?
Capitol Hill Blue is questionable, but the article itself was originally published February 24 in the Providence Journal. A Google News search for Walter Soehnge reveals additional sources.
Or would you also leave them for someone who needs them but can't afford to pay for them ?
Paying for organ transplants would be the proper role of a private health insurance plan, or charity for those who can't pay up front.
As it is now, there are probably a lot of people like me who won't donate because there's simply nothing in it for us. That means far more people in need of organ transplants are simply up shit creek than otherwise would be.
When selling your organs is illegal, only criminals will sell organs.
If I want to sell my dead body for a certain price, get some extra cash for my beneficiaries, why the hell can't I?
Agreed.
I would love to leave my organs for someone who needs them. But unfortunately, since it's currently "illegal" to sell them, my estate won't receive any money to give to heirs, or pay funeral costs, debts, etc. That being the case, my organs will either be worm food, or ashes.
Slashdot Mirror
Another student of the fake Indian, I take it?
My recommendation is to stop reading newspapers and watching television "news" programs written by deranged socialist/communist maniacs.
Since I declared the GP poster mentally ill for implicitly drawing the comparisons you are, I guess you should be on anti-psychotic medication as well.
By comparing the savage inequalities of power and wealth in communist nations such as Cuba and North Korea with "income inequality" non-issues of freer nations, I can only conclude that you're mentally ill.
Iraq sure doesn't look very "conquored" to me.
Where's all the oil we have supposedly "stolen"?
Government monopolies competing with other government monopolies is not a deregulated environment.
If Time Warner charges other cable companies too much, the other cable companies will have to raise subscription rates for their customers. If the subscription rates get too high, average people will start finding out about this thing called "BitTorrent" where they can download all the HBO shows they want for free. A couple months after canceling their HBO subscription, they'll probably figure out the ways they can watch the downloaded video in their living rooms.
Needless to say, Time Warner doesn't see any money from that.
The same East India Company that was repeatedly granted trade monopolies by the British government and later functioned as an arm of the British government?
Mercantilism is not capitalism.
They don't, and ISPs scanning certain parts of packet headers aren't looking at the data.
So should FedEx also be held "accountable" if someone uses their service to send child porn?
Trouble is, the comparison put forth was bullshit.
There are many "parallels" that may be drawn with Hitler. Most of them are bullshit.
When one reifies an entire group of people, he does not care to take notice of the differences between individuals within such a group.
One cannot help it if his parents are commies.
But one can choose whether or not he is a commie himself.
McCarthy didn't have the power or authority to expel anyone from anything.
To commies, Pol Pot's Cambodia, China under Mao, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, and the USSR were all examples of "equality, social justice and democracy".
Comparing McCarthy with Hitler is deranged madness.
Nazis speak of Jews as though they are one uniform conspiratorial group acting in unison. The Nazis intended to murder all Jews.
McCarthy's only interest was in exposing communists in the federal government, and wealthy and priviliged communists in positions of influence. He did not go after all communists. He did not intend to kill communists.
If not a huge conspiracy, there were certainly a lot of pinkos in influential positions who received their marching orders from the Kremlin.
He then painted himself the savior of USA,
No, he did not.
who would exterminate communism and rid USA of it.
McCarthy only went after a very small number of privileged and wealthy leftists in positions of influence; Hollywood writers and actors, professors at top universities, etc.
However, he did his best to destroy his victims lives,
He didn't do a very good job of it, considering all 20 or so of his alleged victims remained alive and free.
A virtually impossible task if normal people see you as a threat to their lives.
If you kill someone who says something you don't like, you forfeit your right to live.
Ordinary people will see you as a threat to themselves, and you will then be killed.
Rights are not "granted" by "society".
All of the Cairo technologies are available, with the exception of the file system. I wouldn't call that a 'blunder'.
From Wikipedia:
When you run to Big Brother to solve your problems, you should expect to get fucked in the ass.
Yes, I know a lot of that copper is put there at the expense of private corporations, and that is a whole different argument. But a sizeable amount of the media in the ground is put there by municipalities or state or even in some cases federal funding. Taxpayers allow it because, frankly, it makes our lives easier no matter who owns it.
How much is a "sizable amount"? How much media was paid for with taxpayer funds?
Can you be seized if you received federal student grants at one point in time?
Considering the name you chose, I think I have a good idea of what you have in mind.
Two years ago? A lot of people were convinced of that ten years ago.
Not only do URLs not open in explorer.exe windows, IE 7 won't browse local folders in its own window. I used to run instances of IE 6 as an administrator for this reason, so I could easily access local programs, files and folders with administrative privileges (and yes, I was careful to avoid accessing anything on the Internet other than Windows Update when using IE 6 in this manner).
This new behavior is probably for the best.
So which of the 9/11 hijackers were poor?
Capitol Hill Blue is questionable, but the article itself was originally published February 24 in the Providence Journal. A Google News search for Walter Soehnge reveals additional sources.
Paying for organ transplants would be the proper role of a private health insurance plan, or charity for those who can't pay up front.
As it is now, there are probably a lot of people like me who won't donate because there's simply nothing in it for us. That means far more people in need of organ transplants are simply up shit creek than otherwise would be.
Agreed.
I would love to leave my organs for someone who needs them. But unfortunately, since it's currently "illegal" to sell them, my estate won't receive any money to give to heirs, or pay funeral costs, debts, etc. That being the case, my organs will either be worm food, or ashes.