Why do they "owe" "society" money? I guess it is kind of like the idea that everyone else owes me welfare so I can sit around watching TV all day. It is simply some elitists' fantasy, and everyone else loves the idea so they just start thinking it's true.
I can't see that they forced me to buy this 30" and the 24" before that, if anyone owes anyone anything perhaps I owe them because if no one had been bothered to make the monitor I wouldn't have been able to increase my standard of living as much.
Give them back their money, looters.
And I bet the taxes people paid on the monitors were far more than the extra money these companies made, and they just get spent on propping up failed businesses and killing people in the Middle East. Though it is funny how desperate the self-perpetuating propaganda machine is, if it has to do stuff like this to give itself meaning, sad losers.
In a democracy you vote once every two years and get a vague "promise" about a vague set of rather awful services, and everyone knows it sucks but they just go and vote anyway. On the market you have much much more power, rather than writing a letter or ticking little box you can voluntarily make an exchange for a good or service and one person doesn't deliver they can be taken to court. It is such a disgusting double standard, political democracy sucks.
40,000 people die a year on roads just in the US alone, I think that makes the idea of private roads (or at least some other fundamental change to the current system) worthy enough to investigate more than your mind experiment:
". imagine 10 companies bought roads, and used them as they wished, and charged anyone using them anything they wished."
That isn't even an argument. Usually people are subject to economic so law they can't just magic stuff up. Hey! even if this did happen, how would that be any different to now? The government taxes people an insane amount and provides vague and shitty services and then goes around invading other countries.
Say, food is very important, why not let the government nationalise the food industry?! Wouldn't it solve all our problems? Obviously not, it can't even run the postal service. So why do people have such a double standard for government in many areas?
I am blatantly demagoguing the issue by mentioning, again, those 40,000 who die each year on the roads but isn't that alone just worth thinking about the role of government again? If a restaurant went bust people would blame the management, they wouldn't blame factors such as "it was in the wrong location" because that was a managerial/entrepreneurial decision.
And so I'm on topic, I hope they unlicense the whole spectrum! I can't quite see that happening though;-)
" when you go look at the price of Bear Sterns, Countrywide, National City Bank, Lehman Bros, and other stocks"
The Federal Reserve has nothing to do with capitalism and that messes in these markets so don't blame capitalism for how these companies perform, there is no capitalism. Capitalism is saving, the fed just creates more money and encourages people to be in debt. The bubbles don't come from no where.
ideally the laws would be informed by the expertise of engineers
Just let the biggest lobbyists send their engineers to 'help' write the laws, oh wait, I guess that's what happens now. Whose lobbyists? Optimizing for what goal? Working under what incentives?
These kind of laws are what got the system into the mess in the first place.
Last I heard they blew stuff up. You may see impressive results, but you are looking at what you can see. So, what about all the things that would have been made that consumers were actually willing to pay for? How many things haven't been invented and created in the private sector that would have been if loads of scientists, engineers, money and other resources weren't ploughed into making stuff that blows stuff up? A net loss is hardly progressive, sounds rather regressive to me.
You obviously don't understand free speech if you think a private company is infringing on free speech if they cut you off their service. You can't shout "Fire" in someone else's cinema because you don't own it, no difference with cable. Having said that, it is the British Pornographic, I mean Phonographic, Industry that is curtailing free speech because it is trying to tell other people how to use their own property. If someone downloads a track on to a hard disk how in the world can the BPI claim to have authority over it, it is as preposterous as an author claiming to own part of your brain after you've read a book.
Unbridled Capitalism has a nasty tendency towards wealth concentration in the hands of an elite few and the people with all the money almost inevitably seek to control all the levers of political power because it protects, supports and nourishes their economic interests.
I might be arguing semantics, but that's the existence of the state doing that, not capitalism. Under real capitalism people can only get rich by either someone giving them money (perhaps inheritance) or by making a better product than other people that customers are willing to buy (or being lucky with a lottery ticket;P.) Any other ways such stealing and fraud are, by definition, not capitalism because stealing and fraud is obviously not respecting private property. Private property I would think of as the foundation for capitalism. Of course, some people find it easier to use the state to regulate their line of business to shut out competition, or even to lobby for a monopoly etc. Using the state to steal and put barriers in front of other people is not exactly respect of private property, so I would find it pretty difficult to put that under the category of 'capitalism.'
Heh, as another anarcho-capitalist I must say I don't see how "Intellectual Property" is any more than just Imaginary Property. If the content creator owns the information it follows that the author owns part of your brain once you've read a book, that is just nuts. I'm sure utilitarians for centuries have been trying to justify IP but they've failed to change my mind.
Though, on the stuck your flag in it argument seems more like a justification to use violence to take other peoples work away from them. If I homesteaded some land and made it possible to farm then how in the world would anyone else have the right to come and kill me for it... I admit I'm not exactly hot on arguments of transforming something from nature to own it myself, but there are some people who think you just need to stick a flag in it and others believe it needs to be worked. And if you don't acknowledge property rights who owns your mind and your body? Do I own a 6 billionth share?
It is not. It is my birthright, to share with others of my generation.
If you have a right to share it with others of your generation then how did you get the right to do that? You must have owned part of it. You have done some weird thing to spin the argument around to try make it sound different. Or perhaps our language doesn't even have the words to describe what you mean, which says something about human nature.
I'm sure I got a little confused with your arguments, but I guess that shows how confusing "Intellectual Property" is, it simply should not be property it is completely different to physical property. I cannot hurt someone by downloading an MP3 or whatever, they haven't noticed anything. (And I would love them to prove that I would have bought had I not downloaded it...) Of course if I stole a CD from a shop then I am hurting them because they bought the CD.
One thing that confuses the US net neutrality debate is that the ISPs have got massive subsidies in return for apparently better services, which have not occurred. If everyone bit the bullet and accepted they are not going to get them then everything could move on. They have wronged by handing out monopolies and they have wronged by subsidising them. Another wrong isn't going to fix the system. Just allow proper competition. (Yea sorry I didn't get to read this article but i want to go to bed now:) ) Anyway, there was blatantly no net neutrality in the first place.
Excelent, Socialism by Ludwig von Mises is now #2 on a google search for "socialism." It's the book that converted previous liberal democrats like Hayak to free markets. I bet you would have even less faith in government if you read through that.
I had a similar situation, 2x320gb failed in raid5. And guess what, I sent them back to Seagate for replacements and they kindly sent me 400gb, so I was very happy until they BOTH failed a few days after. Oh, and that was after 1 drive failing a few months before. Now I backup with some external drives.
I had read on slashdot to buy drives from different batches and I ignored that advice:( That is really the last time I'm going to be a cheapskate
"But say I couldn't find any land anywhere near where I wanted to live?"
How is that any different to now if I choose random place and think "I want to live there!" but there is already someone else there. I'm not exactly going to get some guns out and force them off, am I?
(Of course I could get the government to do it for me, and claim it was for a virtuous cause, like I'm sure any aspiring demagogue would love to do.)
Neither system provides a completely perfect solution.
I think this is the key point, economics is all about choosing between scare resources. In reality it is up to whether people want to do it by force or by voluntary means. You are trying to turn reality inside out. It's like you're the bully kid with the gun and you're saying that it's against your freedom to shoot people if you are stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do they "owe" "society" money? I guess it is kind of like the idea that everyone else owes me welfare so I can sit around watching TV all day. It is simply some elitists' fantasy, and everyone else loves the idea so they just start thinking it's true.
I can't see that they forced me to buy this 30" and the 24" before that, if anyone owes anyone anything perhaps I owe them because if no one had been bothered to make the monitor I wouldn't have been able to increase my standard of living as much.
Give them back their money, looters.
And I bet the taxes people paid on the monitors were far more than the extra money these companies made, and they just get spent on propping up failed businesses and killing people in the Middle East. Though it is funny how desperate the self-perpetuating propaganda machine is, if it has to do stuff like this to give itself meaning, sad losers.
In a democracy you vote once every two years and get a vague "promise" about a vague set of rather awful services, and everyone knows it sucks but they just go and vote anyway. On the market you have much much more power, rather than writing a letter or ticking little box you can voluntarily make an exchange for a good or service and one person doesn't deliver they can be taken to court. It is such a disgusting double standard, political democracy sucks.
The irony.
40,000 people die a year on roads just in the US alone, I think that makes the idea of private roads (or at least some other fundamental change to the current system) worthy enough to investigate more than your mind experiment:
That isn't even an argument. Usually people are subject to economic so law they can't just magic stuff up. Hey! even if this did happen, how would that be any different to now? The government taxes people an insane amount and provides vague and shitty services and then goes around invading other countries.
Say, food is very important, why not let the government nationalise the food industry?! Wouldn't it solve all our problems? Obviously not, it can't even run the postal service. So why do people have such a double standard for government in many areas?
I am blatantly demagoguing the issue by mentioning, again, those 40,000 who die each year on the roads but isn't that alone just worth thinking about the role of government again? If a restaurant went bust people would blame the management, they wouldn't blame factors such as "it was in the wrong location" because that was a managerial/entrepreneurial decision.
And so I'm on topic, I hope they unlicense the whole spectrum! I can't quite see that happening though ;-)
Can't we have best of both worlds? Perhaps booting instantly a browser and basic apps, and then loading up other stuff in the background?
Or how about it loading up bits that you need, when you need them?
Does this not work in this area or something, what is the scare?
Perhaps I'm igornant and all but apart from playing power games isn't this the whole purpose of government?
The Federal Reserve has nothing to do with capitalism and that messes in these markets so don't blame capitalism for how these companies perform, there is no capitalism. Capitalism is saving, the fed just creates more money and encourages people to be in debt. The bubbles don't come from no where.
Wasn't it a crime in totalitarian states such as the USSR?
Just let the biggest lobbyists send their engineers to 'help' write the laws, oh wait, I guess that's what happens now. Whose lobbyists? Optimizing for what goal? Working under what incentives?
These kind of laws are what got the system into the mess in the first place.
Thinking As A Science by Henry Hazlitt. So I thought I would just throw it in with the other posts :-)
Last I heard they blew stuff up. You may see impressive results, but you are looking at what you can see. So, what about all the things that would have been made that consumers were actually willing to pay for? How many things haven't been invented and created in the private sector that would have been if loads of scientists, engineers, money and other resources weren't ploughed into making stuff that blows stuff up? A net loss is hardly progressive, sounds rather regressive to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
You obviously don't understand free speech if you think a private company is infringing on free speech if they cut you off their service. You can't shout "Fire" in someone else's cinema because you don't own it, no difference with cable. Having said that, it is the British Pornographic, I mean Phonographic, Industry that is curtailing free speech because it is trying to tell other people how to use their own property. If someone downloads a track on to a hard disk how in the world can the BPI claim to have authority over it, it is as preposterous as an author claiming to own part of your brain after you've read a book.
AMD can't compete in the market so they use government against its competitor. Who's the anti-competitive one now?
I might be arguing semantics, but that's the existence of the state doing that, not capitalism. Under real capitalism people can only get rich by either someone giving them money (perhaps inheritance) or by making a better product than other people that customers are willing to buy (or being lucky with a lottery ticket ;P .) Any other ways such stealing and fraud are, by definition, not capitalism because stealing and fraud is obviously not respecting private property. Private property I would think of as the foundation for capitalism. Of course, some people find it easier to use the state to regulate their line of business to shut out competition, or even to lobby for a monopoly etc. Using the state to steal and put barriers in front of other people is not exactly respect of private property, so I would find it pretty difficult to put that under the category of 'capitalism.'
The more efficient the government is the more resources it has to screw you over. Just a thought.
Heh, as another anarcho-capitalist I must say I don't see how "Intellectual Property" is any more than just Imaginary Property. If the content creator owns the information it follows that the author owns part of your brain once you've read a book, that is just nuts. I'm sure utilitarians for centuries have been trying to justify IP but they've failed to change my mind.
Though, on the stuck your flag in it argument seems more like a justification to use violence to take other peoples work away from them. If I homesteaded some land and made it possible to farm then how in the world would anyone else have the right to come and kill me for it... I admit I'm not exactly hot on arguments of transforming something from nature to own it myself, but there are some people who think you just need to stick a flag in it and others believe it needs to be worked. And if you don't acknowledge property rights who owns your mind and your body? Do I own a 6 billionth share?
If you have a right to share it with others of your generation then how did you get the right to do that? You must have owned part of it. You have done some weird thing to spin the argument around to try make it sound different. Or perhaps our language doesn't even have the words to describe what you mean, which says something about human nature.
I'm sure I got a little confused with your arguments, but I guess that shows how confusing "Intellectual Property" is, it simply should not be property it is completely different to physical property. I cannot hurt someone by downloading an MP3 or whatever, they haven't noticed anything. (And I would love them to prove that I would have bought had I not downloaded it...) Of course if I stole a CD from a shop then I am hurting them because they bought the CD.
It just changes, perhaps they will make their money doing live concerts and give their music away for free.
One thing that confuses the US net neutrality debate is that the ISPs have got massive subsidies in return for apparently better services, which have not occurred. If everyone bit the bullet and accepted they are not going to get them then everything could move on. They have wronged by handing out monopolies and they have wronged by subsidising them. Another wrong isn't going to fix the system. Just allow proper competition. (Yea sorry I didn't get to read this article but i want to go to bed now :) ) Anyway, there was blatantly no net neutrality in the first place.
I zoomed in and saw "pimpin.opendns.be" attatched to 1.3.3.7 Has someone been messing with them or something? Anyone else seen any weird ones?
Excelent, Socialism by Ludwig von Mises is now #2 on a google search for "socialism." It's the book that converted previous liberal democrats like Hayak to free markets. I bet you would have even less faith in government if you read through that.
That is like saying only a blind fool believes that theft is theft, murder is murder.
Great, now if only they would hire the best journalists!
I had a similar situation, 2x320gb failed in raid5. And guess what, I sent them back to Seagate for replacements and they kindly sent me 400gb, so I was very happy until they BOTH failed a few days after. Oh, and that was after 1 drive failing a few months before. Now I backup with some external drives.
I had read on slashdot to buy drives from different batches and I ignored that advice :( That is really the last time I'm going to be a cheapskate
How is that any different to now if I choose random place and think "I want to live there!" but there is already someone else there. I'm not exactly going to get some guns out and force them off, am I?
(Of course I could get the government to do it for me, and claim it was for a virtuous cause, like I'm sure any aspiring demagogue would love to do.)
Neither system provides a completely perfect solution.I think this is the key point, economics is all about choosing between scare resources. In reality it is up to whether people want to do it by force or by voluntary means. You are trying to turn reality inside out. It's like you're the bully kid with the gun and you're saying that it's against your freedom to shoot people if you are stopped.