10^100's search engine belongs to it. It can make the results whatever it wants. It can get rid of Yahoo and MSN. It can make Google.com the only result. And people can use their freedom of association and use another browser. Most of these antitrust suits are pandering to irrational dislike of corporations. They also represent dangerous government control over free entities.
It is my belief that monopolies should not be regulated unless they are inevitable(some utilities). If everyone chooses to buy Windows/use 10^100 how is it Microsoft/10^100 's fault? People, not governments, can regulate the companies with freedom of association.
The artist did sell it legitimately, although he probably could have gotten more money from his work if he sold it on eBay. I like the carvings too. Hm... maybe there is a business proposition here. Someone acting as a middleman for these artists could make money while still rewarding them for their work. People are willing to pay $1000+ for such things(Specifically stone Inuit carvings, in my experience).
This is probably my favorite anti-scam. The scammer, who is not poor or suffering (He has a team helping him scam people, it seems very organized), loses money, and the artist who made the sculptures got paid. And the anti-scammer is rewarded with nice sculptures.
If they speak of a deadline to a "deployment" on various places around the world, but they are not forthcoming as to what they are talking about, and they are visited by federal agents, you might have cause to be worried.
Does not running SETI@home really save energy (Not for the person running it, but overall)? SETI is still going to be done, it will just take longer because you are not participating. This is even more true for important medical projects. You will have helped it be completed faster, so although more electricity is being used at one time, it will not be used as long.
Pat Robertson has not raised a paramilitary of indoctrinated people who kill innocent people and themselves to further his goals. What Bin Laden claims is just a front to get supporters.
He says those things to try to get support, but he wants to turn the world into a muslim theocracy. Our foreign policy did not create Al Qaeda, although it may have provided them a few extra points to be made in recruiting. Al Qaeda is based on the desire of it's leaders to convert, enslave, or kill all non-muslims. Anything else is just a front to get supporters. I'm not saying that America's foreign policy is perfect, but it is not the cause of Al Qaeda and similar groups.
Bin Laden objects to anyone not being muslim, and desires to convert, enslave, or kill all non-muslims. Your "Joe Sixpack" stands against tyranny and would not murder innocent people.
Bin Laden wants to convert, enslave, or kill everyone who is not muslim. Someone truly standing up for the spirit of the second amendment wants to oppose a tyrannical government.
they're just reacting to the widespread theft their product
That's true, and I have little sympathy for the pirates who this affects. On the other hand, if I was using Windows it would not be comforting to know that Microsoft could turn off my computer. And as for the way this tells Windows to turn off, how hard will it be for hackers to access it?
They probably shouldn't go to prison, as it is a waste of taxpayer's money to pay for a nonviolent criminal living in prison. But rehab? That will cost more, and it's not the taxpayers' responsibility to pay for drug addicts' mistakes. Community service or fines seems better to me.
Ideologically, it might be, but no one is is going to vote for someone who advocates letting minors use illegal drugs. Beyond that, drugs are more dangerous than television, books, or music.
Corporations (or individuals) would not be allowed to use force to coerce someone into doing something. Thus, they would not have the power of a government, nor any power over you that you do not let them have. Ensuring this is one of the reasons to have a government.
Most libertarians believe that (currently) illegal drugs should only be legal for adults. Minors don't have the full responsibility of adults to take care of themselves. There are also a lot of more moderate ones who believe that taxing them is okay, especially if it can help lower other taxes. Their main reason for supporting legalization of drugs is that it would lower black market crime, and end up saving lives, although ideology is obviously an important reason.
A private road system would be a monopoly in most cases. I would prefer a system where all road construction and maintenance is done by contracted businesses, and you pay for roads as you use them. This would create competition for the contracts (as long as we were vigilant in monitoring our representatives for corruption), and let people pay for what they use (which would encourage using alternative transportation).
I fully support free trade and strongly oppose subsidies.
Intellectual property is a conundrum. You've mentioned downsides, having to pay royalties for medicine being one, but would that medicine have been invented if there was no incentive to do so? If anyone could remake it after your discovery, you wouldn't make any more money than if you waited for someone else to discover it.
You're right that they should use free solutions. On the other hand, donations from people and organizations like Gates do a lot more than government social programs. Governments always have corruption, and in third world countries it is horrendous. Incompetency is also rampant. Even profit-seeking businesses will do more. In some poor countries there are private schools that cost people less than public schools(if they weren't forced to pay for public schools), take some students in for free, and provide better education.
You're right that responsible governance is needed, but that will not happen until the situation of the people there is improved. They cannot monitor and control their government when it is very hard to find food and medical care.
"International community that tries to help them." That could be interpreted in many ways. Governments of developed nations spend a lot on foreign aid, and it generally funds corruption or leads to more dependency. All the while, independent altruists actually help the people there, sometimes with education or medical care, and businesses, commonly reputed as evil and greedy, help to provide jobs, however low paying they may be, for people who did not have them before.
Well if what the rentier is doing is so easy, why aren't the "real workers" doing it? Could it possibly be that what the rentier does takes skill? Or that he had to do "real work" for years, and not waste his money, to get in the position he is in?
If the consumers cared, then not charging content providers would be effective marketing. If they don't, why would you regulate the ISPs, even if you feel that the government has the right to do so.
I have several choices for internet access. Cable, the phone company, and speakeasy/earthlink/etc. Eventually, there will also be fiber optic and wireless.
Slashdot Mirror
10^100's search engine belongs to it. It can make the results whatever it wants. It can get rid of Yahoo and MSN. It can make Google.com the only result. And people can use their freedom of association and use another browser. Most of these antitrust suits are pandering to irrational dislike of corporations. They also represent dangerous government control over free entities.
It is my belief that monopolies should not be regulated unless they are inevitable(some utilities). If everyone chooses to buy Windows/use 10^100 how is it Microsoft/10^100 's fault? People, not governments, can regulate the companies with freedom of association.
The artist did sell it legitimately, although he probably could have gotten more money from his work if he sold it on eBay. I like the carvings too. Hm... maybe there is a business proposition here. Someone acting as a middleman for these artists could make money while still rewarding them for their work. People are willing to pay $1000+ for such things(Specifically stone Inuit carvings, in my experience).
This is probably my favorite anti-scam. The scammer, who is not poor or suffering (He has a team helping him scam people, it seems very organized), loses money, and the artist who made the sculptures got paid. And the anti-scammer is rewarded with nice sculptures.
O -Joke
/\
/\
/. says my post has too few words per line, I'll type more here.
*whoosh*
O -You
|
Is that clear? And, since
If they speak of a deadline to a "deployment" on various places around the world, but they are not forthcoming as to what they are talking about, and they are visited by federal agents, you might have cause to be worried.
Does not running SETI@home really save energy (Not for the person running it, but overall)? SETI is still going to be done, it will just take longer because you are not participating. This is even more true for important medical projects. You will have helped it be completed faster, so although more electricity is being used at one time, it will not be used as long.
Pat Robertson has not raised a paramilitary of indoctrinated people who kill innocent people and themselves to further his goals. What Bin Laden claims is just a front to get supporters.
He says those things to try to get support, but he wants to turn the world into a muslim theocracy. Our foreign policy did not create Al Qaeda, although it may have provided them a few extra points to be made in recruiting. Al Qaeda is based on the desire of it's leaders to convert, enslave, or kill all non-muslims. Anything else is just a front to get supporters. I'm not saying that America's foreign policy is perfect, but it is not the cause of Al Qaeda and similar groups.
So you go from tyranny by a corrupt state to a state where everyone is a slave to the state?
Bin Laden objects to anyone not being muslim, and desires to convert, enslave, or kill all non-muslims. Your "Joe Sixpack" stands against tyranny and would not murder innocent people.
Bin Laden wants to convert, enslave, or kill everyone who is not muslim. Someone truly standing up for the spirit of the second amendment wants to oppose a tyrannical government.
they're just reacting to the widespread theft their product
That's true, and I have little sympathy for the pirates who this affects. On the other hand, if I was using Windows it would not be comforting to know that Microsoft could turn off my computer. And as for the way this tells Windows to turn off, how hard will it be for hackers to access it?
They probably shouldn't go to prison, as it is a waste of taxpayer's money to pay for a nonviolent criminal living in prison. But rehab? That will cost more, and it's not the taxpayers' responsibility to pay for drug addicts' mistakes. Community service or fines seems better to me.
Ideologically, it might be, but no one is is going to vote for someone who advocates letting minors use illegal drugs. Beyond that, drugs are more dangerous than television, books, or music.
Corporations (or individuals) would not be allowed to use force to coerce someone into doing something. Thus, they would not have the power of a government, nor any power over you that you do not let them have. Ensuring this is one of the reasons to have a government.
Most libertarians believe that (currently) illegal drugs should only be legal for adults. Minors don't have the full responsibility of adults to take care of themselves. There are also a lot of more moderate ones who believe that taxing them is okay, especially if it can help lower other taxes. Their main reason for supporting legalization of drugs is that it would lower black market crime, and end up saving lives, although ideology is obviously an important reason.
A private road system would be a monopoly in most cases. I would prefer a system where all road construction and maintenance is done by contracted businesses, and you pay for roads as you use them. This would create competition for the contracts (as long as we were vigilant in monitoring our representatives for corruption), and let people pay for what they use (which would encourage using alternative transportation).
They have cards such that when you pass a toll it automatically charges you and you don't have to stop.
I fully support free trade and strongly oppose subsidies.
Intellectual property is a conundrum. You've mentioned downsides, having to pay royalties for medicine being one, but would that medicine have been invented if there was no incentive to do so? If anyone could remake it after your discovery, you wouldn't make any more money than if you waited for someone else to discover it.
You're right that they should use free solutions. On the other hand, donations from people and organizations like Gates do a lot more than government social programs. Governments always have corruption, and in third world countries it is horrendous. Incompetency is also rampant. Even profit-seeking businesses will do more. In some poor countries there are private schools that cost people less than public schools(if they weren't forced to pay for public schools), take some students in for free, and provide better education. You're right that responsible governance is needed, but that will not happen until the situation of the people there is improved. They cannot monitor and control their government when it is very hard to find food and medical care. "International community that tries to help them." That could be interpreted in many ways. Governments of developed nations spend a lot on foreign aid, and it generally funds corruption or leads to more dependency. All the while, independent altruists actually help the people there, sometimes with education or medical care, and businesses, commonly reputed as evil and greedy, help to provide jobs, however low paying they may be, for people who did not have them before.
Well if what the rentier is doing is so easy, why aren't the "real workers" doing it? Could it possibly be that what the rentier does takes skill? Or that he had to do "real work" for years, and not waste his money, to get in the position he is in?
You don't?
If the consumers cared, then not charging content providers would be effective marketing. If they don't, why would you regulate the ISPs, even if you feel that the government has the right to do so.
I have several choices for internet access. Cable, the phone company, and speakeasy/earthlink/etc. Eventually, there will also be fiber optic and wireless.