This ridiculous notion that a company can only grow "this" big or "this" successful without being tagged a monopolist, can only be held by a person without the slightest notion of what the word monopoly means.
The Post Office has a monopoly. If you deliver mail you get arrested.
The central bank has a monopoly. If you issue paper money you are imprisoned for counterfeiting.
Now Google is NOT a monopoly. People can flock to Cuil, Bing, Webcrawler, Yahoo!, Altavista or whatever they think suits them better. If some of these other companies ( which were all around when Google came from out of nowhere and became this incredible service provider ) start getting their game together and Google drops the ball, they can become the dominant player.
Or, who knows, some Searchster might come out of nowhere and leave Google eating dust.
For people who still don't get that monopolies are always created by government coercion, here might be one fresh in the getting of yet another privilege.
Man, this game is worst on me than crack. I hope they remove the hunter pounce damage hard limit and work some cooler math for it, use log or whatever.:-P
A snippet from Atlas Shrugged makes the point precisely.
Says the bureaucrat Floyd Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later . . . this is just what we wanted."
Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."
Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?"
Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?"
Continues Ferris: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
There's nothing stopping you from buying tons of your own CDs from Amazon, with what's essentially a 40% discount and selling them at your gig at the appropriate markup to make whatever profit you're looking into.
The beauty of the free market. You'd be speculating in your own band/concert!
Better do a lot of stage dives and that thing that guy who played guitar for The Who did too.;-)
Yes, Sweden is THE nice poster boy for a welfare state which was able to maintain economic freedom at a high level. But its a one in a million scenario. Denmark also comes to mind. But these Nordic countries are the exception, not the rule.
I still think Hayek is gonna have the last word there, though.
Oh, and taxes in the US aren't small by any measure. 35% corporate taxes? Probably the 'fascist' element means that favored companies get some slack, but to everyone else, it's pretty steep.
I have to agree. Current copyright laws dont work, because they do not allow "fair use". In fact licensing and patenting is getting to a point where the social benefits are not weighed in and thus otherwise profitable and usefull tools are distributed illegally.
Current copyright laws don't work, because due to technology, ideas can now be reproduced to infinity.
The scarcity 'factor' that enabled publishers and recording companies to profit has now been removed. Those who cannot adapt to this new reality must go under so that the innovators may thrive.
If a bread multiplying machine was invented would you outlaw it with the best interest of bakers in mind? No. You ( we ) would want free bread.
I see where you're coming from, but I think it's not very nice to say he 'brought it upon himself'. He didn't do anything wrong.
He could've played the 'cool' card like you say, but then we wouldn't have this nice story about abuse of authority.
We need to stand up more against this shit while it's doable, I mean, getting cuffed and losing half your day. A hassle.
If we don't, things might come to a point where we can't stand up anymore because we're just taken outside and shot. And nobody is allowed to say your name again under the same penalty.
Being Orwellian and way out there on purpose to drive the point home, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
This ridiculous notion that a company can only grow "this" big or "this" successful without being tagged a monopolist, can only be held by a person without the slightest notion of what the word monopoly means. The Post Office has a monopoly. If you deliver mail you get arrested. The central bank has a monopoly. If you issue paper money you are imprisoned for counterfeiting. Now Google is NOT a monopoly. People can flock to Cuil, Bing, Webcrawler, Yahoo!, Altavista or whatever they think suits them better. If some of these other companies ( which were all around when Google came from out of nowhere and became this incredible service provider ) start getting their game together and Google drops the ball, they can become the dominant player. Or, who knows, some Searchster might come out of nowhere and leave Google eating dust.
By typing this a reply in a Firefox browser running on Karmic Koala Alpha 2 your petitio principii stands out on its own. :)
For people who still don't get that monopolies are always created by government coercion, here might be one fresh in the getting of yet another privilege.
You can opt out by being taken outside and shot.
... that nobody is really paying attention OR giving a shit anymore.
Current climate modeling software have, with minor tweaks, predicted that in a billion years Lindsay Lohan could in fact become a nun.
Man, this game is worst on me than crack. I hope they remove the hunter pounce damage hard limit and work some cooler math for it, use log or whatever. :-P
A snippet from Atlas Shrugged makes the point precisely.
Says the bureaucrat Floyd Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later . . . this is just what we wanted."
Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."
Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?"
Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?"
Continues Ferris: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
The "group" is, most definitely, NOT the State.
The State functions on a basis of coercion and force. Groups of individuals cooperate and commune through the Internet by voluntary association.
Insidious sleight of hand there: the internet brings people together, so we should basically discard the old "freedom" vs "socialism" debate.
Yuck.
But if L. Ron said it... then it must be true. ;)
I'm waiting for the all-electric stuff.
No oil change, no pollution from the car, no hassle.
Yea, and I'm pro-nuclear too. :)
There's nothing stopping you from buying tons of your own CDs from Amazon, with what's essentially a 40% discount and selling them at your gig at the appropriate markup to make whatever profit you're looking into.
The beauty of the free market. You'd be speculating in your own band/concert!
Better do a lot of stage dives and that thing that guy who played guitar for The Who did too. ;-)
http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx
Yes, Sweden is THE nice poster boy for a welfare state which was able to maintain economic freedom at a high level. But its a one in a million scenario. Denmark also comes to mind. But these Nordic countries are the exception, not the rule.
I still think Hayek is gonna have the last word there, though.
Oh, and taxes in the US aren't small by any measure. 35% corporate taxes? Probably the 'fascist' element means that favored companies get some slack, but to everyone else, it's pretty steep.
In Sweden it's actually lower. Go figure. :-)
In the present context, it means towards more socialism and away from absolute rule.
Kinda hard to have it both ways.
Dominant market means nothing. 'Monopoly' means a grant of privilege, not 'size'.
In a free market, with free entry, free of 'regulations', the bigger the fool, the harder the fall.
Yea, that thing about 'progress'.
It can mean 'for the better', but often it means progressing to socialism or absolute rule. I kind of have a problem with that.
... to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I have to agree. Current copyright laws dont work, because they do not allow "fair use". In fact licensing and patenting is getting to a point where the social benefits are not weighed in and thus otherwise profitable and usefull tools are distributed illegally.
Current copyright laws don't work, because due to technology, ideas can now be reproduced to infinity.
The scarcity 'factor' that enabled publishers and recording companies to profit has now been removed. Those who cannot adapt to this new reality must go under so that the innovators may thrive.
If a bread multiplying machine was invented would you outlaw it with the best interest of bakers in mind? No. You ( we ) would want free bread.
Making zombies. What a fine idea. *goes back to playing Left 4 Dead 24/7*
I see where you're coming from, but I think it's not very nice to say he 'brought it upon himself'. He didn't do anything wrong.
He could've played the 'cool' card like you say, but then we wouldn't have this nice story about abuse of authority.
We need to stand up more against this shit while it's doable, I mean, getting cuffed and losing half your day. A hassle.
If we don't, things might come to a point where we can't stand up anymore because we're just taken outside and shot. And nobody is allowed to say your name again under the same penalty.
Being Orwellian and way out there on purpose to drive the point home, of course.
... that 9/11 didn't change EVERYTHING?
Already in use on people restricted to home detention.
Is your car not your property?
Police have always been able to 'tail' suspects. I feel this is no different.
Except that tailing you does not need them to "secretly attach a GPS device" on your property. Yep. Not different at all.
How about skipping the car and implanting the tracker on, say, your shoulder? Or if that's too invasive, require you to carry the device at all times?