I guess it doesn't matter what form of government you have, what it comes down to is what the motivation of the people is. Having a King or a Dictator would be fine and dandy if we could gaurentee that the King or Dictator would always be wise, just, and good. Likewise, a Republic is great when the majority of the people have those atrributes.
As far as Sam Walton goes, I don't know. He may have done everything in his power to teach his children, and they still chose to go the way they did. I've seen it happen before. Or if some of the things I've heard are true, then maybe not. I am reminded of what one man said, "No other success can compensate for failure in the home." (David O McKay) I do not know the details of Mr. Walton's family life, so I will not judge him.
By the way, I like your signature quote, I copied it over to my Great Quotes file. Is it something you said, or should I attribute it to someone else?
Theoritical? There are still many repressive governments in the world! Also, even in the countries that were ounce republics, ruled by the will of the people, we are increasingly seeing socialism creep in. Canada and European countries are prime examples of this. And the US isn't far behind. The problem is, greddy, corrupt politicians and citizens who just don't care enough or aren't educated enough to take action. Solcialism is slowly penetrating our society, and choking it. Of course, as socialism usualy is, it is only being used as a tool by those in power to increase their power, not in an effort to truly be of service to society. That is the danger of Socialism.
Regarding "Clockwork Orange" I read the Wickipedia introduction, and I reject the theory almost in it's entirety. God gave man his agency, but it is not free. We can choose our actions, but we cannot choose the consequence of those actions. We have choice to do many good things, and the consequences will likewise be good. But if we choose to do bad, the consequences will be bad. Our agency is not free from effect! And we are not forced into following Satan or God- we make the choice, therefore we are not "wound up like clockwork" by one or the other. Our choices directly effect our happiness, but those choices are still ours to make.
As far as people choosing to do good or being forced to, I like to use the example of Hurrican Katrina. Do those people need help? Yes. Would it be right and good for me to provide help? Certainl;y. But, when my money is forcibly taken away from me by the government, and then wasted, and some of it actually trickeles down to where it helps people in need, then I am helping them, at least some. But I have no choice. I can't help them anymore, I don't have anymore money- the government took it all. I am forced to work long hours simply to pay my tax bill, so I can't go down and help with the cleanup. What we have here is a classic example of politicians increasing their power, while reducing mine.
Now, if I didn't have to pay more than 20% of my income to Uncle Sam, I would have a lot more to donate to disaster relief. Chances are I'd donate it to some organization that I know and trust, and I'd keep track of how my donation was spent. Now if I don't like the way this organization handles my donation, I won't donate to them anymore, I'll find another organization to work with. In this way, I know that my time/money is being used as effectivly as it can.
Now the question comes up- would very many people really donate and help if they didn't have to? It wouldn't really matter, because even if less people helped, it'd be done ten times more efficently, and more people in need would receive better assistance- note I said better, not more.
I would disagree with the essence of the free market being based on lies and deceptions- the essence of the free market is choice. And you can't have choice without knowledge. If everyone is lying about what a product or price really is, then you can't make an educated choice, and there is no longer any freedom.
On a stagnant society- beware, it's not likely to stay stagnant for long- it's much more likely to fail.
I agree that current enconomic regulation is really stifling long term economic viability.
It is sad that Sam is no longer around. I grew up and live in the Ozarks, and Wal-Mart has always been a part of our community. I can remember Sam coming to visit our local store. He was a great man, and a great business leader. Wal-Mart has changed a lot over the years since Sam's death. Of course, I can't personally validate that the Waltons hate each other- I really don't know. But nonetheless, it is sad.
As far as it being tough, your right on the mark. It is tough, but it is possible, and it is certainly worth it. If Sam Walton did anything significantly wrong, it may (perhaps- again, I have no first hand experiece) have been not spending more time with his family nurturing values in them. I do not know if this is the case, or not.
To some extent, this is true- but there does exist a class of people who use fraud quite often to take away another person's free agency- and right now, they're the ones who write the laws.
Well, I agree with that! I thought about mentioning deception in the post, but decided against it. I think deception, when it is used to cause financial or physical harm, should also be against the law. There may be a few other situations where deception should be illegal too- especially when it is comitted be an elected official, or in the case of obstruction to justice.
Who cares if they exceed what they have to do, as long as they do what they have to do?
We seem to want to always do better, to be always progressing. If everyone is doing the miniumun, society will stagnant, and when society stagnants, it has a tendency to degrade. Of course, as I said, if that compulsion eases, society would slip extremly fast. It's walking a very thin line, and when your that close to the edge, your likely to fall.
That would be nice- but because it endangers profit, it won't happen.
Perhaps there is danger to short term profit, but in the long term, profitability would increase. At least, happiness- which is much better than money, would be much more prevalent and abundant.
As far as the last comment goes, my comment above covers it, too. You are right, when famalies have both parent working 60 hours a week and they don't care about spending time togeher and with their kids, and they come home tired and not willing to teach value lessons to their children, we will never crawl out of the hole we are in. Couples need to spend time nurturing theiir relationships, thereby reducing the plague of divorce. Parents need to teach children by example and exhortation about values, thereby biulding strong famalies and strong future leadership.
But take comfort, as there are still many who believe in the family and it's value. Those of us who are faithful to family values can build up an isulation from the outside, we can live in society, and be a valuable contributer to it, without being consumed by it.
What can and should be legislated is actions that take away others agency. Now, it can be argued that just about anything could take away anothers agency- but what I'm reffering to is thing like murder, stealing, and other things that force one persons will directly upon another. The Declaration of Independance, along with the Constitution (as originally written, not as currently interpreted) provide good guidelines.
If people are compelled to be good people, are they truly good?
Who the hell cares as long as they are good enough not to go around murdering their neighbors?
Well, if it worked that way, but as the saying goes, the tighter you close your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers. Or, to put it another way, when one is compelled in all things, and then one no longer feels that compulsion, then one becomes much less likely to do what they've been compelled to do. Also, the more one is compelled to do, the less likely one is to exceed that which they have to.
As far as the tendancy of the population to not care about right and wrong this is a direct effect of our developing culture of slothful, glutiness, wicked and degenerate, fortune seeking- pride. Unless there is a change, we are headed for disaster. This culture starts in the homes and famalies, and that is where it must change- we must re-enthrone the family as the center of our society, and we must strengthen and fortify our homes.
While this is getting away from the central point of Microsoft and Monoplies, it is the core of every problem our society faces. If we had stonger famalies, our companies would have more ethical leaders, lawyers and politicians would not be as greedy and proud as they are.
Of course, it needs to be stated that morals should not be legislated. If people are compelled to be good people, are they truly good? When people choose to excercise agency and do good, then we know that they are good. This applies to all people- including those who run corporations. Indeed, I choose to do business with companies that show moral character versus those that do not. In this way, good behavior can be encouraged without lining the pockets of lawyers/politicians.
For the sake of completeness, I will repeat this again here:
As far as legal definitions go, the question did not state "a legal monoply." All kidding aside, the laws we currently have are written by lawyers, with one primary goal- to get gain. The lawyers encourage litigation, thereby gaining employment. Not all lawyers do this, but the majority do. (seen any legal ads lately). This is a wicked practice, and must be brought to an end.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, while they do a lot of stupid things, very few could be considered anti-competitive in any way. Microsft has not exerted undue influence upon the market- except possibly in the case with BeOS, which they settled a while back. If we hold Microsoft back from innovating, then of course their competitors will, but why not have MS innovation too? Competition, from everyone, is a good thing.
As far as legal definitions go, the question did not state "a legal monoply." All kidding aside, the laws we currently have are written by lawyers, with one primary goal- to get gain. The lawyers encourage litigation, thereby gaining employment. Not all lawyers do this, but the majority do. (seen any legal ads lately). This is a wicked practice, and must be brought to an end.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, while they do a lot of stupid things, very few could be considered anti-competitive in any way. Microsft has not exerted undue influence upon the market- except possibly in the case with BeOS, which they settled a while back. If we hold Microsoft back from innovating, then of course their competitors will, but why not have MS innovation too? Competition, from everyone, is a good thing.
When you bought your Dell, did they offer you an AMD cpu as well? Nope. That's because you bought a Dell, and Dell has chosen what they want to build and sell. It was you choice to buy a Dell, you weren't forced to.
As far as legal definitions go, the question did not state "a legal monoply." All kidding aside, the laws we currently have are written by lawyers, with one primary goal- to get gain. The lawyers encourage litigation, thereby gaining employment and money. Not all lawyers do this, but the majority do. (seen any legal ads lately). This is a wicked practice, and must be brought to an end.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, while they do a lot of stupid things, very few could be considered anti-competitive in any way. If we hold Microsoft back from innovating, then of course their competitors will, but why not have MS innovation too? Competition, from everyone, is a good thing.
Actually, MS only said that OEMs who sale systems without windows were losing an oppurtunity to sale windows and make more money. They never mentioned any form of legal action, as saling a computer withour windows is not against the law. If MS started refusing to sale windows to companies that don't install windows on all their machines, then this would be 1. stupid, 2. Most likely illegal, 3. immoral at any rate. However, this is not the case.
"In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly/
So how is it a Monoply? There are hundreds of different Operating Systems to choose from, and while Microsoft may say what they want in way of "encouraging" use of Windows, they have no power to force anyone to do it.
This may be silly, but it's not a monoply. The EU is as dumb as a box of rocks, and the US is not far behind.
And so you don't hink I'm an MS fan boy, and since it's never a requirement to be fair to Microsoft, I'd just like to point out the MS Suckz! At least I'm sure thats what your thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it doesn't matter what form of government you have, what it comes down to is what the motivation of the people is. Having a King or a Dictator would be fine and dandy if we could gaurentee that the King or Dictator would always be wise, just, and good. Likewise, a Republic is great when the majority of the people have those atrributes. As far as Sam Walton goes, I don't know. He may have done everything in his power to teach his children, and they still chose to go the way they did. I've seen it happen before. Or if some of the things I've heard are true, then maybe not. I am reminded of what one man said, "No other success can compensate for failure in the home." (David O McKay) I do not know the details of Mr. Walton's family life, so I will not judge him. By the way, I like your signature quote, I copied it over to my Great Quotes file. Is it something you said, or should I attribute it to someone else?
Theoritical? There are still many repressive governments in the world! Also, even in the countries that were ounce republics, ruled by the will of the people, we are increasingly seeing socialism creep in. Canada and European countries are prime examples of this. And the US isn't far behind. The problem is, greddy, corrupt politicians and citizens who just don't care enough or aren't educated enough to take action. Solcialism is slowly penetrating our society, and choking it. Of course, as socialism usualy is, it is only being used as a tool by those in power to increase their power, not in an effort to truly be of service to society. That is the danger of Socialism.
Regarding "Clockwork Orange" I read the Wickipedia introduction, and I reject the theory almost in it's entirety. God gave man his agency, but it is not free. We can choose our actions, but we cannot choose the consequence of those actions. We have choice to do many good things, and the consequences will likewise be good. But if we choose to do bad, the consequences will be bad. Our agency is not free from effect! And we are not forced into following Satan or God- we make the choice, therefore we are not "wound up like clockwork" by one or the other. Our choices directly effect our happiness, but those choices are still ours to make.
As far as people choosing to do good or being forced to, I like to use the example of Hurrican Katrina. Do those people need help? Yes. Would it be right and good for me to provide help? Certainl;y. But, when my money is forcibly taken away from me by the government, and then wasted, and some of it actually trickeles down to where it helps people in need, then I am helping them, at least some. But I have no choice. I can't help them anymore, I don't have anymore money- the government took it all. I am forced to work long hours simply to pay my tax bill, so I can't go down and help with the cleanup. What we have here is a classic example of politicians increasing their power, while reducing mine.
Now, if I didn't have to pay more than 20% of my income to Uncle Sam, I would have a lot more to donate to disaster relief. Chances are I'd donate it to some organization that I know and trust, and I'd keep track of how my donation was spent. Now if I don't like the way this organization handles my donation, I won't donate to them anymore, I'll find another organization to work with. In this way, I know that my time/money is being used as effectivly as it can.
Now the question comes up- would very many people really donate and help if they didn't have to? It wouldn't really matter, because even if less people helped, it'd be done ten times more efficently, and more people in need would receive better assistance- note I said better, not more.
I would disagree with the essence of the free market being based on lies and deceptions- the essence of the free market is choice. And you can't have choice without knowledge. If everyone is lying about what a product or price really is, then you can't make an educated choice, and there is no longer any freedom.
On a stagnant society- beware, it's not likely to stay stagnant for long- it's much more likely to fail.
I agree that current enconomic regulation is really stifling long term economic viability.
It is sad that Sam is no longer around. I grew up and live in the Ozarks, and Wal-Mart has always been a part of our community. I can remember Sam coming to visit our local store. He was a great man, and a great business leader. Wal-Mart has changed a lot over the years since Sam's death. Of course, I can't personally validate that the Waltons hate each other- I really don't know. But nonetheless, it is sad.
As far as it being tough, your right on the mark. It is tough, but it is possible, and it is certainly worth it. If Sam Walton did anything significantly wrong, it may (perhaps- again, I have no first hand experiece) have been not spending more time with his family nurturing values in them. I do not know if this is the case, or not.
To some extent, this is true- but there does exist a class of people who use fraud quite often to take away another person's free agency- and right now, they're the ones who write the laws.
Well, I agree with that! I thought about mentioning deception in the post, but decided against it. I think deception, when it is used to cause financial or physical harm, should also be against the law. There may be a few other situations where deception should be illegal too- especially when it is comitted be an elected official, or in the case of obstruction to justice.
Who cares if they exceed what they have to do, as long as they do what they have to do?
We seem to want to always do better, to be always progressing. If everyone is doing the miniumun, society will stagnant, and when society stagnants, it has a tendency to degrade. Of course, as I said, if that compulsion eases, society would slip extremly fast. It's walking a very thin line, and when your that close to the edge, your likely to fall.
That would be nice- but because it endangers profit, it won't happen.
Perhaps there is danger to short term profit, but in the long term, profitability would increase. At least, happiness- which is much better than money, would be much more prevalent and abundant.
As far as the last comment goes, my comment above covers it, too. You are right, when famalies have both parent working 60 hours a week and they don't care about spending time togeher and with their kids, and they come home tired and not willing to teach value lessons to their children, we will never crawl out of the hole we are in. Couples need to spend time nurturing theiir relationships, thereby reducing the plague of divorce. Parents need to teach children by example and exhortation about values, thereby biulding strong famalies and strong future leadership.
But take comfort, as there are still many who believe in the family and it's value. Those of us who are faithful to family values can build up an isulation from the outside, we can live in society, and be a valuable contributer to it, without being consumed by it.
Well, if it worked that way, but as the saying goes, the tighter you close your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers. Or, to put it another way, when one is compelled in all things, and then one no longer feels that compulsion, then one becomes much less likely to do what they've been compelled to do. Also, the more one is compelled to do, the less likely one is to exceed that which they have to.
As far as the tendancy of the population to not care about right and wrong this is a direct effect of our developing culture of slothful, glutiness, wicked and degenerate, fortune seeking- pride. Unless there is a change, we are headed for disaster. This culture starts in the homes and famalies, and that is where it must change- we must re-enthrone the family as the center of our society, and we must strengthen and fortify our homes.
While this is getting away from the central point of Microsoft and Monoplies, it is the core of every problem our society faces. If we had stonger famalies, our companies would have more ethical leaders, lawyers and politicians would not be as greedy and proud as they are.
Of course, it needs to be stated that morals should not be legislated. If people are compelled to be good people, are they truly good? When people choose to excercise agency and do good, then we know that they are good. This applies to all people- including those who run corporations. Indeed, I choose to do business with companies that show moral character versus those that do not. In this way, good behavior can be encouraged without lining the pockets of lawyers/politicians.
As far as legal definitions go, the question did not state "a legal monoply." All kidding aside, the laws we currently have are written by lawyers, with one primary goal- to get gain. The lawyers encourage litigation, thereby gaining employment. Not all lawyers do this, but the majority do. (seen any legal ads lately). This is a wicked practice, and must be brought to an end.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, while they do a lot of stupid things, very few could be considered anti-competitive in any way. Microsft has not exerted undue influence upon the market- except possibly in the case with BeOS, which they settled a while back. If we hold Microsoft back from innovating, then of course their competitors will, but why not have MS innovation too? Competition, from everyone, is a good thing.
As far as legal definitions go, the question did not state "a legal monoply." All kidding aside, the laws we currently have are written by lawyers, with one primary goal- to get gain. The lawyers encourage litigation, thereby gaining employment. Not all lawyers do this, but the majority do. (seen any legal ads lately). This is a wicked practice, and must be brought to an end.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, while they do a lot of stupid things, very few could be considered anti-competitive in any way. Microsft has not exerted undue influence upon the market- except possibly in the case with BeOS, which they settled a while back. If we hold Microsoft back from innovating, then of course their competitors will, but why not have MS innovation too? Competition, from everyone, is a good thing.
When you bought your Dell, did they offer you an AMD cpu as well? Nope. That's because you bought a Dell, and Dell has chosen what they want to build and sell. It was you choice to buy a Dell, you weren't forced to.
As far as legal definitions go, the question did not state "a legal monoply." All kidding aside, the laws we currently have are written by lawyers, with one primary goal- to get gain. The lawyers encourage litigation, thereby gaining employment and money. Not all lawyers do this, but the majority do. (seen any legal ads lately). This is a wicked practice, and must be brought to an end.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, while they do a lot of stupid things, very few could be considered anti-competitive in any way. If we hold Microsoft back from innovating, then of course their competitors will, but why not have MS innovation too? Competition, from everyone, is a good thing.
Actually, MS only said that OEMs who sale systems without windows were losing an oppurtunity to sale windows and make more money. They never mentioned any form of legal action, as saling a computer withour windows is not against the law. If MS started refusing to sale windows to companies that don't install windows on all their machines, then this would be 1. stupid, 2. Most likely illegal, 3. immoral at any rate. However, this is not the case.
"In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly/
So how is it a Monoply? There are hundreds of different Operating Systems to choose from, and while Microsoft may say what they want in way of "encouraging" use of Windows, they have no power to force anyone to do it.
This may be silly, but it's not a monoply. The EU is as dumb as a box of rocks, and the US is not far behind.
And so you don't hink I'm an MS fan boy, and since it's never a requirement to be fair to Microsoft, I'd just like to point out the MS Suckz! At least I'm sure thats what your thinking.