I agree that this would go against the anarchistic Internet many of us wants but for upload and download speeds and efficiency of resources this would be great. I'm of course assuming that bureaucracy will not kill the whole process.
That's really the problem in its entirety. Governments are absolutely terrible at providing services to people. Private enterprise is always more efficient--the reason the internet is so fubar'd in the US is because the government granted monopolies to cable and phone companies, in order to get rural areas wired too. Now, though, there's no competition in the market, so shit like this is starting to happen everywhere. The government needs to abolish all of its contracts with the companies and ensure there are no barriers to entering the ISP market. Then everyone and their mother will start laying wire in an effort to undercut the other guy, and eventually the market will settle at a price/performance ratio that's reasonable. At the moment, we have no method of recourse with cable or telephone providers: it's not like I can switch to a competitor. If I don't like Comcast, I don't get cable, period.
What really gets me is how much money the US government has thrown at the telcoms precisely to avoid this problem. Monopolistic greed and incompetence know no bounds.
But China doesn't do that; instead, it just says "no, we don't care how much you speculate the yuan to be worth, this is what it's worth and that's that." By fixing the value of the yuan, purchasing power does not increase, so the monetary supply never needs to expand--and the yuan remains exactly where it is.
Before someone jumps all over this, I should note that I was being tongue-in-cheek here. They do this through a combination of communistic economic policies and purchasing US Treasury Bonds. It's not as simple as price-fixing; I know that.
I really enjoyed your post. I will look into the Libertarian Case against IP Rights; that looks like an interesting read. (Although I don't know if I will agree with it.)
Shit, you saw through me that fast? Wow. Yeah, us Iranian-American Muslims, we're totally xenophobic.
you do realize that inflation causes the yuan to be worth less, right?
. . . Are you familiar with what inflation actually is? Here's a quote for you, from wikipedia: "In mainstream economics, the word "inflation" refers to a persistent rise in the general price level, as measured against a standard level of purchasing power." This correlates directly with GDP. But a rise in GDP must necessarily be correlated with a rise in monetary supply and purchasing power, which is what begins the cycle of inflation. Inflation is always associated with an excessive supply of money, which is what should happen in any economy growing as fast as China: money is pouring in at record rates. The standard way of dealing with inflation is to raise interest rates and slow the monetary supply--this basically allows the economy to slowly contract when it's expanding too fast. But China doesn't do that; instead, it just says "no, we don't care how much you speculate the yuan to be worth, this is what it's worth and that's that." By fixing the value of the yuan, purchasing power does not increase, so the monetary supply never needs to expand--and the yuan remains exactly where it is. This fucks over your middle class but keeps your exports incredibly cheap. This is how they prevent inflation. Inflation is not as simple as "currency is worth less." When it runs out of control, yes, it certainly devalues currency. But China has not had to deal with the problem of inflation because they refuse to let the yuan respond to market pressure.
this money-transfer keeps the yen unusually low and the dollar unusually high (considering the debt and trade-deficits).
Except it's called the yuan. And that is not the only reason why the yuan is valued the way it is. The Chinese government sets strict limits on what it allows the yuan to appreciate by each year, largely ignoring what the market dictates in favor of keeping their labor costs low. Their purchase of US debt is a strategic move. If we ever piss them off (for example, by pushing the undervalued currency issue) they can cash in on our debt and put us into a depression.
That is a slight distinction which I failed to mention at the inception of this sub-thread. But it's fun to rip on those who believe one extreme is better than a mixed economy (per Keynes, et al), be they communist or capitalist. Free market vs fair market.
But I never claimed that either extreme was better or preferable: merely that the initial attack on laissez-faire economics was untenable. Since Stormin's done a pretty good job of addressing your points, I won't add my own two cents in to them, although if you would like me to, I certainly can.
I don't think free market theory works without some guarantee for protection of property, be in physical or intellectual. And I also don't believe (and I think history does a good job of backing me up, here) that most market regulations have their only their intended effect. Case in point: the government granting of telecommunication and cable industry monopolies. It was intended to bring telephone and cable to rural areas, and it did that. It also ended up stagnating the US phone and data industry for years, and still today we are at the mercy of a few companies that provide sub-par service for exorbitant cost. The fact that I need to pay nearly $60/mo to get speeds above 1 Mbps, when I live in a very urbanized area, is (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that market regulation can have unforeseen consequences. And I don't know how much experience you have with the business sector, but I can tell you that it's even more terrible there.
I was a bit aghast said "my administration supports free and fair trade...", as they are asymptotically mutually exclusive...free != fair.
Is it better to be a good person and not believe in God, or to believe in God but not be a good person?
This may come off sounding like an elusive answer, but "belief in God" would necessitate good behavior, unless you're honestly and truly batshit loco. If someone genuinely believes there is a God, and that there will be a reckoning of sorts at the end of time, then the willful decision to act in evil in spite of that knowledge either means that a.) the person in question doesn't really believe in God, or b.) the person in question is truly evil. (Or completely irrational.)
However, it is entirely possible to be a good person and not believe in God, and naturally each religion associates consequences with such a state. I would say that it is better to be a good person and believe in God than to be a good person and not believe in God, but I'm not exactly unbiased: I happen to believe in God. Could a good person who does not believe in God be in held in higher regard than a good person who did? I honestly couldn't tell you--it would depend very much on the nature of the lack of belief. Islam is a bit spotty on this: if you don't believe in God because you've never learned about God, but you are a good person, you'll be ok. (I think even idolatry may be excused in these cases, assuming you're truly ignorant. I'm unclear on it.) If you don't believe in God in spite of your exposure to scripture, but don't worship idols or any other "gods," and are a good person, then it's sort of a gray area. If you don't believe in God but lie about it and claim you do, apparently this makes God furious, and things will not go well for you. And if you don't believe in God and worship idols or other gods... see the previous sentence. I generally agree with the Qur'an on this, although there are certain parts of the scripture that I'm still mulling over.
The connection with evangelical religion is that if you do not believe that people have to have particular beliefs to please God, "go to heaven" etc., then spreading those beliefs ceases to be all important. Not unimportant (because the truth matters), but less pressing.
Which is how I think Islam was intended to be. It is evangelical insofar that it wants the truth to spread, but being that it basically says "anyone can get into heaven, provided they're not douchebags and they don't worship other gods" allows basically everyone but polytheists an easy way in.
Not really. Jail time and such has almost no effect on changing criminal behaviour.
While the original statement (that crime is best prevented by a fear of getting caught and punished) is a bit suspect, this response doesn't really counter it. Jail time addresses recitivism rate, and as you pointed out, it doesn't do a very good job. But that doesn't address whether or not fear of punishment is an effective initial deterrent for much of the population--you're only saying that someone who ignores that initial deterrent is unlikely to be deterred by his/her incarceration. We have no way of estimating how many crimes per year are deterred by fear of punishment. (Which is why the initial statement is suspect.)
Controlling your own currency is "cheating"? Sorry, but just because someone doesn't play by your made up rules doesn't mean it's cheating.
Go read up on how currency strength is calculated before you come in here citing "made up rules."
Currency regulation is one of the most powerful mediums to control your economy, and last time I checked that wasn't cheating either.
Currency regulation and currency fixation are not the same thing. Take an econ course.
Perhaps your never heard of this word called "sovereignty" (yeah, I know in the US you generally don't give a fuck about it -unless is your own).
Oh wow, a dig at the United States of America? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Are you wearing a Che shirt? I'm just askin'.
By the way, "artificially" lowering your currency has cons too you see: that's why US common people can travel to China and have it like kings even with their average US salaries and Chinese people can't do the reverse. Or, if you want to look it at another way, the result of your work has more value than the result of theirs, even though they probably work more, harder and under worst conditions than you (and I) do.
Which helps your case how? Yes, China is exploiting the trade system at the expense of its own citizenry. This is made doubly-worse because China is a totalitarian state, so the average Chinese person has no method of recourse. Thank you for further proving why China's tactics hurt everybody.
But please, do continue on with your rant. Let's move on to Africa; we can always blame that on whitey.
USA: China, we want you to stop manipulating your currency.
China: What's in it for you if we stop?
USA: It could help our economy in a lot of ways. Things would probably turn out great for us if you do that.
China: What will happen to me if we stop?
USA: Well, your currency will increase in value, which will mean that all of your assets become worth a ton more. Your standard of living will rise because your citizens will be able to buy foreign goods with a much stronger yuan, which will translate into a healthy middle class with significant economic power. This in turn should spur investment quite a bit, because Chinese citizens will want to use that money to make more money, whether at home or abroad. However, it will probably dramatically increase the political pressure on your government to stop being a bunch of fascist pigs.
China: Fuck you.
I'm actually undecided whether anything has been stolen--the MiniOne certainly looks just like the iPhone, but it also does quite a few things differently. Like I said, reverse-engineering a product does not seem disingenuous to me. Now, if they did what a lot of other Chinese firms have done--namely, try and sell it as the imitated product--then there's no doubt it's theft. But my rebuttal was against the idea that stealing and greed went hand-in-hand with capitalism: they do not, nor does free market theory somehow encourage it. The OP, for whatever reason, asserted that laissez-faire capitalism implied a carte-blanche for business. It doesn't.
To answer your original question, the claim would be that Apple's intellectual property was stolen.
Basically you're offering your own interpretation of what counts as property -- one that many people take issue with -- and then saying that capitalism automatically makes it wrong to violate your definition. So what?
It's not my personal interpretation of property; intellectual property has quite a bit of legal precedence. I don't know what you mean by "capitalism automatically makes it wrong to violate your definition." I don't look at IP law as market regulation, and I don't know that many economists do either. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
But what's not up for debate is that it's a regulation that is external to the basic definition of capitalism, just like other regulations like child labor laws, overtime, retirement plans and the like.
Regulation should not be defined to mean "anything which impacts the free market." Regulation is that which is designed expressly for the purpose of influencing the market; in this regard, child labor laws are not regulation of the market at all. They are humanitarian laws enacted to ensure that people in this country are not unfairly exploited--their goal is not to tax or otherwise interfere with business, but instead to guarantee the health and safety of the citizenry. I view them in the same way I view torture laws. Some view those restrictions as socialist, but I don't agree with that assessment. (I can elaborate more if you like.) As far as retirement plans and overtime pay, yes, that is regulation, and a laissez-faire economist would probably argue that they're unnecessary. They'd have a good case, too--it is not the responsibility of a company to ensure its employees make intelligent financial decisions. And any company that asked its employees to work long hours without just compensation would find itself in the situation EA did, a few years back.
In pure capitalism, cloning would be perfectly legitimate.
What definition of capitalism are you using? What makes it "pure?" In a nutshell, the only thing "capitalism" always implies is an economy based on supply and demand, in which the means of production are privately owned. I think it really comes down to whether or not you view "regulation" as "anything that impacts the market" or not. I don't see regulation that way: protecting someone's property (IP included) does not strike me as regulating the free market. However, I do think our current patent and copyright system is absolutely terrible, and it's not doing its job at all.
Pure, unfettered greed from pure, unfettered competition. I guess all those laissez-faire capitalists forgot about China, huh? Doesn't work so well without the Man there to *gasp* regulate business!!! "But that's SOCIALISM!!" Oh noes!
Right, because capitalism = greed. There is nothing "capitalistic" about stealing. Your definition of "competition" apparently also includes illegal activity. Laissez-faire economics does not say "the government should allow businesses to operate under whatever pretense they like." Here's its actual definition, from wikipedia: "It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed to roam free, opposing economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights." (emphasis mine)
Nowhere in that definition do I see "allow businesses to cheat, steal, or engage in other illicit activity."
Unregulated competition is the definition of pure capitalism as any Milton-loving Libertarian or Republican (Mitt Romney?) would tell you.
Except it's not--nice try at a straw man, though! You almost got it. Nobody (not even free market anarchists) asserts that "regulation" encompasses basic property and security law. It is not considered "regulatory" when the government arrests a businessman for killing a businessman from a competing firm. Nor would it be considered "regulatory" if the government punished one firm for stealing another firm's ideas outright. (Note that I don't consider reverse engineering to be stealing, but there is a healthy debate surrounding that issue.) So, you're 0 for 2.
Just because the quality *might* be shit won't stop people from buying cheaper a knock-off.
Why do you think Chinese goods are so much cheaper? The Chinese economy has posted record gains year after year, and they have staggering amounts of foreign investment. They continue to industrialize at a breakneck speed. Under any capitalist society, their currency's value should have skyrocketed by now; if anything, they should be dealing with inflation problems because their economy is growing so fast. But they're not, because they keep the value of the yuan artificially low, essentially dicking the rest of the world over in the process. That is why Chinese goods are so cheap. Japan and S. Korea experienced similar booms, but their products got more expensive as time passed, because their currencies were determined by the free market. China's essentially cheating, but due to their size and their strategic importance, there's not much we can do about it.
I read an article (in a Catholic magazine) once by an atheist journalist who said that if he became convinced that God existed he would rush off and join a monastery. However, he simply did not believe that that God existed. A mistake of fact should not permanently keep him away from God. If he is entirely sincere do you think he will eventually stand any worse before God than a believer, simply because the latter got their facts right?
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question you're asking me--it seems like you're asking me "can people not believe in God and still be good people" and "should people who don't believe in God be punished for it?" These are both good questions, but I'm not sure how they fit into the discussion at hand--namely, that all evangelical religion seeks to spread itself because it believes it has the truth. (Or at least a greater amount of truth than any other religion.)
Let me know if I got your questions right, or if I'm misreading your points. I also don't mind answering the questions you posted (if I got them right), I just want to make sure I'm not going to go off on a tangent that you didn't ask.
Algeria is a former French colony and Chechnya wants to be independent from Russia.
Yes, but Algerians living in France chose to move there, and the protests they've put up have been against French policy. Chechnya probably wasn't a good example.
If you believe that it's the end of the journey which matters and not the path taken, then it's not irrational at all to see all religions as equal.
But inherent in that supposition is the idea that Buddhism has the right of it. After all, none of the other religions understand that Enlightenment is the true goal, rather than the path taken--only Buddhism has the whole picture. Otherwise, there's no reason to be Buddhist; if any religion can get you there, why bother with Buddhism at all?
I assume you were suggesting Christianity, since it's really the only evangelical religion. Evangelical meaning to "preach the gospel(good news)." Which is a means that emphasizes the personal volition as necessary for true salvation and compulsory conversion by military or social means insufficient for salvation and therefor an undesirable means.
Not at all; Islam is evangelical as well, although if read a certain way it has a decidedly fatalistic streak. In my reading of the scriptures I'm still wrangling with free will vs. determinism (the scripture is deep and I am not particularly well-versed in theology) but there is no doubt that forcible conversion is forbidden. Here are a few references:
There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Sura 2: 256.
This is the truth from your Lord, then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve. Sura 18:29
So, in the same vein as your assertion, anyone who reads the Qur'an can't justifiably defend forced conversion--but it happens anyway. I happen to believe the problem of Islamic fundamentalism is much, much more prominent than that of Christian fundamentalism, but that goes back to the 11th century and an Islamic theologian named al-Ghazali, who, in discovering philosophical skepticism, unwittingly set the epistemological course of Islam towards fundamentalism. But that's not really in the scope of our discussion.
I believe many Muslims are mean people who highly regard revenge as a responsibility and a virtue. I'll be kind to any Muslim I meet, but at the same time I realize there are a great deal of Muslims(especially Arab Muslims) who want all Christians dead or converted. So there is some in-equity.
I will point out that it was not the Ottoman Empire that divvied up Europe according to arbitrary boundaries, or any Muslim country that systematically exploited European governments for the sake of a natural resource. I do not think it justifies Arab (or Persian--I am Iranian) behavior--there is, after all, a point where you have to swallow your pride--but there's no doubt that they all feel extremely threatened and slighted by Western powers, and there is plenty of recent historical evidence to confirm their fears. The common theme among Muslims is that America and Europe don't say they want all of the Muslims dead or converted--they just take every practical step towards doing so. This is flawed reasoning on their part, but it's hard to fault them when so much of our foreign policy has been dismissive of them at best, and outright aggressive at worst.
Ultimately, radical Islam is its own beast, and not terribly attached to actual Islamic scripture. There are certainly verses in the Qur'an that can easily be taken to construe violent messages (although, ironically, the tradition of violent jihad is nowhere to be found--we have the clusterf*ck that are the hadiths to thank for that) but the Bible (Old Testament and New) have plenty of verses like that as well. One particularly controversial gospel is:
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
Now, I think any rational person that examines this quote in its context will find that Christ is not saying he's here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, but is instead talking about the repercussions of the Gospel: that the message he brings will ultimately divide the population between believers and non-believers, and the result would be father against son, brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor. But if you just pluck the quote out, like I did, and read it independently of its accompanying verses, it's very easy to assume that Christ is advocating violent behavior. In a similar vein, the Qur'an has plenty of quotes that talks about "smiting the unbelievers" or "terrible chastisements" and
This is one of the fundamental hopes of evangelical religion
Fixed that for you.
I can't think of a single religion that doesn't want to see its beliefs embraced by the entire world. That's the point of religion--you believe you've found the truth and as a result you structure your life around that truth. If you call yourself a follower of a religion, and then follow it up with "but I think other religions are equally true," then why believe in your particular truth? What motivation do you have? There must be something special about what you believe in order for you to believe it, else you're just being irrational. (Which, contrary to the typical slashdot sentiment, is not the root of all religion.)
However, I recognize that what you were really trying to do was call Muslims crazy. I am a Muslim, and I will mention that I have absolutely no desire to see the particular brand of Islam al-Qaeda and co. are supporting spread through the world. It's amusing that the very reason I chose to be Muslim is the antithesis of what radical Islam uses as its rallying cry. But getting people to think rationally about what they believe is more difficult than engendering blind faith.
On a side note, does anyone know how to code strikethrough on slashdot? I tried s, strike, and del, and none of them worked.
Immigration is good, but only when it is limited to people who actually want to **abandon** their old culture in favor of the new one. Multiculturalism is bullshit. If you like the way it was done back home, then stay there.
No one "abandons" their old culture. It's just a question of how you mix and meld the culture of one's ethnicity with that of the country to which you've emigrated. But just look around any country with a sizable immigrant population, and you'll see evidence of that culture everywhere, from Indian culture in Great Britain, to Latin culture in America, to Korean culture in Japan. (Although Japan is remarkably adept at discouraging individualism.)
As far as the Islamic problems in Europe, from my (admittedly limited) understanding of the problem, most of the European countries with serious issues are those that have done their best to disenfranchise the immigrants. The UK definitely has its share of crazy Muslims, but as I understand it they haven't caused nearly as much trouble as the Algerian population in France, or the Chechnyans in Russia.
Israel is around to remind everyone that this isn't the first time a Persian (Iranian) leader issued a decree to kill all the Jews, Purim celebrates our defeat of Haman's effort.
If the Jews had completely died out, people wouldn't remember their destruction, it'd be another people that died off. However, the Jews outlasted the Greek, Roman, Assyrian, Persian, Spanish, Nazi, Communist, and Muslim attempts to wipe out the Jews, so that's what makes it unique.
Believe it or not, I completely forgot about this thread, and I wish I hadn't, because this is an interesting issue you raised. I'm going to let the other argument go because I think you made a compelling one, but I disagree with parts of it, and I think hammering it out would be for a distinction that's ultimately not very important.
When you refer to Persian attempts to wipe out the Jews, exactly what events are you describing? To my knowledge of Iranian history, prior to the Iranian Revolution and the ascent of power of batshit loco mullahs, Iran has traditionally been a safe-haven for Jews. It is perhaps the only nation in history that has repeatedly freed the Jews from slavery or protected them from persecution, beginning with the Achaemenids, continuing to the Sassanids, and even during the Safavid era. Jews have had it pretty good in Iran, from what I can tell. The historical accuracy of linking Purim to Xerxes I doesn't make much sense, and most modern historians dispute it. I'm certainly not trying to absolve the Persians of their sins; we have a long history of being complete morons. But I like to think that religious tolerance and individual liberty is one of Iran's continuous and shining examples: we were the first to outlaw slavery, and we were the first to proclaim that one should be free to worship however one chooses. I've no doubt that there were Iranian despots who wanted to suppress religious groups in the past, but the vast history of Iran as an autonomous nation shows it being remarkably tolerant of other religions.
If given the choice between Windows XP (any version) and Windows Vista (any version), which would you choose (if price weren't a factor)?
Assuming you said Windows XP, could you give me some reasons why?
Personally, I don't trust Windows Vista. I heard bad things about it, and I see no reason to abandon XP.
There really isn't any situation where Vista is preferable to XP at the moment. Vista has a lot going for it on the back-end, and it's a lot prettier than XP, but right now it's too new and requires too much computing power. I have a Vista Ultimate machine at home that I use to mess around with Windows Media Center, and this is the one area where Vista beats XP hands-down. But besides that, it's probably better to wait until Vista SP1 before you adopt it--at that point the drivers will be more more mature, it will be more stable, and the hardware required to run it smoothly will be more aggressively priced. (It really does require absurd amounts of memory for some tasks, although once it gets its caching straight, it tends to run fairly quickly.)
Slashdot Mirror
That's really the problem in its entirety. Governments are absolutely terrible at providing services to people. Private enterprise is always more efficient--the reason the internet is so fubar'd in the US is because the government granted monopolies to cable and phone companies, in order to get rural areas wired too. Now, though, there's no competition in the market, so shit like this is starting to happen everywhere. The government needs to abolish all of its contracts with the companies and ensure there are no barriers to entering the ISP market. Then everyone and their mother will start laying wire in an effort to undercut the other guy, and eventually the market will settle at a price/performance ratio that's reasonable. At the moment, we have no method of recourse with cable or telephone providers: it's not like I can switch to a competitor. If I don't like Comcast, I don't get cable, period.
What really gets me is how much money the US government has thrown at the telcoms precisely to avoid this problem. Monopolistic greed and incompetence know no bounds.
Before someone jumps all over this, I should note that I was being tongue-in-cheek here. They do this through a combination of communistic economic policies and purchasing US Treasury Bonds. It's not as simple as price-fixing; I know that.
I really enjoyed your post. I will look into the Libertarian Case against IP Rights; that looks like an interesting read. (Although I don't know if I will agree with it.)
Shit, you saw through me that fast? Wow. Yeah, us Iranian-American Muslims, we're totally xenophobic.
. . . Are you familiar with what inflation actually is? Here's a quote for you, from wikipedia: "In mainstream economics, the word "inflation" refers to a persistent rise in the general price level, as measured against a standard level of purchasing power." This correlates directly with GDP. But a rise in GDP must necessarily be correlated with a rise in monetary supply and purchasing power, which is what begins the cycle of inflation. Inflation is always associated with an excessive supply of money, which is what should happen in any economy growing as fast as China: money is pouring in at record rates. The standard way of dealing with inflation is to raise interest rates and slow the monetary supply--this basically allows the economy to slowly contract when it's expanding too fast. But China doesn't do that; instead, it just says "no, we don't care how much you speculate the yuan to be worth, this is what it's worth and that's that." By fixing the value of the yuan, purchasing power does not increase, so the monetary supply never needs to expand--and the yuan remains exactly where it is. This fucks over your middle class but keeps your exports incredibly cheap. This is how they prevent inflation. Inflation is not as simple as "currency is worth less." When it runs out of control, yes, it certainly devalues currency. But China has not had to deal with the problem of inflation because they refuse to let the yuan respond to market pressure.
When did I do that? I never made any stance on IP at all in my original post.
Except it's called the yuan. And that is not the only reason why the yuan is valued the way it is. The Chinese government sets strict limits on what it allows the yuan to appreciate by each year, largely ignoring what the market dictates in favor of keeping their labor costs low. Their purchase of US debt is a strategic move. If we ever piss them off (for example, by pushing the undervalued currency issue) they can cash in on our debt and put us into a depression.
But I never claimed that either extreme was better or preferable: merely that the initial attack on laissez-faire economics was untenable. Since Stormin's done a pretty good job of addressing your points, I won't add my own two cents in to them, although if you would like me to, I certainly can.
I don't think free market theory works without some guarantee for protection of property, be in physical or intellectual. And I also don't believe (and I think history does a good job of backing me up, here) that most market regulations have their only their intended effect. Case in point: the government granting of telecommunication and cable industry monopolies. It was intended to bring telephone and cable to rural areas, and it did that. It also ended up stagnating the US phone and data industry for years, and still today we are at the mercy of a few companies that provide sub-par service for exorbitant cost. The fact that I need to pay nearly $60/mo to get speeds above 1 Mbps, when I live in a very urbanized area, is (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that market regulation can have unforeseen consequences. And I don't know how much experience you have with the business sector, but I can tell you that it's even more terrible there.
Why do you say that?
This may come off sounding like an elusive answer, but "belief in God" would necessitate good behavior, unless you're honestly and truly batshit loco. If someone genuinely believes there is a God, and that there will be a reckoning of sorts at the end of time, then the willful decision to act in evil in spite of that knowledge either means that a.) the person in question doesn't really believe in God, or b.) the person in question is truly evil. (Or completely irrational.)
However, it is entirely possible to be a good person and not believe in God, and naturally each religion associates consequences with such a state. I would say that it is better to be a good person and believe in God than to be a good person and not believe in God, but I'm not exactly unbiased: I happen to believe in God. Could a good person who does not believe in God be in held in higher regard than a good person who did? I honestly couldn't tell you--it would depend very much on the nature of the lack of belief. Islam is a bit spotty on this: if you don't believe in God because you've never learned about God, but you are a good person, you'll be ok. (I think even idolatry may be excused in these cases, assuming you're truly ignorant. I'm unclear on it.) If you don't believe in God in spite of your exposure to scripture, but don't worship idols or any other "gods," and are a good person, then it's sort of a gray area. If you don't believe in God but lie about it and claim you do, apparently this makes God furious, and things will not go well for you. And if you don't believe in God and worship idols or other gods... see the previous sentence. I generally agree with the Qur'an on this, although there are certain parts of the scripture that I'm still mulling over.
Which is how I think Islam was intended to be. It is evangelical insofar that it wants the truth to spread, but being that it basically says "anyone can get into heaven, provided they're not douchebags and they don't worship other gods" allows basically everyone but polytheists an easy way in.
While the original statement (that crime is best prevented by a fear of getting caught and punished) is a bit suspect, this response doesn't really counter it. Jail time addresses recitivism rate, and as you pointed out, it doesn't do a very good job. But that doesn't address whether or not fear of punishment is an effective initial deterrent for much of the population--you're only saying that someone who ignores that initial deterrent is unlikely to be deterred by his/her incarceration. We have no way of estimating how many crimes per year are deterred by fear of punishment. (Which is why the initial statement is suspect.)
Besides that, good post.
Go read up on how currency strength is calculated before you come in here citing "made up rules."
Currency regulation and currency fixation are not the same thing. Take an econ course.
Oh wow, a dig at the United States of America? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Are you wearing a Che shirt? I'm just askin'.
Which helps your case how? Yes, China is exploiting the trade system at the expense of its own citizenry. This is made doubly-worse because China is a totalitarian state, so the average Chinese person has no method of recourse. Thank you for further proving why China's tactics hurt everybody.
But please, do continue on with your rant. Let's move on to Africa; we can always blame that on whitey.
Fixed that for you.
Thank you for clarifying that relationship. :D
I'm actually undecided whether anything has been stolen--the MiniOne certainly looks just like the iPhone, but it also does quite a few things differently. Like I said, reverse-engineering a product does not seem disingenuous to me. Now, if they did what a lot of other Chinese firms have done--namely, try and sell it as the imitated product--then there's no doubt it's theft. But my rebuttal was against the idea that stealing and greed went hand-in-hand with capitalism: they do not, nor does free market theory somehow encourage it. The OP, for whatever reason, asserted that laissez-faire capitalism implied a carte-blanche for business. It doesn't.
To answer your original question, the claim would be that Apple's intellectual property was stolen.
It's not my personal interpretation of property; intellectual property has quite a bit of legal precedence. I don't know what you mean by "capitalism automatically makes it wrong to violate your definition." I don't look at IP law as market regulation, and I don't know that many economists do either. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Regulation should not be defined to mean "anything which impacts the free market." Regulation is that which is designed expressly for the purpose of influencing the market; in this regard, child labor laws are not regulation of the market at all. They are humanitarian laws enacted to ensure that people in this country are not unfairly exploited--their goal is not to tax or otherwise interfere with business, but instead to guarantee the health and safety of the citizenry. I view them in the same way I view torture laws. Some view those restrictions as socialist, but I don't agree with that assessment. (I can elaborate more if you like.) As far as retirement plans and overtime pay, yes, that is regulation, and a laissez-faire economist would probably argue that they're unnecessary. They'd have a good case, too--it is not the responsibility of a company to ensure its employees make intelligent financial decisions. And any company that asked its employees to work long hours without just compensation would find itself in the situation EA did, a few years back.
What definition of capitalism are you using? What makes it "pure?" In a nutshell, the only thing "capitalism" always implies is an economy based on supply and demand, in which the means of production are privately owned. I think it really comes down to whether or not you view "regulation" as "anything that impacts the market" or not. I don't see regulation that way: protecting someone's property (IP included) does not strike me as regulating the free market. However, I do think our current patent and copyright system is absolutely terrible, and it's not doing its job at all.
Right, because capitalism = greed. There is nothing "capitalistic" about stealing. Your definition of "competition" apparently also includes illegal activity. Laissez-faire economics does not say "the government should allow businesses to operate under whatever pretense they like." Here's its actual definition, from wikipedia: "It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed to roam free, opposing economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights." (emphasis mine)
Nowhere in that definition do I see "allow businesses to cheat, steal, or engage in other illicit activity."
Except it's not--nice try at a straw man, though! You almost got it. Nobody (not even free market anarchists) asserts that "regulation" encompasses basic property and security law. It is not considered "regulatory" when the government arrests a businessman for killing a businessman from a competing firm. Nor would it be considered "regulatory" if the government punished one firm for stealing another firm's ideas outright. (Note that I don't consider reverse engineering to be stealing, but there is a healthy debate surrounding that issue.) So, you're 0 for 2.
Why do you think Chinese goods are so much cheaper? The Chinese economy has posted record gains year after year, and they have staggering amounts of foreign investment. They continue to industrialize at a breakneck speed. Under any capitalist society, their currency's value should have skyrocketed by now; if anything, they should be dealing with inflation problems because their economy is growing so fast. But they're not, because they keep the value of the yuan artificially low, essentially dicking the rest of the world over in the process. That is why Chinese goods are so cheap. Japan and S. Korea experienced similar booms, but their products got more expensive as time passed, because their currencies were determined by the free market. China's essentially cheating, but due to their size and their strategic importance, there's not much we can do about it.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question you're asking me--it seems like you're asking me "can people not believe in God and still be good people" and "should people who don't believe in God be punished for it?" These are both good questions, but I'm not sure how they fit into the discussion at hand--namely, that all evangelical religion seeks to spread itself because it believes it has the truth. (Or at least a greater amount of truth than any other religion.)
Let me know if I got your questions right, or if I'm misreading your points. I also don't mind answering the questions you posted (if I got them right), I just want to make sure I'm not going to go off on a tangent that you didn't ask.
Yes, but Algerians living in France chose to move there, and the protests they've put up have been against French policy. Chechnya probably wasn't a good example.
But inherent in that supposition is the idea that Buddhism has the right of it. After all, none of the other religions understand that Enlightenment is the true goal, rather than the path taken--only Buddhism has the whole picture. Otherwise, there's no reason to be Buddhist; if any religion can get you there, why bother with Buddhism at all?
Not at all; Islam is evangelical as well, although if read a certain way it has a decidedly fatalistic streak. In my reading of the scriptures I'm still wrangling with free will vs. determinism (the scripture is deep and I am not particularly well-versed in theology) but there is no doubt that forcible conversion is forbidden. Here are a few references:
There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Sura 2: 256.
This is the truth from your Lord, then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve. Sura 18:29
So, in the same vein as your assertion, anyone who reads the Qur'an can't justifiably defend forced conversion--but it happens anyway. I happen to believe the problem of Islamic fundamentalism is much, much more prominent than that of Christian fundamentalism, but that goes back to the 11th century and an Islamic theologian named al-Ghazali, who, in discovering philosophical skepticism, unwittingly set the epistemological course of Islam towards fundamentalism. But that's not really in the scope of our discussion.
I will point out that it was not the Ottoman Empire that divvied up Europe according to arbitrary boundaries, or any Muslim country that systematically exploited European governments for the sake of a natural resource. I do not think it justifies Arab (or Persian--I am Iranian) behavior--there is, after all, a point where you have to swallow your pride--but there's no doubt that they all feel extremely threatened and slighted by Western powers, and there is plenty of recent historical evidence to confirm their fears. The common theme among Muslims is that America and Europe don't say they want all of the Muslims dead or converted--they just take every practical step towards doing so. This is flawed reasoning on their part, but it's hard to fault them when so much of our foreign policy has been dismissive of them at best, and outright aggressive at worst.
Ultimately, radical Islam is its own beast, and not terribly attached to actual Islamic scripture. There are certainly verses in the Qur'an that can easily be taken to construe violent messages (although, ironically, the tradition of violent jihad is nowhere to be found--we have the clusterf*ck that are the hadiths to thank for that) but the Bible (Old Testament and New) have plenty of verses like that as well. One particularly controversial gospel is:
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
Now, I think any rational person that examines this quote in its context will find that Christ is not saying he's here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, but is instead talking about the repercussions of the Gospel: that the message he brings will ultimately divide the population between believers and non-believers, and the result would be father against son, brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor. But if you just pluck the quote out, like I did, and read it independently of its accompanying verses, it's very easy to assume that Christ is advocating violent behavior. In a similar vein, the Qur'an has plenty of quotes that talks about "smiting the unbelievers" or "terrible chastisements" and
Fixed that for you.
I can't think of a single religion that doesn't want to see its beliefs embraced by the entire world. That's the point of religion--you believe you've found the truth and as a result you structure your life around that truth. If you call yourself a follower of a religion, and then follow it up with "but I think other religions are equally true," then why believe in your particular truth? What motivation do you have? There must be something special about what you believe in order for you to believe it, else you're just being irrational. (Which, contrary to the typical slashdot sentiment, is not the root of all religion.)
However, I recognize that what you were really trying to do was call Muslims crazy. I am a Muslim, and I will mention that I have absolutely no desire to see the particular brand of Islam al-Qaeda and co. are supporting spread through the world. It's amusing that the very reason I chose to be Muslim is the antithesis of what radical Islam uses as its rallying cry. But getting people to think rationally about what they believe is more difficult than engendering blind faith.
On a side note, does anyone know how to code strikethrough on slashdot? I tried s, strike, and del, and none of them worked.
Besides my terrible grammar, I mean. I've really got to use that Preview feature more often.
Damn, I need to convert... I had no idea they controlled everything.
Why the is the parent modded a Troll? Did I miss something?
No one "abandons" their old culture. It's just a question of how you mix and meld the culture of one's ethnicity with that of the country to which you've emigrated. But just look around any country with a sizable immigrant population, and you'll see evidence of that culture everywhere, from Indian culture in Great Britain, to Latin culture in America, to Korean culture in Japan. (Although Japan is remarkably adept at discouraging individualism.)
As far as the Islamic problems in Europe, from my (admittedly limited) understanding of the problem, most of the European countries with serious issues are those that have done their best to disenfranchise the immigrants. The UK definitely has its share of crazy Muslims, but as I understand it they haven't caused nearly as much trouble as the Algerian population in France, or the Chechnyans in Russia.
Believe it or not, I completely forgot about this thread, and I wish I hadn't, because this is an interesting issue you raised. I'm going to let the other argument go because I think you made a compelling one, but I disagree with parts of it, and I think hammering it out would be for a distinction that's ultimately not very important.
When you refer to Persian attempts to wipe out the Jews, exactly what events are you describing? To my knowledge of Iranian history, prior to the Iranian Revolution and the ascent of power of batshit loco mullahs, Iran has traditionally been a safe-haven for Jews. It is perhaps the only nation in history that has repeatedly freed the Jews from slavery or protected them from persecution, beginning with the Achaemenids, continuing to the Sassanids, and even during the Safavid era. Jews have had it pretty good in Iran, from what I can tell. The historical accuracy of linking Purim to Xerxes I doesn't make much sense, and most modern historians dispute it. I'm certainly not trying to absolve the Persians of their sins; we have a long history of being complete morons. But I like to think that religious tolerance and individual liberty is one of Iran's continuous and shining examples: we were the first to outlaw slavery, and we were the first to proclaim that one should be free to worship however one chooses. I've no doubt that there were Iranian despots who wanted to suppress religious groups in the past, but the vast history of Iran as an autonomous nation shows it being remarkably tolerant of other religions.
Also,
There really isn't any situation where Vista is preferable to XP at the moment. Vista has a lot going for it on the back-end, and it's a lot prettier than XP, but right now it's too new and requires too much computing power. I have a Vista Ultimate machine at home that I use to mess around with Windows Media Center, and this is the one area where Vista beats XP hands-down. But besides that, it's probably better to wait until Vista SP1 before you adopt it--at that point the drivers will be more more mature, it will be more stable, and the hardware required to run it smoothly will be more aggressively priced. (It really does require absurd amounts of memory for some tasks, although once it gets its caching straight, it tends to run fairly quickly.)