Democracy is by definition tyranny of the majority. That's why most countries have constitutions that cannot be violated and why there is no pure democracy.
When you find a less mixed one, I'll accept that classification. To me, the US is pretty much second only to anarchistic African warlord states in terms of lack of government involvement in the economy. Even that is kind of loosening the definition. Europe and China would be mixed economies; purely socialist ones are mostly a thing of the past, although Cuba might still qualify.
Hating money is a nice way to express your hatred of the bad aspects of our capitalistic system, without making oneself and obvious hypocrite and/or nutcase. Go look at the last story, "Can You Buy Tech With a Clean Conscience?", if you want to see what happens when money isn't getting blamed. Not pretty.
Money is, of course, just an extension of barter. No reason to think any system of barter will not on its own develop money - as has happened in every civilization, no matter how small. It's simply the end result: systems like having an abstraction of value.
Do you honestly believe Apple would be unable to abuse the market if not for copyright and patents?
Not that copyrights and patents are good; see my signature. They simply are a different matter. I'll remind you, it was corporations that pushed copyright and patent laws for the past hundred years, not random citizens or special interest groups.
You're probably getting modded offtopic because you did not clearly link Apple to this bit:
"I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism. America is not at that extreme, but it is surely closer to it than any other country. Since Stalinist Russia was all about centralisation, the very fact that Apple is a private company means it has little in common with it."
So allow me: Apple is a perfect example of what unregulated free markets result in. All those liberarians who want to vote with your feet... look at how many people are quite happy to take censorship and control far out-stepping the federal government, because of a shiny product. Apple has the very real potential of eventually reaching the critical mass of Microsoft, where you are FORCED to do business with them, or be unable to use digital devices. If that happens, then sorry, I'd rather the government than Apple. Corporations do not value your freedom, and for the most part, neither do their consumers; that's why we have regulations and anti-monopoly laws.
"First they want to tell you what you can and cannot say. Then they want to tell you what you can and cannot do. Then they will want to tell you what you can and cannot think."
You realize this is Apple we're talking about, right? I think they followed that list exactly in reverse;
> Reality distortion field, army of fanboys ready to stand up for the stupidest decisions (I am still amazed at the instant turnover that was the end to the years of "PowerPC is better!" when Apple moved to iX86), heavy marketing to make you believe it is something it isn't.
> Walled garden that goes almost totally unquestioned by users. An unfortunate tendency for Apple to offer "official" (and mangled) versions of open source libraries, making use of the real ones more difficult. Heavily locked down hardware, even on desktops, compared to non-Apple computers.
> THEN censorship like this.
I am not really sure what they hoped to gain, making it quite possible this specific case was just a screwup of some middle-manager. However, that does not absolve Apple of their other sins; it simply illustrates how much unwarranted power Apple wields, with no oversight, over a growing segment of the computing world. Truly frightening.
I think the real problem is that no one outside of slashdot and business people follow this kind of news. It truly illustrates why ideas are not property, and why when you try to make them such, everyone loses; but to most people, this is not on the radar. When they think of patents, they think of keeping some Chinese company from 'stealing' some American's genius invention, not the billions of dollars wasted on pointless inter-corporate patent wars and the damage done to the companies and citizens who get dragged into them without millions to spend on legal teams.
The same goes for copyright. The lawsuits against the actual artists and the fear of legal retribution to people doing what really ought to be legal (like producing their own works with some relation to corporate-owned ones), along with the economic costs of what amounts to a digital infrastructure tax, are not considered by the common people; they think of the old "starving artist" who is having their livelihood stripped away by that evil pirate selling copied DVDs on the street corner, even though every possible aspect of that scenario is fictitious.
The real important point here is that people are stupid and happy to be so. Combine that with a general terror of change and around half of the country labeling any attempt to improve the lives of the majority of people "socialism" and you have a recipe for a slow collapse into corruption, insignificance, and civil strife.
"Big governments and their corporate creations locked into a tight positive feedback loop."
Are you implying, as has been falsely implied many times before, that a small government results in a lower probability of a corrupt, monopolistic economy arising? I would have thought seemingly intelligent people would have moved past that. Governments might aid corporations due to corruption, but when you give it all over to an unregulated "free" market, nobody needs corruption to screw over the people; they just do it. "Big governments" at least have the potential to work; free markets, by their nature, will fall into monopolies which are astronomically more abusive than governments.
The correct answer is regulation and a watchful populous which punishes corruption in elections. I'd also like a flying rainbow pony.
I take it you've never seen a wordlist for a dictionary password cracker. I don't have any on me to see if that specific string is in them (quite possible, based on some of what I remember), but I do know many dictionary cracking programs implement mixing of words on the list - meaning "correct horse staple battery" will be cracked in SECONDS, not centuries.
Add to that rainbow tables, and you're basically screwed with anything under 8 characters + mixed case + at least one special character (ideally an uncommon one like ^, %, or &, less likely than !, @, $, or * to be in a character set).
The problem with democracy is that it makes people in general feel responsible for the mistakes of the government, when usually, they had few options and were lied to. It is basically a pressure release to allow corrupt systems to exist without boiling over into revolution.
Technocracy allows variation within it. It is more a methodology than an ideology. Environmentalists are largely monolithic; they vary on some issues, but it is an ideology. You can still have Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians... but it is about using fact-based arguments over appeals to emotion.
Will that ever work? Doubtful. Is it becoming more likely in the US? Hell no. But it is more complicated than "I want politicians who think like me," and it's disingenuous to paint this that way. We would be much better off if we didn't have the witch hunts, security theater, censorship, racism, and all other unfortunate little problems caused by people thinking with their crotch and not their head.
"Please stop violating the citizens' civil rights" isn't exactly something to be applauded. A move in the right direction, but not a fundamental shift. There is still a deep problem which needs resolved, something this doesn't do.
It isn't a small percentile when it is systematic procedure in some departments, a procedure seemingly unchallenged by those in it. No, it is a representation of the masses of police. If they disagree, they should stand up. Their silence is agreement.
Hmm... if a majority vote could decide ownership of one's product of labor then we would be in deep shit. US got its economic power by protecting private property.
People that think that democratic ideas should apply to private property are not thinking rationally.
So, what do you think is ideal, Mr. Libertarian? Sell the highway system, privatize police and fire departments? Or are you OK with those so long as you're benefiting from them and someone else is paying? People who want a first world quality of life for free aren't thinking rationally, if you ask me.
Personally, I am more keen on worrying about those with boatloads of money who screw the system, than those without money who screw the system. The whole "illegals stealing our jobs and not paying taxes!" thing is an obvious distraction from the real issues in the country, propped up by xenophobia and nationalism.
It has nothing to do with wanting to live in the US. It has everything to do with making money in one country and then evading taxes by running to another, which I will point out, is only an option for the ultra-rich to begin with.
Except it wasn't really his money, it was the government's, as decided by a democratically elected legislature. You might not like taxes, but try having a civilization without infrastructure. You can live in Africa for a few years and then we'll talk.
Slashdot Mirror
Democracy is by definition tyranny of the majority. That's why most countries have constitutions that cannot be violated and why there is no pure democracy.
Yeah, until people in the Xs start getting tossed out. Then "Zander" works nicely, too.
I'd rather we not start getting tons of Zanders.
Well, as long as they weren't alphabetized.
When you find a less mixed one, I'll accept that classification. To me, the US is pretty much second only to anarchistic African warlord states in terms of lack of government involvement in the economy. Even that is kind of loosening the definition. Europe and China would be mixed economies; purely socialist ones are mostly a thing of the past, although Cuba might still qualify.
Hating money is a nice way to express your hatred of the bad aspects of our capitalistic system, without making oneself and obvious hypocrite and/or nutcase. Go look at the last story, "Can You Buy Tech With a Clean Conscience?", if you want to see what happens when money isn't getting blamed. Not pretty.
Money is, of course, just an extension of barter. No reason to think any system of barter will not on its own develop money - as has happened in every civilization, no matter how small. It's simply the end result: systems like having an abstraction of value.
Do you honestly believe Apple would be unable to abuse the market if not for copyright and patents?
Not that copyrights and patents are good; see my signature. They simply are a different matter. I'll remind you, it was corporations that pushed copyright and patent laws for the past hundred years, not random citizens or special interest groups.
You're probably getting modded offtopic because you did not clearly link Apple to this bit:
"I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism. America is not at that extreme, but it is surely closer to it than any other country. Since Stalinist Russia was all about centralisation, the very fact that Apple is a private company means it has little in common with it."
So allow me: Apple is a perfect example of what unregulated free markets result in. All those liberarians who want to vote with your feet... look at how many people are quite happy to take censorship and control far out-stepping the federal government, because of a shiny product. Apple has the very real potential of eventually reaching the critical mass of Microsoft, where you are FORCED to do business with them, or be unable to use digital devices. If that happens, then sorry, I'd rather the government than Apple. Corporations do not value your freedom, and for the most part, neither do their consumers; that's why we have regulations and anti-monopoly laws.
The reality distortion field works on words, too.
"First they want to tell you what you can and cannot say. Then they want to tell you what you can and cannot do. Then they will want to tell you what you can and cannot think."
You realize this is Apple we're talking about, right? I think they followed that list exactly in reverse;
> Reality distortion field, army of fanboys ready to stand up for the stupidest decisions (I am still amazed at the instant turnover that was the end to the years of "PowerPC is better!" when Apple moved to iX86), heavy marketing to make you believe it is something it isn't.
> Walled garden that goes almost totally unquestioned by users. An unfortunate tendency for Apple to offer "official" (and mangled) versions of open source libraries, making use of the real ones more difficult. Heavily locked down hardware, even on desktops, compared to non-Apple computers.
> THEN censorship like this.
I am not really sure what they hoped to gain, making it quite possible this specific case was just a screwup of some middle-manager. However, that does not absolve Apple of their other sins; it simply illustrates how much unwarranted power Apple wields, with no oversight, over a growing segment of the computing world. Truly frightening.
And the army could pay for millions. Your point?
I think the real problem is that no one outside of slashdot and business people follow this kind of news. It truly illustrates why ideas are not property, and why when you try to make them such, everyone loses; but to most people, this is not on the radar. When they think of patents, they think of keeping some Chinese company from 'stealing' some American's genius invention, not the billions of dollars wasted on pointless inter-corporate patent wars and the damage done to the companies and citizens who get dragged into them without millions to spend on legal teams.
The same goes for copyright. The lawsuits against the actual artists and the fear of legal retribution to people doing what really ought to be legal (like producing their own works with some relation to corporate-owned ones), along with the economic costs of what amounts to a digital infrastructure tax, are not considered by the common people; they think of the old "starving artist" who is having their livelihood stripped away by that evil pirate selling copied DVDs on the street corner, even though every possible aspect of that scenario is fictitious.
The real important point here is that people are stupid and happy to be so. Combine that with a general terror of change and around half of the country labeling any attempt to improve the lives of the majority of people "socialism" and you have a recipe for a slow collapse into corruption, insignificance, and civil strife.
"Big governments and their corporate creations locked into a tight positive feedback loop."
Are you implying, as has been falsely implied many times before, that a small government results in a lower probability of a corrupt, monopolistic economy arising? I would have thought seemingly intelligent people would have moved past that. Governments might aid corporations due to corruption, but when you give it all over to an unregulated "free" market, nobody needs corruption to screw over the people; they just do it. "Big governments" at least have the potential to work; free markets, by their nature, will fall into monopolies which are astronomically more abusive than governments.
The correct answer is regulation and a watchful populous which punishes corruption in elections. I'd also like a flying rainbow pony.
And Microsoft makes most of theirs from extorting companies, governments, and OEMs to use their products. Your point?
I take it you've never seen a wordlist for a dictionary password cracker. I don't have any on me to see if that specific string is in them (quite possible, based on some of what I remember), but I do know many dictionary cracking programs implement mixing of words on the list - meaning "correct horse staple battery" will be cracked in SECONDS, not centuries.
Add to that rainbow tables, and you're basically screwed with anything under 8 characters + mixed case + at least one special character (ideally an uncommon one like ^, %, or &, less likely than !, @, $, or * to be in a character set).
I have patented patenting things that are already patented (invalidly), on a smart phone. My lawyer will be calling Microsoft on Monday.
The problem with democracy is that it makes people in general feel responsible for the mistakes of the government, when usually, they had few options and were lied to. It is basically a pressure release to allow corrupt systems to exist without boiling over into revolution.
Technocracy allows variation within it. It is more a methodology than an ideology. Environmentalists are largely monolithic; they vary on some issues, but it is an ideology. You can still have Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians... but it is about using fact-based arguments over appeals to emotion.
Will that ever work? Doubtful. Is it becoming more likely in the US? Hell no. But it is more complicated than "I want politicians who think like me," and it's disingenuous to paint this that way. We would be much better off if we didn't have the witch hunts, security theater, censorship, racism, and all other unfortunate little problems caused by people thinking with their crotch and not their head.
"Please stop violating the citizens' civil rights" isn't exactly something to be applauded. A move in the right direction, but not a fundamental shift. There is still a deep problem which needs resolved, something this doesn't do.
It isn't a small percentile when it is systematic procedure in some departments, a procedure seemingly unchallenged by those in it. No, it is a representation of the masses of police. If they disagree, they should stand up. Their silence is agreement.
So, what do you think is ideal, Mr. Libertarian? Sell the highway system, privatize police and fire departments? Or are you OK with those so long as you're benefiting from them and someone else is paying? People who want a first world quality of life for free aren't thinking rationally, if you ask me.
That's actually the "free market" more than taxes. Go look at the US around the time of the depression. Not that much difference from modern Africa.
Personally, I am more keen on worrying about those with boatloads of money who screw the system, than those without money who screw the system. The whole "illegals stealing our jobs and not paying taxes!" thing is an obvious distraction from the real issues in the country, propped up by xenophobia and nationalism.
It has nothing to do with wanting to live in the US. It has everything to do with making money in one country and then evading taxes by running to another, which I will point out, is only an option for the ultra-rich to begin with.
Except it wasn't really his money, it was the government's, as decided by a democratically elected legislature. You might not like taxes, but try having a civilization without infrastructure. You can live in Africa for a few years and then we'll talk.