Granting a monopoly is exactly what a patent is supposed to do. If you knew anything about intellectual property rights you might not post such garb. Your post was nothing but an emotionalists' ranting, spreading typical copyleft propaganda, intending to revoke the current and future property rights of creators. The whole premise of your rant was that because intellectual property rights--as with all property rights--grant a monopoly, said rights are evil. It is your premise and ideas that are responsible for stifling innovation and competition, not 'monopolistic' property rights.
One shouldn't be too surprised, as the culture of thievery probably permiates deep into these companies as it does their users. Fraud is fraud, and a large fine should be brought in response to this initiation of force.
IT is the fallacy of stolen concept to use a concept and reject its epistemological roots. Land does exist and has the 'potential' to be used by labor whether or not someone owns it. In order to think logically, you must also know the difference between the actual and the potential. It would also help for you to know what the concepts you are using mean. For the sake of this last post I'll inform you of the meaning of the concept capital: Wealth in the form of property, used or accumulated in production. A look in your dictionary will result in: "Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation." Hence, it is stolen concept to use the concept of capital while rejecting its meaning, and using its product: accumulated wealth. Are you trying to do this?
Since you still do not get it, as you refuse to think about what you are stating, I'll go ahead and answer your question... "Exactly where is the contribution of the owner of capital?" The contribution is in the fact that the whole system (equation) is the contribution of the owner of capital. The owner/s of a factory are responsible for everything; provides the tools that allow for labor, and hires the labor.
Man's mind has enabled individuals to create the capital--factories, hospitals, computers--and other innovations that have made life enjoyable, raised our standard of living; the mind allows a software developer to create an application for multiple corporations, a bio-engineer to create a revolutionary new plant resistant to parasites, and a farmer to plant and farm that crop--all done in effort to raise capital and advance their own standard of life and values.
Possess == ownership in the way that patents and copyrights == ownership. Man is entitled to the product of his mind; and a software developer deserves to be compensated for the work he has done--refusing to believe that the application is the developers productive work is an evasion of reality.
My thinking is flawed? Your emotional response you purport to identify as thinking is incorrect. I'm not the individual going around, refusing to believe, that you cannot have a group without an individual; believing in the faith of the mystical collective.
Yes, I should have left that statement out as it was not essential. However, there is plenty of proof that your socialism would have played out into the enslavement of the software developer. If you advocate using someone's labor, by force, without compensation, then you are advocating slavery. As for Reason, you ought to try and expand your rational faculty as to not fill your posts with so many contradictions.
"I see equations where capital contributes to production, but I fail to see where the owner of said capital then contributes to production through ownership." Sorry, but your epistemology is obviously NOT reason. Logic is the art of non contradictory integration. Either capital contributes to production--which it does--or it doesn't, and you don't have something if you don't have it (ownership).
Anti-statism is not my religion. It is the consequence of a philosophy based on Reason, and on the fact that in order for an individual to remain in existence he must be productive and earn (therefore own) the things that allow for him to exist--water, food, and in this day and age money. Nor am I a nihilist as a I recognize values, and live by principles; or an anarchist, as I recognize and support the need for a government--to protect individual rights. Through my own volition, I contribute to individuals (community) who are exposed to my contributions through their own volition.
Freewill is the only way to make choices.... Property rights presupposes your ability to choose, and 'buy' creature comforts, or protect 'you' or 'yours.'
>If you think that the Strongest Thug can really >take away anything that is important to me, you >are gravely mistaken.
I see your using the concept of property rights again. Since you include the concepts: you, take, and me. -see stolen concept- No, you are gravely mistaken, unfortunately. Since the only way you can value (importance) anything, is to first value yourself--living helps--and in order to own anything, you must own yourself--have the right you yourself and the product of your mind. Under statism (the strongest thug) you do not have any rights, including the right to yourself, and therefore can have 'anything' 'taken' from 'you.' -see statism (anarchism, communism, etc..) For current examples see China, Iran...
Flawed thinking--stolen concept, or intellectual dishonesty. The only way ownership is not earned is when something is stolen--by force. You call these people thieves, moochers, looters, and parasites. Interesting enough there is a political system called socialism (welfare) that uses the principle of the parasite and looter. You have failed to think in your emotional attack against capitalism. The bottom line is that the software developer created that organization of instructions and has the right to that product. Every time a corporation uses the software developers' organization of instructions --for example MS Windows-- for productive gain the developer should be compensated.
Quite interesting how your socialism would have played out into the enslavement of software developers and other creators--should be quite interesting for you I should say, because I knew this already.
== "Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and all the wealth that has ever existed on earth." --Ayn Rand ==
You didn't give much context in your reply, and since this is/. I'll just guess that it was supposed to be an attack against property rights.
First of all, if I own something productive I have earned the right to that product--such is the nature of property rights. If I sell my productive item, then yes I am entitled to the wealth I've voluntarily agreed to receive as compensation--mutual gain for mutal benefit; capitalism. The belief that the individual who owns the rights to the productive item and sells limited rights to another entity for productive use and profit, 'has done nothing,' is nothing but stolen concept garb.
Does a factory worker deserve to be paid for the work he has done? Does a software developer deserve to be paid for the work he has done? One difference between the two is that the software developer is able to redistribute his work. It would be slavery for a factory owner to force an individual to work without compensation. The same goes for corporations and a software developers' application/s--his work. I want to make this as clear as possible: the software developers' work is his applicaion/s, and every time one 'works' one should be paid; if an individual is forced to work, his rights are being violated and he is a slave. This applies to all productive work, be it music, movies, software, etc...
No, lets not just say this. That is a broad misunderstanding of patents, and failure to know who/how the first GUI was created. In fact, this is just stupidity on top of mediocrity.
You can tell him that in this day and age property rights should not exist because they are not fair to those that have not earned the property. Tell him that the people should replace the current system with nihilism and anarchy. Tell him that along with the people, there are many supporters in the open source movement who support copyleft, the third way, etc--even though the rejection of property rights would allow the strongest thug to use (steal) Open Source code however is seen fit. Proletariat Unite!
Or you could tell him to respect individual rights, and maintain software developers rights to their property. Including the rights of Open Source developers who 'submit' 'their' 'property' to be used for the development of the software I use every day.
-- "If someone comes to you with the "third way" defence of statism, go tell them to stick it up their last way and make certain that it is their last way." --
As long as the government doesn't step in and do something stupid, it should strengthen the internet. In order to pay their bills, WorldC will have to sell their property to other corporations, with some of it maybe going to smaller companies. However, I doubt this will happen. I'm sure the government would step in and save the corporation from *failing*--which is true anti-competition-- and at the same time hurt consumers with that coercive force.
If the market is left alone, this would be a good example of how capitalism does its own "trust-busting," morally.
You might want to ask yourself why interest rates are so low. You don't have too, the reason why the interest rates are so low is because they are trying to get their failing economy (if failing is the right term to use) back on track. However, making money worthless will only further devistate their weak economy; and aid its collapse into some sort of socialist (communist/facist) state.
If they want to benefit humanity, they can start by setting human's free, and adobt a government proper to the survival of man. With their capitalism they could do many more things than they do know, with such a big population.
There can be no benefit to humanity, if 'one' man does not benefit. You cannot divorce the individual from humanity.
Re:United States and vs. Both
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, i've known that 'all' individual rights are removed, including property rights, including the working class that is always exploited into believing (emotionally) that they can survive without property rights. So I ask you the same, have you even known anything about socialism, individual rights, or property rights?
For anyone stupid enough to take Switzerland and the Netherlands as evidence that we don't need IP protection, why don't you look at the United States which has obviously flouished more 'with' IP protection. Copyright, and patent protection is nothing more than protecting peoples rights to their own property. Here's a question: who would agree that a factory worker should not be payed for the work he has done, besides socialists? For anyone emotionally attacking IP protection you ought to apply the same situation to someone that creates something with more mental effort in which 'others' (factory owner above) would use for their own profit.
What exactly to you mean by natural monopoly. All monopolies are harmless except coercive monopolies, and there is no such thing as a coercive monopoly in capitalism--real capitalism, not mixed socialism. It should also be noted that the pro-property right infringing argument of a monopoly lowering prices and raising them has been exhausted and shown bunk. Still there is no justification for expropriating property nor could anyone but a full blown socialist try and justify it via some rationalization.
Any situation that would allow coercive monopolies like electric companies to rape taxpayers in taxes and fee's is unexceptable... anytime.
But yes, I had forgotten how much the government on all levels props these companies up, but I still believe that any regulations removed is a step in the right direction. This is the kind of problem that occurs when government starts making corporate policy.
Well I think we've gotten as far as we can get on this issue. If you are interested in my views on Capitalism and government (not seen much) you can check out http://www.moraldefense.com and articles on current events http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/
I don't quite understand your arguement. Why is regulation of monopolies essential, and how does said regulation help consumers? First of all, does my local Wal-Mart need to be regulated? It currently has about about 80% market share just in its selling of grocery. It has 100% market control in the combination of grocery, cloths, hardware, etc... Should the federal government try to order my Wal-Mart to only sell grocery like the government is trying to make Microsoft sell a 'scaled-down' version of windows (without 'middleware' like browser, word processing, GUI, bold type, etc?
Everyone who supports the expropriation of property from producers make a disgusting error: they believe they have a right shop at Wal-Mart; use the Cable operators services. I don't know exactly what to call this other than 'the right to steal'. However, there was no Wal-Mart in nature; it had to be created, and as far as rights go one has the right to farm their food or, at their permission, buy it from Wal-Mart. Communications cable didn't exist in nature, and also had to be created. Nobody has the right to that cable but to those that created it, and if they choose to sell rights to use the cable so be it. I would really like someone to justify the expropriation of cable operators property. Exactly how does joe blow have the right to start up an ISP and use force to use someone elses (cable operator's) property? Or on a fundamental level, how do I have the right to take the product of your mind (what you've produced, money, car, computer,etc..) and use it for my gains? Obviously I don't have that right, and such is not the nature of rights.
The fact is that there can be no such thing as a coercive monopoly without the help of government. The fact is also that the baby bells are coercive monopolies as Ma Bell became so successful due to government. Just as competition wasn't achieved by government kick-backs and market lockups for Ma Bell, competition will not be achieved by giving company's like Covad government kick-backs and sanction. The problem was caused by Socialization of the market, the problem will not be fixed by advancing the problem.
If there is any errors (spelling, etc) in the above I apologize. I was in a hurry and I didn't have the time to preview the post.
Ah so true. I had not thought about that particular aspect. Bailouts and subsidies are not good for individual rights, but we must remember that the FCC just doesn't regulate 'last-mile networks'. So the thing we should all be attacking is government interference in the marketplace; subsidies or expropriation.
Actually, subsidies require the expropriation of property. This is done by involuntary taxation.
This was indeed a victory for the companies that have spent effort, time, and money into putting down cable that allow us to watch television and have broadband internet connections. It is quite sick and shows the current state of our country when a company takes it upon themselves to lay down miles of communications cable and then have the government come in and expropriate that property. This wasn't just a victory for Cable companies, but it was a victory for individual rights of everyone in this country.
There were were no arguements, my post was a statement of facts; I wasn't arguing with anyone, just stating the truth, and pointing out contradictions. Though, I wouldn't mind an arguement; however, I see no one arguing with my statements.
It is indeed a sad day to see not only government officials advocate the destruction of property/individual rights, but get so much advocation from technology minded individuals. While all of you rant and rave about the violation of property rights, either on this site, or someone elses site; when someone is forced to remove material; you advocate the destruction of individual rights when it comes to microsoft.
There is no such thing as a coercive monopoly in the system of Capitalism, the only coercive--out of reach from competition--monoplolies can be created by Government. You say, "Oh but Microsoft is so rich, they can lower prices until they kill the competition." Any rational mind that knows the basic principles of capitalism can figure out that a company cannot lower prices in such a way and expect to maintain its previous market share; with the lowering of prices, so low, that other businesses go under means that there will be a high loss in profit--what is needed to survive in capitalism. This heavy loss of profit means that sooner or later, prices will have to be raised, raised higher than normal to make up profit that has been lost; this puts the company at a real disadvantage to any competitors left, or new competitors that will be created by the heavy spending of venture capital due to the high prospect of profitability. So as you can see, the arguement that MS, or any other market leader, can lower prices and kill competition is flawed.
Another aspect of this unfair monopoloy talk that is flawed, that was the prime example in the court rooms, was that by bundling IE with windows "Microsoft" unfairly put netscape out of competition and consumer choice was lost. I fail to see how bundling a browser into an OS hurts consumers, its an added tool; should we stomp out KDE for bundling Konqueror with its environment? Netscape became dominant when its browser was better, people bought it, I bougt it; MS got with the program and created a better browser, soon everyone was using IE, because it was a better product, and already came with their OS; if MS should be punished, so should have netscape. Also, how was consumer choice taken away? The only way Netscape lost market share was because the consumers "CHOSE" to use IE, not at the point of a gun, not with brute force, but by FREE CHOICE; the only way choice can be lost in the marketplace--capitalism--is if the government steps in.
Another good idea is to have launches done on the moon; however, NASA is a broken government agency and will probably never have enough money to do such things. Not to mention NASA isn't proper to government and should be privatized, which seems as though it could be on the agenda, as NASA has said it is considering selling space shuttles.
AOL is just so evil, how can a corporation not let competitors use their services! They only bought the servers and made the code, how dare they even think about not letting some bum leech off of their bandwidth!
The only way for free services, from companies that want to make a profit, to remain free is good effective advertising. You really only have two choices; in your face advertising that must be played before you can continue, pay-per services which you pay a service fee for services used. I personally would rather have the advertising, since I don't have much money to be paying for every service I use, not only that, fee's will "lower" the number of service providers on the internet to a small group compaired to today's numbers, since only the popular companies will be making money.
Placed into the context of the whole post, that is exactly its meaning. Since im missing the point so much, would you be so kind to let me know what that statement is supposed to mean? Because if im correct most of the "food" one would have to buy, would be purchased from a corporation, unless one were to buy from a farmers market or the likes. Correct?
Slashdot Mirror
Granting a monopoly is exactly what a patent is supposed to do. If you knew anything about intellectual property rights you might not post such garb. Your post was nothing but an emotionalists' ranting, spreading typical copyleft propaganda, intending to revoke the current and future property rights of creators. The whole premise of your rant was that because intellectual property rights--as with all property rights--grant a monopoly, said rights are evil. It is your premise and ideas that are responsible for stifling innovation and competition, not 'monopolistic' property rights.
One shouldn't be too surprised, as the culture of thievery probably permiates deep into these companies as it does their users. Fraud is fraud, and a large fine should be brought in response to this initiation of force.
IT is the fallacy of stolen concept to use a concept and reject its epistemological roots. Land does exist and has the 'potential' to be used by labor whether or not someone owns it. In order to think logically, you must also know the difference between the actual and the potential. It would also help for you to know what the concepts you are using mean. For the sake of this last post I'll inform you of the meaning of the concept capital: Wealth in the form of property, used or accumulated in production. A look in your dictionary will result in: "Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation." Hence, it is stolen concept to use the concept of capital while rejecting its meaning, and using its product: accumulated wealth. Are you trying to do this?
Since you still do not get it, as you refuse to think about what you are stating, I'll go ahead and answer your question... "Exactly where is the contribution of the owner of capital?" The contribution is in the fact that the whole system (equation) is the contribution of the owner of capital. The owner/s of a factory are responsible for everything; provides the tools that allow for labor, and hires the labor.
Man's mind has enabled individuals to create the capital--factories, hospitals, computers--and
other innovations that have made life enjoyable, raised our standard of living; the mind allows a software developer to create an application for multiple corporations, a bio-engineer to create a
revolutionary new plant resistant to parasites, and a farmer to plant and farm that crop--all done in effort to raise capital and advance their
own standard of life and values.
Possess == ownership in the way that patents and copyrights == ownership. Man is entitled to the product of his mind; and a software developer deserves to be compensated for the work he has done--refusing to believe that the application is the developers productive work is an evasion of reality.
EOT
My thinking is flawed? Your emotional response you purport to identify as thinking is incorrect. I'm not the individual going around, refusing to believe, that you cannot have a group without an individual; believing in the faith of the mystical collective.
Yes, I should have left that statement out as it was not essential. However, there is plenty of proof that your socialism would have played out into the enslavement of the software developer. If you advocate using someone's labor, by force, without compensation, then you are advocating slavery. As for Reason, you ought to try and expand your rational faculty as to not fill your posts with so many contradictions.
"I see equations where capital contributes to production, but I fail to see where the owner of said capital then contributes to production through ownership." Sorry, but your epistemology is obviously NOT reason. Logic is the art of non contradictory integration. Either capital contributes to production--which it does--or it doesn't, and you don't have something if you don't have it (ownership).
Anti-statism is not my religion. It is the consequence of a philosophy based on Reason, and on the fact that in order for an individual to remain in existence he must be productive and earn (therefore own) the things that allow for him to exist--water, food, and in this day and age money. Nor am I a nihilist as a I recognize values, and live by principles; or an anarchist, as I recognize and support the need for a government--to protect individual rights. Through my own volition, I contribute to individuals (community) who are exposed to my contributions through their own volition.
Freewill is the only way to make choices.... Property rights presupposes your ability to choose, and 'buy' creature comforts, or protect 'you' or 'yours.'
>If you think that the Strongest Thug can really >take away anything that is important to me, you >are gravely mistaken.
I see your using the concept of property rights again. Since you include the concepts: you, take, and me. -see stolen concept-
No, you are gravely mistaken, unfortunately. Since the only way you can value (importance) anything, is to first value yourself--living helps--and in order to own anything, you must own yourself--have the right you yourself and the product of your mind. Under statism (the strongest thug) you do not have any rights, including the right to yourself, and therefore can have 'anything' 'taken' from 'you.' -see statism (anarchism, communism, etc..) For current examples see China, Iran...
Flawed thinking--stolen concept, or intellectual dishonesty. The only way ownership is not earned is when something is stolen--by force. You call these people thieves, moochers, looters, and parasites. Interesting enough there is a political system called socialism (welfare) that uses the principle of the parasite and looter. You have failed to think in your emotional attack against capitalism. The bottom line is that the software developer created that organization of instructions and has the right to that product. Every time a corporation uses the software developers' organization of instructions --for example MS Windows-- for productive gain the developer should be compensated.
Quite interesting how your socialism would have played out into the enslavement of software developers and other creators--should be quite interesting for you I should say, because I knew this already.
==
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and all the wealth that has ever existed on earth." --Ayn Rand
==
You didn't give much context in your reply, and since this is /. I'll just guess that it was supposed to be an attack against property rights.
First of all, if I own something productive I have earned the right to that product--such is the nature of property rights. If I sell my productive item, then yes I am entitled to the wealth I've voluntarily agreed to receive as compensation--mutual gain for mutal benefit; capitalism. The belief that the individual who owns the rights to the productive item and sells limited rights to another entity for productive use and profit, 'has done nothing,' is nothing but stolen concept garb.
Does a factory worker deserve to be paid for the work he has done? Does a software developer deserve to be paid for the work he has done? One difference between the two is that the software developer is able to redistribute his work. It would be slavery for a factory owner to force an individual to work without compensation. The same goes for corporations and a software developers' application/s--his work. I want to make this as clear as possible: the software developers' work is his applicaion/s, and every time one 'works' one should be paid; if an individual is forced to work, his rights are being violated and he is a slave. This applies to all productive work, be it music, movies, software, etc...
No, lets not just say this. That is a broad misunderstanding of patents, and failure to know who/how the first GUI was created. In fact, this is just stupidity on top of mediocrity.
You can tell him that in this day and age property rights should not exist because they are not fair to those that have not earned the property. Tell him that the people should replace the current system with nihilism and anarchy. Tell him that along with the people, there are many supporters in the open source movement who support copyleft, the third way, etc--even though the rejection of property rights would allow the strongest thug to use (steal) Open Source code however is seen fit. Proletariat Unite!
Or you could tell him to respect individual rights, and maintain software developers rights to their property. Including the rights of Open Source developers who 'submit' 'their' 'property' to be used for the development of the software I use every day.
--
"If someone comes to you with the "third way" defence of statism, go tell them to stick it up their last way and make certain that it is their last way."
--
I see that Linus has adopt the thinking, or I should say 'feeling' that has made Enron popular in the media.
As long as the government doesn't step in and do something stupid, it should strengthen the internet. In order to pay their bills, WorldC will have to sell their property to other corporations, with some of it maybe going to smaller companies. However, I doubt this will happen. I'm sure the government would step in and save the corporation from *failing*--which is true anti-competition-- and at the same time hurt consumers with that coercive force.
If the market is left alone, this would be a good example of how capitalism does its own "trust-busting," morally.
You might want to ask yourself why interest rates are so low. You don't have too, the reason why the interest rates are so low is because they are trying to get their failing economy (if failing is the right term to use) back on track. However, making money worthless will only further devistate their weak economy; and aid its collapse into some sort of socialist (communist/facist) state.
If they want to benefit humanity, they can start by setting human's free, and adobt a government proper to the survival of man. With their capitalism they could do many more things than they do know, with such a big population.
There can be no benefit to humanity, if 'one' man does not benefit. You cannot divorce the individual from humanity.
Yeah, i've known that 'all' individual rights are removed, including property rights, including the working class that is always exploited into believing (emotionally) that they can survive without property rights. So I ask you the same, have you even known anything about socialism, individual rights, or property rights?
For anyone stupid enough to take Switzerland and the Netherlands as evidence that we don't need IP protection, why don't you look at the United States which has obviously flouished more 'with' IP protection. Copyright, and patent protection is nothing more than protecting peoples rights to their own property. Here's a question: who would agree that a factory worker should not be payed for the work he has done, besides socialists? For anyone emotionally attacking IP protection you ought to apply the same situation to someone that creates something with more mental effort in which 'others' (factory owner above) would use for their own profit.
What exactly to you mean by natural monopoly. All monopolies are harmless except coercive monopolies, and there is no such thing as a coercive monopoly in capitalism--real capitalism, not mixed socialism. It should also be noted that the pro-property right infringing argument of a monopoly lowering prices and raising them has been exhausted and shown bunk. Still there is no justification for expropriating property nor could anyone but a full blown socialist try and justify it via some rationalization.
Any situation that would allow coercive monopolies like electric companies to rape taxpayers in taxes and fee's is unexceptable... anytime.
But yes, I had forgotten how much the government on all levels props these companies up, but I still believe that any regulations removed is a step in the right direction. This is the kind of problem that occurs when government starts making corporate policy.
Well I think we've gotten as far as we can get on this issue. If you are interested in my views on Capitalism and government (not seen much) you can check out http://www.moraldefense.com and articles on current events http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/
Thanks for the discussion.
I don't quite understand your arguement. Why is regulation of monopolies essential, and how does said regulation help consumers? First of all, does my local Wal-Mart need to be regulated? It currently has about about 80% market share just in its selling of grocery. It has 100% market control in the combination of grocery, cloths, hardware, etc... Should the federal government try to order my Wal-Mart to only sell grocery like the government is trying to make Microsoft sell a 'scaled-down' version of windows (without 'middleware' like browser, word processing, GUI, bold type, etc?
Everyone who supports the expropriation of property from producers make a disgusting error: they believe they have a right shop at Wal-Mart; use the Cable operators services. I don't know exactly what to call this other than 'the right to steal'. However, there was no Wal-Mart in nature; it had to be created, and as far as rights go one has the right to farm their food or, at their permission, buy it from Wal-Mart. Communications cable didn't exist in nature, and also had to be created. Nobody has the right to that cable but to those that created it, and if they choose to sell rights to use the cable so be it. I would really like someone to justify the expropriation of cable operators property. Exactly how does joe blow have the right to start up an ISP and use force to use someone elses (cable operator's) property? Or on a fundamental level, how do I have the right to take the product of your mind (what you've produced, money, car, computer,etc..) and use it for my gains? Obviously I don't have that right, and such is not the nature of rights.
The fact is that there can be no such thing as a coercive monopoly without the help of government. The fact is also that the baby bells are coercive monopolies as Ma Bell became so successful due to government. Just as competition wasn't achieved by government kick-backs and market lockups for Ma Bell, competition will not be achieved by giving company's like Covad government kick-backs and sanction. The problem was caused by Socialization of the market, the problem will not be fixed by advancing the problem.
If there is any errors (spelling, etc) in the above I apologize. I was in a hurry and I didn't have the time to preview the post.
Ah so true. I had not thought about that particular aspect. Bailouts and subsidies are not good for individual rights, but we must remember that the FCC just doesn't regulate 'last-mile networks'. So the thing we should all be attacking is government interference in the marketplace; subsidies or expropriation.
Actually, subsidies require the expropriation of property. This is done by involuntary taxation.
This was indeed a victory for the companies that have spent effort, time, and money into putting down cable that allow us to watch television and have broadband internet connections. It is quite sick and shows the current state of our country when a company takes it upon themselves to lay down miles of communications cable and then have the government come in and expropriate that property. This wasn't just a victory for Cable companies, but it was a victory for individual rights of everyone in this country.
Ok, glad to see that i'm not the only one plagued by slow downloads on the "Cox" system. 273kb is a far cry from 1.5MB. I average around 250kb/sec.
There were were no arguements, my post was a statement of facts; I wasn't arguing with anyone, just stating the truth, and pointing out contradictions. Though, I wouldn't mind an arguement; however, I see no one arguing with my statements.
It is indeed a sad day to see not only government officials advocate the destruction of property/individual rights, but get so much advocation from technology minded individuals. While all of you rant and rave about the violation of property rights, either on this site, or someone elses site; when someone is forced to remove material; you advocate the destruction of individual rights when it comes to microsoft.
There is no such thing as a coercive monopoly in the system of Capitalism, the only coercive--out of reach from competition--monoplolies can be created by Government. You say, "Oh but Microsoft is so rich, they can lower prices until they kill the competition." Any rational mind that knows the basic principles of capitalism can figure out that a company cannot lower prices in such a way and expect to maintain its previous market share; with the lowering of prices, so low, that other businesses go under means that there will be a high loss in profit--what is needed to survive in capitalism. This heavy loss of profit means that sooner or later, prices will have to be raised, raised higher than normal to make up profit that has been lost; this puts the company at a real disadvantage to any competitors left, or new competitors that will be created by the heavy spending of venture capital due to the high prospect of profitability. So as you can see, the arguement that MS, or any other market leader, can lower prices and kill competition is flawed.
Another aspect of this unfair monopoloy talk that is flawed, that was the prime example in the court rooms, was that by bundling IE with windows "Microsoft" unfairly put netscape out of competition and consumer choice was lost. I fail to see how bundling a browser into an OS hurts consumers, its an added tool; should we stomp out KDE for bundling Konqueror with its environment? Netscape became dominant when its browser was better, people bought it, I bougt it; MS got with the program and created a better browser, soon everyone was using IE, because it was a better product, and already came with their OS; if MS should be punished, so should have netscape. Also, how was consumer choice taken away? The only way Netscape lost market share was because the consumers "CHOSE" to use IE, not at the point of a gun, not with brute force, but by FREE CHOICE; the only way choice can be lost in the marketplace--capitalism--is if the government steps in.
Another good idea is to have launches done on the moon; however, NASA is a broken government agency and will probably never have enough money to do such things. Not to mention NASA isn't proper to government and should be privatized, which seems as though it could be on the agenda, as NASA has said it is considering selling space shuttles.
AOL is just so evil, how can a corporation not let competitors use their services! They only bought the servers and made the code, how dare they even think about not letting some bum leech off of their bandwidth!
The only way for free services, from companies that want to make a profit, to remain free is good effective advertising. You really only have two choices; in your face advertising that must be played before you can continue, pay-per services which you pay a service fee for services used. I personally would rather have the advertising, since I don't have much money to be paying for every service I use, not only that, fee's will "lower" the number of service providers on the internet to a small group compaired to today's numbers, since only the popular companies will be making money.
Placed into the context of the whole post, that is exactly its meaning. Since im missing the point so much, would you be so kind to let me know what that statement is supposed to mean? Because if im correct most of the "food" one would have to buy, would be purchased from a corporation, unless one were to buy from a farmers market or the likes. Correct?