Because they're empowered so to act in the interests of their shareholders, all of which are presumably human beings and therefore possessing constitutional rights.
No, just free as in beer. They're more than happy to support binary-only wireless drivers, and binary only video drivers will be coming soon. It's their prerogative, and I'm sure many of their users thank them for it, but to call themselves "Free Software" or anything remotely close is hypocritical.
It's why declarations such as "The War on Terrorism" are so idiotic. We didn't declare a "War on Aviation" when Pearl Harbor was attacked. We really should have gone with "War on Jihadism" and just let fifth-columnists like CAIR bitch all they wanted. Then again, if we had gone after a country that supports jihadism (*coughIrancough*), we'd be philosophically bulletproof.
Judging by the results of the last election, I'd say it's rather the more incompetent of the two evils than the lesser, per se. The Dems are crazy redistributionists, but lack discipline and any ideological principle deeper than "well, it works". That makes them a safer bet than the Republicans, who have the discipline and the depth of faith to bring us all under their God's law. In a battle between two evil ideologies, the more committed adherents win.
I realized it was sarcasm, I was just rejecting the premise of the sarcasm (it would somehow be acceptable to violate the rights in question if it produced a 'better' result than a free market).
None of these countries are capitalist. China and the US are mixed economies. Capitalism is a complete seperation of economics and state, and anything less is a violation of rights.
I'm not suggesting that the right to contract/property is greater than the right to human life, I'm suggesting that the right to property IS the right to one's own life. Without the ability to retain what one has earned through the use of his mind, one cannot survive as a human being. While being able to determine how much a corporation is able to earn seems like a minor corrective measure, it is morally no different than stealing everything a man has and leaving him to starve. Yes, the pharma companies make a lot of money. Why shouldn't they? They provide a service much of the world apparently values.
Doomed argument. It doesn't matter how 'well' the government runs things, as long as everyone gets the same mediocre product. The real reason is 'health-care activity' is goods and services produced by men and women who have the right to dispose of those goods and services in trade as they see fit. To distribute them to the 'needy' under threat of physical force is a horrendous violation of their individual rights.
So write whatever passes for a Congressman in your country, and have them do it. Maybe then, they won't have to arbitrarily loot US patents to get their AIDS drugs.
It'd be funny, in a sick, spiteful sort of way, for these pharm companies to determine that all of this widespread looting has rendered further AIDS research unprofitable. Or, as the saying goes, "Brother, you asked for it!"
'Ideas' are no one's property. It's the implementation of an idea that matters. As for the 'value' of saving life, no one has the right to claim another's labor unearned for the sake of their own preservation.
BION, Merck is not a charity. It is not your decision, nor the Brazilian government's, to arbitrarily interfere with the right of contract based on the 'need' of some third party. If it wasn't for the insipid FDA, Merck could forego patent protection altogether and keep its research under trade secret protection.
Such a split can only come through horribly twisted perceptions. Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with individual rights, without which 'humanity' is just a whim of the state.
According to the AFT, the 2004-05 (I couldn't find more recent numbers) average teacher salary was $47750. The median household income in 2006, according to the Census Bureau, was $46,236, median personal income was $39,403, and median personal income with a bachelor's degree was $43,143. So unless the AFT acceded to a substantial pay cut in the last two years, teachers do pretty damn good, especially for what is often a secondary household income.
Well, since her van was found near Reiser's place, driving out of country would require either borrowing someone else's car or renting one (like getting a hotel room, there's practically no way to do this in cash anymore). Not to mention, if she paid for everything in cash, there'd be a bank withdrawal at some point, and that's almost always checked in a Missing Persons case to establish whether or nor a person left of their own volition. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'm gonna go with Ockham on this one until she turns up.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not really. Verizon are just being assholes.
Because they're empowered so to act in the interests of their shareholders, all of which are presumably human beings and therefore possessing constitutional rights.
No, just free as in beer. They're more than happy to support binary-only wireless drivers, and binary only video drivers will be coming soon. It's their prerogative, and I'm sure many of their users thank them for it, but to call themselves "Free Software" or anything remotely close is hypocritical.
Well that, and the Talmud specifies a human paternal lineage for the executed cult leader that just happened to be the resident godhead.
It's why declarations such as "The War on Terrorism" are so idiotic. We didn't declare a "War on Aviation" when Pearl Harbor was attacked. We really should have gone with "War on Jihadism" and just let fifth-columnists like CAIR bitch all they wanted. Then again, if we had gone after a country that supports jihadism (*coughIrancough*), we'd be philosophically bulletproof.
Judging by the results of the last election, I'd say it's rather the more incompetent of the two evils than the lesser, per se. The Dems are crazy redistributionists, but lack discipline and any ideological principle deeper than "well, it works". That makes them a safer bet than the Republicans, who have the discipline and the depth of faith to bring us all under their God's law. In a battle between two evil ideologies, the more committed adherents win.
Come on, they're complete and total opposites! One supports the welfare state of Marx, and the other supports the welfare state of Jesus.
I realized it was sarcasm, I was just rejecting the premise of the sarcasm (it would somehow be acceptable to violate the rights in question if it produced a 'better' result than a free market).
None of these countries are capitalist. China and the US are mixed economies. Capitalism is a complete seperation of economics and state, and anything less is a violation of rights.
I'm not suggesting that the right to contract/property is greater than the right to human life, I'm suggesting that the right to property IS the right to one's own life. Without the ability to retain what one has earned through the use of his mind, one cannot survive as a human being. While being able to determine how much a corporation is able to earn seems like a minor corrective measure, it is morally no different than stealing everything a man has and leaving him to starve. Yes, the pharma companies make a lot of money. Why shouldn't they? They provide a service much of the world apparently values.
Doomed argument. It doesn't matter how 'well' the government runs things, as long as everyone gets the same mediocre product. The real reason is 'health-care activity' is goods and services produced by men and women who have the right to dispose of those goods and services in trade as they see fit. To distribute them to the 'needy' under threat of physical force is a horrendous violation of their individual rights.
They don't care, you know. The parasite seldom thinks beyond the death of its host.
So write whatever passes for a Congressman in your country, and have them do it. Maybe then, they won't have to arbitrarily loot US patents to get their AIDS drugs.
It'd be funny, in a sick, spiteful sort of way, for these pharm companies to determine that all of this widespread looting has rendered further AIDS research unprofitable. Or, as the saying goes, "Brother, you asked for it!"
'Ideas' are no one's property. It's the implementation of an idea that matters. As for the 'value' of saving life, no one has the right to claim another's labor unearned for the sake of their own preservation.
BION, Merck is not a charity. It is not your decision, nor the Brazilian government's, to arbitrarily interfere with the right of contract based on the 'need' of some third party. If it wasn't for the insipid FDA, Merck could forego patent protection altogether and keep its research under trade secret protection.
So, in other words, property rights should only be enforced when there is nothing for you to loot...
Such a split can only come through horribly twisted perceptions. Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with individual rights, without which 'humanity' is just a whim of the state.
Did you read the part in the parentheses?
According to the AFT, the 2004-05 (I couldn't find more recent numbers) average teacher salary was $47750. The median household income in 2006, according to the Census Bureau, was $46,236, median personal income was $39,403, and median personal income with a bachelor's degree was $43,143. So unless the AFT acceded to a substantial pay cut in the last two years, teachers do pretty damn good, especially for what is often a secondary household income.
You're assuming they care about privacy. When I was in high school, a kid actually got expelled for beating off in the back of the classroom.
That's what happens when you put something as important as education in the hands of a state-sponsored monopoly.
Well, since her van was found near Reiser's place, driving out of country would require either borrowing someone else's car or renting one (like getting a hotel room, there's practically no way to do this in cash anymore). Not to mention, if she paid for everything in cash, there'd be a bank withdrawal at some point, and that's almost always checked in a Missing Persons case to establish whether or nor a person left of their own volition. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'm gonna go with Ockham on this one until she turns up.
What else is really worth going to war for? I don't really think that's quite the option here, though.
If there wasn't, who would bring the rope?