The fascism isn't limited to the right wing. Obama has continued most or all of the policies of the Bush administration, and many of those were started under the Clinton administration.
Wow, you're quite the collectivist, aren't you? Did it ever occur to you that I might be vociferously against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that maybe I've called for the summary execution of the entire Bush Administration for crimes against humanity?
No, no, I guess all Americans are the same. We all love Bush, and wear cowboy hats and kill brown people!
Also, it apparently hasn't occurred to you that the energy contained in the rocket fuel that they will use to launch the multi-billion dollar boondoggle into space is actually MORE than will ever be recovered from the entire project? Thus my suggestion for alternate methods?? MAYBE?
The resources would be better spent developing a space elevator. When governments piss away money on projects that can't even THEORETICALLY have a positive RoI (like the Iraq War), it's the people's responsibility to speak up against them, something that I have been doing, in a calm and rational manner, for years. All you do is troll Slashdot. I guess that makes you a big man of some sort. Good job. Enjoy your rotgutted fascist socialism. I know I am.
I think that's what they said about the Space Shuttle, and yet costs really only went in one direction during that program, UP.
The only way that space power makes sense is if you A) fabricate the panels and the transmitter in space (such as via a captured asteroid or some such), or B) find a MUCH cheaper means of getting things into orbit, ie space elevator.
Using conventional rockets to launch solar cells is like drilling for oil with thermonuclear weapons. Your return on energy investment just ain't that great.
Just because a company that you like hasn't conquered the universe doesn't mean that free markets don't work (in addition to the fact that we don't have a free market).
If they exist in your community, and they provide a superior service for a good price, they will dominate over time. They may just have an advertising program, or they might not be as great as you think. From their website, however, I gleaned that they ARE expanding.
First, the United States is about as far from a free market as Soviet Russia. Think about how much paperwork you have to fill out, and how many regulations you have to comply with in order to start up ANY business, much less a telecommunications business, which is regulated by the FCC, which is about as friendly towards new businesses as a lion is to a stray doe.
Second, the idiotic notion (no offense) of a "natural monopoly" being enforced by municipalities is not only against the free market, but it is self contradictory! If you have a natural monopoly, then there is no need to prevent competition artificially.
Third, Comcast is a protected monopoly in the vast majority of markets that it serves.
No, they were thugs with machetes, for the most part. If the people had had guns, machete wielding militias would have been routed, but they weren't.
The lack of guns may not be the "cause", but the removal of guns removes a check on the government, as is seen in many instances cited in this paper (PDF).
Guns in private hands are much like nuclear weapons in government hands. Lots of people hate it when people or governments gain access to such armament, but the fact remains that there has never been a serious attempt at invasion of a nuclear armed state, nor has their been a genocide perpetrated against a heavily armed populace by non-military forces (ie people with access to far more advanced weaponry than rifles, ie the US in Iraq, or Vietnam). It might not be an end-all, but it sure makes people think twice about stealing your life's work, raping your nine year old daughter, or hacking your family to bits with a machete.
It seems to me that most of the country is still in a situation where there are one or two options for high speed internet in any given area (only one here). If we allowed more competition, we would probably see a rush to upgrade infrastructure, as most people are damn tired of this "large pipe, limited download" crap, and the first ISP to offer either no cap or really high cap and maintain fast speeds is going to take every last customer from crappy services like AT&T.
Having some centralized organization handle network upgrades will work out about as well as it did in the 90's, ie not at all. They'll just pocket the money and continue to clamp down on their customers. The only way to improve service is to increase competition.
That's what the Armenians thought, until their government slaughtered them. That's what the Kulaks thought, until their government slaughtered them. That's what the Jews thought, until their government slaughtered them, that's what the Hutus though, until the Tutsis slaughtered them. This goes on and on.
Every great genocide in the 19th century was preceded by a government decree either that citizens couldn't own guns, or that a targeted minority could not own guns.
An armed society is a polite society. Your streets are now ruled by hooligans. You are afraid to go outside at night. You are more likely to be mugged. If you are mugged, you are more likely to be injured or killed in the attack. Enjoy your rule by thugs, both in government and on the streets.
Exactly. When my house burned down, I was robbed three times. The first time, some bystander was smart enough to get the license plate number of the guy who spent a half hour removing my wheel (which costs $500 to replace with factory standard materials), yet the police apparently never followed up. The second time, the son of one of the contractors working on my house got into my garage and stole a couple of firearms. I reported it to the police, but they never did anything past coming out and dusting for prints. Two weeks later, the boy's father found the guns and returned them. After that, another contractor stole $600 worth of silver bars out of my car (before I could have my new safe installed). Again, the police were called, and they were informed that only one person had access to the car, and was around at the time. This contractor used to be a prison guard at the local lock up, so the police never went forward with an investigation. The pig-fucker got to keep my silver.
So yeah, every dollar you spend on police "protection" actually goes to fund oppressors who only enforce those laws that are easy to enforce (traffic laws, business laws, and high profile crimes), and even those go uninformed if the perpetrator is a "friend of the police force". People would be better off keeping their tax money and hiring private eyes to trace down criminals.
Except the other guy had statistics backing him up. You know, the one crime solved per 1000 cameras bit.
It doesn't take much misuse to create a net negative effect on society. Shouting at people for littering comes to mind (WINSTON! You aren't touching your toes!, etc).
The (unintentional) point is that do-gooders do more harm and damage than evil people. Someone who oppresses people for their own gain will eventually stop when they have nothing else to gain, but when someone is oppressing you for your own good, then they will never stop.
If you need a more practical example, see the profession of dentistry.
You mean the time that the United States went from being a colonial backwater to being the most powerful and productive nation in the world? You mean the time when the middle class emerged from poverty of a millennium of oppression?
Why do you hate poor people? Do you just like sticking your boots in people's throats or what? Free markets can't help but promote the socio-economic status of EVERYONE. Here's a really simple primer on how economies grow, and why government intervention hurts everyone, ESPECIALLY the poor: Link.
Also, lets have less name calling, and start acting like adults, shall we? Also, don't compare opposites, it makes you look like a fool.
That's U6. Even those numbers are massaged. When you include discouraged workers as they were defined pre-Clinton, which U6 doesn't, you get a little under 21%.
We don't have a free market in the US in...well, anything really. Think about how much paperwork the government requires you to fill out to start a business. Multiply that by 1000 and add enormous compliance costs, and you'll find that the regulatory structure that "protects" us actually prevents competition from entering the market, and thus keeps costs insanely high.
Don't blame the free market when you have a government in total control of almost every aspect of business. That is NOT a free market.
Laws don't stop any of those things you mentioned, they only punish those who commit those crimes. No-one can prevent crimes from occurring, no matter how much freedom you give up in pursuit of that goal. Big corporations can violate regulations, and just get slapped with a non-damaging fine, where a small company who commits the same violation, and is hit with the same fine will go bankrupt. Regulations only allow big companies to be non-competitive and still survive.
The only rules which need to be enforced are those against murder, assault (and threats thereof), fraud, and property law. All regulations stem from a futile effort by regulators to prevent people from committing the crimes listed above.
Unfortunately, you, and in fact the vast majority of people, have no idea how or what the free market is, and exactly why government intervention is so harmful. Maybe if you read this you'll understand. It's a simple, but fairly thorough explanation of economics, in comic book form.
Marxism failed due to both the massive corruption inherent in any large, powerful government and due to the institution of perverse incentives that encouraged workers to be lazy and uncreative. The United States is failing as well, since it adopted Marxist policies (such as a progressive tax combined with inflation), and has fallen under the influence of a large, powerful government.
If you really want to understand how economies work and grow, and why they fail, take a look at this.
Umm, in a free market, you aren't killing people, you are producing things that people want. It's not the law of the jungle, but the law of the market. Those who produce the most in the most efficient manner will profit. Regulations impose a burden on everyone, but they disproportionately favor those who are already on top, as they are the ones who can most afford it. Why do you think it's been 70 years since the last major automobile manufacturer was founded in the US? Why aren't there any new major charities?
If you really want to understand the way economies work, it's best to start simple and move upwards. As such, here is a nice comic book that illustrates the fundamentals of economics in a clear and easy to understand manner.
You mean the 19th century that created the middle class? The one that is now being destroyed by corporate socialism?
Perhaps you ought to re-examine your arguments before you blame the current condition of the United States on "unfettered capitalism". The fact is that it is big government that creates all major market distortions, and breeds bad (ie price gouging) monopolies. You've seen it happen in municipal cable monopolies, just take that case and extend it.
I mean, I can't believe you were modded anything but troll with that ridiculous, self indicting argument. You want more big government control, because capitalism leads to big government control that leads to corruption? The ONLY solution to government corruption is to take away its power. Giving it more power just creates more corruption. It's a simple concept.
Slashdot Mirror
The fascism isn't limited to the right wing. Obama has continued most or all of the policies of the Bush administration, and many of those were started under the Clinton administration.
That's why I say "Handcuff ALL the bastards!"
I wonder how many furry little animals got cancer from the toxins emitted in the form of smoke?
Facepalm.
Wow, you're quite the collectivist, aren't you? Did it ever occur to you that I might be vociferously against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that maybe I've called for the summary execution of the entire Bush Administration for crimes against humanity?
No, no, I guess all Americans are the same. We all love Bush, and wear cowboy hats and kill brown people!
Also, it apparently hasn't occurred to you that the energy contained in the rocket fuel that they will use to launch the multi-billion dollar boondoggle into space is actually MORE than will ever be recovered from the entire project? Thus my suggestion for alternate methods?? MAYBE?
The resources would be better spent developing a space elevator. When governments piss away money on projects that can't even THEORETICALLY have a positive RoI (like the Iraq War), it's the people's responsibility to speak up against them, something that I have been doing, in a calm and rational manner, for years. All you do is troll Slashdot. I guess that makes you a big man of some sort. Good job. Enjoy your rotgutted fascist socialism. I know I am.
A big ol' bit out of the jugular vein is enough to kill anyone.
I think that's what they said about the Space Shuttle, and yet costs really only went in one direction during that program, UP.
The only way that space power makes sense is if you A) fabricate the panels and the transmitter in space (such as via a captured asteroid or some such), or B) find a MUCH cheaper means of getting things into orbit, ie space elevator.
Using conventional rockets to launch solar cells is like drilling for oil with thermonuclear weapons. Your return on energy investment just ain't that great.
Just because a company that you like hasn't conquered the universe doesn't mean that free markets don't work (in addition to the fact that we don't have a free market).
If they exist in your community, and they provide a superior service for a good price, they will dominate over time. They may just have an advertising program, or they might not be as great as you think. From their website, however, I gleaned that they ARE expanding.
First, the United States is about as far from a free market as Soviet Russia. Think about how much paperwork you have to fill out, and how many regulations you have to comply with in order to start up ANY business, much less a telecommunications business, which is regulated by the FCC, which is about as friendly towards new businesses as a lion is to a stray doe.
Second, the idiotic notion (no offense) of a "natural monopoly" being enforced by municipalities is not only against the free market, but it is self contradictory! If you have a natural monopoly, then there is no need to prevent competition artificially.
Third, Comcast is a protected monopoly in the vast majority of markets that it serves.
No, they were thugs with machetes, for the most part. If the people had had guns, machete wielding militias would have been routed, but they weren't.
The lack of guns may not be the "cause", but the removal of guns removes a check on the government, as is seen in many instances cited in this paper (PDF).
Guns in private hands are much like nuclear weapons in government hands. Lots of people hate it when people or governments gain access to such armament, but the fact remains that there has never been a serious attempt at invasion of a nuclear armed state, nor has their been a genocide perpetrated against a heavily armed populace by non-military forces (ie people with access to far more advanced weaponry than rifles, ie the US in Iraq, or Vietnam). It might not be an end-all, but it sure makes people think twice about stealing your life's work, raping your nine year old daughter, or hacking your family to bits with a machete.
It seems to me that most of the country is still in a situation where there are one or two options for high speed internet in any given area (only one here). If we allowed more competition, we would probably see a rush to upgrade infrastructure, as most people are damn tired of this "large pipe, limited download" crap, and the first ISP to offer either no cap or really high cap and maintain fast speeds is going to take every last customer from crappy services like AT&T.
Having some centralized organization handle network upgrades will work out about as well as it did in the 90's, ie not at all. They'll just pocket the money and continue to clamp down on their customers. The only way to improve service is to increase competition.
That's what the Armenians thought, until their government slaughtered them. That's what the Kulaks thought, until their government slaughtered them. That's what the Jews thought, until their government slaughtered them, that's what the Hutus though, until the Tutsis slaughtered them. This goes on and on.
Every great genocide in the 19th century was preceded by a government decree either that citizens couldn't own guns, or that a targeted minority could not own guns.
An armed society is a polite society. Your streets are now ruled by hooligans. You are afraid to go outside at night. You are more likely to be mugged. If you are mugged, you are more likely to be injured or killed in the attack. Enjoy your rule by thugs, both in government and on the streets.
Exactly. When my house burned down, I was robbed three times. The first time, some bystander was smart enough to get the license plate number of the guy who spent a half hour removing my wheel (which costs $500 to replace with factory standard materials), yet the police apparently never followed up. The second time, the son of one of the contractors working on my house got into my garage and stole a couple of firearms. I reported it to the police, but they never did anything past coming out and dusting for prints. Two weeks later, the boy's father found the guns and returned them. After that, another contractor stole $600 worth of silver bars out of my car (before I could have my new safe installed). Again, the police were called, and they were informed that only one person had access to the car, and was around at the time. This contractor used to be a prison guard at the local lock up, so the police never went forward with an investigation. The pig-fucker got to keep my silver.
So yeah, every dollar you spend on police "protection" actually goes to fund oppressors who only enforce those laws that are easy to enforce (traffic laws, business laws, and high profile crimes), and even those go uninformed if the perpetrator is a "friend of the police force". People would be better off keeping their tax money and hiring private eyes to trace down criminals.
Except the other guy had statistics backing him up. You know, the one crime solved per 1000 cameras bit.
It doesn't take much misuse to create a net negative effect on society. Shouting at people for littering comes to mind (WINSTON! You aren't touching your toes!, etc).
because no single man can cover 1000 different locations, nor can he can work 24 hours a day,
Sure he can. He's just not effective. Sort of like those cameras.
The (unintentional) point is that do-gooders do more harm and damage than evil people. Someone who oppresses people for their own gain will eventually stop when they have nothing else to gain, but when someone is oppressing you for your own good, then they will never stop.
If you need a more practical example, see the profession of dentistry.
Tell that to the statisticians who worked for the government during the Great Depression, because that's how THEY counted it.
If you don't use the same methods, you can't compare the numbers!
You mean the time that the United States went from being a colonial backwater to being the most powerful and productive nation in the world? You mean the time when the middle class emerged from poverty of a millennium of oppression?
Why do you hate poor people? Do you just like sticking your boots in people's throats or what? Free markets can't help but promote the socio-economic status of EVERYONE. Here's a really simple primer on how economies grow, and why government intervention hurts everyone, ESPECIALLY the poor: Link.
Also, lets have less name calling, and start acting like adults, shall we? Also, don't compare opposites, it makes you look like a fool.
That's U6. Even those numbers are massaged. When you include discouraged workers as they were defined pre-Clinton, which U6 doesn't, you get a little under 21%.
Sorry, real unemployment, minus the number massaging the government has dropped in over the last 50 odd years, is a little under 21%. Link.
Except that the government has erected barriers to entry that are so high that no-one that isn't already in the business can get over them.
We don't have a free market in the US in...well, anything really. Think about how much paperwork the government requires you to fill out to start a business. Multiply that by 1000 and add enormous compliance costs, and you'll find that the regulatory structure that "protects" us actually prevents competition from entering the market, and thus keeps costs insanely high.
Don't blame the free market when you have a government in total control of almost every aspect of business. That is NOT a free market.
Laws don't stop any of those things you mentioned, they only punish those who commit those crimes. No-one can prevent crimes from occurring, no matter how much freedom you give up in pursuit of that goal. Big corporations can violate regulations, and just get slapped with a non-damaging fine, where a small company who commits the same violation, and is hit with the same fine will go bankrupt. Regulations only allow big companies to be non-competitive and still survive.
The only rules which need to be enforced are those against murder, assault (and threats thereof), fraud, and property law. All regulations stem from a futile effort by regulators to prevent people from committing the crimes listed above.
Unfortunately, you, and in fact the vast majority of people, have no idea how or what the free market is, and exactly why government intervention is so harmful. Maybe if you read this you'll understand. It's a simple, but fairly thorough explanation of economics, in comic book form.
Kim Jong-Il, is that you?
Marxism failed due to both the massive corruption inherent in any large, powerful government and due to the institution of perverse incentives that encouraged workers to be lazy and uncreative. The United States is failing as well, since it adopted Marxist policies (such as a progressive tax combined with inflation), and has fallen under the influence of a large, powerful government.
If you really want to understand how economies work and grow, and why they fail, take a look at this.
Umm, in a free market, you aren't killing people, you are producing things that people want. It's not the law of the jungle, but the law of the market. Those who produce the most in the most efficient manner will profit. Regulations impose a burden on everyone, but they disproportionately favor those who are already on top, as they are the ones who can most afford it. Why do you think it's been 70 years since the last major automobile manufacturer was founded in the US? Why aren't there any new major charities?
If you really want to understand the way economies work, it's best to start simple and move upwards. As such, here is a nice comic book that illustrates the fundamentals of economics in a clear and easy to understand manner.
You mean the 19th century that created the middle class? The one that is now being destroyed by corporate socialism?
Perhaps you ought to re-examine your arguments before you blame the current condition of the United States on "unfettered capitalism". The fact is that it is big government that creates all major market distortions, and breeds bad (ie price gouging) monopolies. You've seen it happen in municipal cable monopolies, just take that case and extend it.
I mean, I can't believe you were modded anything but troll with that ridiculous, self indicting argument. You want more big government control, because capitalism leads to big government control that leads to corruption? The ONLY solution to government corruption is to take away its power. Giving it more power just creates more corruption. It's a simple concept.
That's fine, I just don't want to see Slashdot rule 34.