Microsoft Break-up Broken

Microsoft Won't Be Broken Up is an Associated Press story (thanks Adrenaline Vault) with the news that there will be no further follow-up to the anti-trust-related break up of Microsoft ordered last year (story) that was subsequently reversed by an appeals court (story) which vacated the breakup order "on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration of the remedial order." According the new report, "The Bush administration, reversing the Clinton White House legal strategy against Microsoft, told the software manufacturer Thursday it no longer seeks to have the company broken up. The department also said it will not pursue the bundling issues in its protracted antitrust suit against the software giant."
View : : :
174 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 6.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older
74.
 
Re: $LAVE$
Sep 7, 2001, 23:01
anon@134.197
74.
Re: $LAVE$ Sep 7, 2001, 23:01
Sep 7, 2001, 23:01
anon@134.197
 
"and yes, freedom entails the freedom to starve if you don't *earn* your living."

What do you mean by "earn"? It's easy to take this kind of thinking to an extreme, as demonstrated by you saying people have the "freedom" to starve to death.

The fact of the matter is, with unrestricted capitalism, there will always be starving poor. That doesn't make it right, fair, or (most importantly), acceptable.

Human history is marked by periods of focus on certain areas which are thought to lead to enlightenment, but other things often fall into neglect.

We're going through a fairly lengthy phase (with no sign of an end in the predictable future) of economy-centered thinking, without giving much regard to why economies exist -- and let me give you a hint, there's a lot more to it than just making money.

""Further into poverty," that is a slap in the face to the Russians who have known some of the greatest levels of poverty in history; there isn't much "further" to it."

That's true, Russia has suffered tremendous poverty, and it isn't likely to get better any time soon. Russians are intelligent people, but even that isn't going to help them out of a web which has been getting progressively more entangled throughout history. I think they demonstrate that there is something we can call "fate" which determines who comes out on top. You can probably find the reasons behind this "fate" if you look hard enough, but I'm sure the solution won't be nearly as easy as it was for America in the 19th century. This is a different situation. Just because someone can make it, doesn't mean other equally or better capable individuals can... circumstances and environment play a huge role. America came to industrial power through brutal abuse of labor... I think if anything, the 19th century and early 20th century demonstrate WHY unrestricted capitalism doesn't work. Companies will squeeze the life out of their employees to make a profit, and few will offer a better alternative, because they don't HAVE to and can still generate profit. That's brutal.


73.
 
Re: $LAVE$
Sep 7, 2001, 22:22
73.
Re: $LAVE$ Sep 7, 2001, 22:22
Sep 7, 2001, 22:22
 
"I wish everyone who likes to equate a capitalistic economy and so-called "free" market system with actual freedom and/or happiness, would take a look at what is happening in both China and the former Soviet Union. Now that many in the latter are no longer enslaved by communism (not socialism, there is a big difference) they are enjoying the freedom to starve and other glories of capitalism. Organized crime and prostitution are skyrocketing while a few get rich and many fall further into poverty. As bad as communism is, many people in Russia now long for its return. "


One of Russia's biggest problem is that it is ruled by the mob; the gang that used to occupy the communist party, has turned into a mafia power after the fall. Russia isn't anywhere near capitalistic, it has very few components of capitalism. Beyond that, communism had destroyed the country to such a great extent, under the best conditions Russia would be hard pressed to get back on it's feet in a few decades. Russia is enjoying few if any parts of capitalism; and yes, freedom entails the freedom to starve if you don't *earn* your living. The few aren't getting rich, the few have always been rich under communism, it is just now a more public issue: the gangsters that used to hold the power in the communist party are still gangsters, just in a different political structure.

"Further into poverty," that is a slap in the face to the Russians who have known some of the greatest levels of poverty in history; there isn't much "further" to it.

---

"As for China, what better example could there be that a "free market" doesn't really "free" anyone, except for the freedom for some to make more money. Even with an economic system growing more capitalistic everyday the government still wages war on IDEAS and individuals--with the enthusiastic financial support of many American and international businesses all too happy to make a buck--who gives a shit if a few "pro-democracy" demonstrators get crushed by tanks, right? There’s money to be made!"


China does not have a free market. An economic system does not "grow more capitalistic" a political system does (an economic system would become more oriented toward the free market). China's political structure is not growing more capitalistic: the communists are simply accepting bribes (whereas before they did not allow any foreign investment), which isn't an uncommon practice with communism - communists in the USSR did the same thing, it's essentially an extortion racket; which is why the communist leadership (and their friends) does fine under communism, but everyone else suffers to a great extent.

72.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 7, 2001, 22:05
72.
Re: Capitalism Sep 7, 2001, 22:05
Sep 7, 2001, 22:05
 
"A large amount of those 1.3 billion people are still working in the countryside on farms. Whereas out of the total population of the U.S., only 2% work on farms. China was not aided by the U.S. in industrialization as Japan was, plus they started a great deal later. It is unfair to compare a 3rd-world country's economy to a very well developed one."


It isn't unfair because a third world country is a third world country on principle; most African nations for example are in such horrid conditions not because of 'fate' or some other mystical reason, but because few (if any?) countries in Africa have ever had protected individual rights, specifically property rights.

China has failed to develop faster because their political system has kept them stagnant economically for a hundred years (particularly the period where Mao reigned). Most of China (the farm lands that you reference for instance) is ruled in a feudal agrarian manner, by lords that preside over a territory by consent of the communist leadership in Beijing.

When America went through industrialization, it didn't have the benefit of existent industrial technology and knowledge that could help speed up the process dramatically; China has that benefit, but their political system has held them back a great deal (although they've learned to be far more lenient than the Soviets were, or else their economy would get choked off to an extreme point (as it did with some of Mao's adventures in communism)).

China is being aided by the U.S. in its goal of further industrialization, and it is being aided by Japan to a great extent (that is, to the extent that China will allow either to invest in the country to help speed industrialization). China was not aided much previously because they wouldn't allow investment, or they wouldn't guarantee not to nationalize the investments (ownership stakes, new companies, etc.), or they would place so many restrictions on investment that it wasn't worthwhile to invest (such restrictions remain, but to a lesser extent).

71.
 
$LAVE$
Sep 7, 2001, 21:57
anon@158.252
71.
$LAVE$ Sep 7, 2001, 21:57
Sep 7, 2001, 21:57
anon@158.252
 
I wish everyone who likes to equate a capitalistic economy and so-called "free" market system with actual freedom and/or happiness, would take a look at what is happening in both China and the former Soviet Union. Now that many in the latter are no longer enslaved by communism (not socialism, there is a big difference) they are enjoying the freedom to starve and other glories of capitalism. Organized crime and prostitution are skyrocketing while a few get rich and many fall further into poverty. As bad as communism is, many people in Russia now long for its return.

As for China, what better example could there be that a "free market" doesn't really "free" anyone, except for the freedom for some to make more money. Even with an economic system growing more capitalistic everyday the government still wages war on IDEAS and individuals--with the enthusiastic financial support of many American and international businesses all too happy to make a buck--who gives a shit if a few "pro-democracy" demonstrators get crushed by tanks, right? There’s money to be made!
70.
 
Re: Individualism
Sep 7, 2001, 17:28
anon@134.197
70.
Re: Individualism Sep 7, 2001, 17:28
Sep 7, 2001, 17:28
anon@134.197
 
"This philosophic statement would be hilarious if it weren't so common. Who do you suppose 'everyone' is? They are individuals. There is no such organism 'society' or 'the whole.' There are only individuals."

No "society"? Give me a break... that's completely untrue. Not everyone has a 100% unique opinion on everything, people tend to agree with one another. That's the idea behind representative democracies (too many individuals to participate in a direct democracy, so we have to take advantage of the fact that many people will vote in common ways.) Social trends, etc...

While everyone IS a unique individual, our minds have a wonderful capability to abstract things, and we can view people in groups, or as a society.

Also, what I find peculiar is that you say my philosophical statement would have been funny, if it wasn't so common. If it were a unique statement, would it have been funny, or "senseless", or stupid? Apparently you don't think like an individual, Mr. Invidual. You really are just a cog in the wheel.

Anyhow, I feel there should be a pretty high minimum standard for the living conditions of people. You should only be able to sink to a fixed low (unless you forcefully WANT to go lower.) This minimum standard should fluctuate as a society gets more or less properous, instead of being absolute.

It's not feasible to do such a thing in the US, at least not to the standard I would deem fair, but there are countries (such as Denmark) which do this quite well. Of course, Denmark is far wealthier per person than the US... they can guarantee nobody goes homeless.

But it's only impossible within our current framework of thinking. Maybe in the future, it really will be possible, if so choose it.

"And, if that is "the way things work" (in reference to darwinism), then how is it you think "humanity" can overcome it? You mean, you think humanity can fight reality? This is an example of what I stated previously, social subjectivism. Thinking that 'somehow' the group or the collective or "humanity" can overcome anything (the law of identity even), just as long as they 'will' it to be."

It depends on how you look at life. If you want to apply survival of the fittest to every individual, then so be it.
But we can think of humanity as a whole (regardless of race, gender, creed, nationality, etc.) and support it, to ensure our survival.

"Of course one has to take care of "#1," selflessness is not a virtue. Since I don't care to write a book explaining it to you, I'll point out that selflessness, i.e. self-sacrifice, was Hitler's philosophy (and communism's, nazism's, fascism's, and is socialism's), how did that work out again? "

Once again, you show us a one-sided propoganda-based viewpoint.

Nazism and fascism were definitely not about selflessness in the sense I mean it: devotion to the good of others.

Nazism was highly selective, based on race, and on brutality.

The most well known examples of selfless people are many of the Christian saints. Their stories were recorded eventually. Wether you adhere to their religion or not, you must admit their lives were truly remarkable. Perhaps they don't fit your bill of what life is about, but many of these people lived satisfying lives, not only to themselves, but to others as well. There's no harm in that. There have no doubt been many, many people who have lived lifestyles devoted to the good of others, but many are unknown.

"There is no curse of prosperity. Rational self-interest is the cause of prosperity. Which is a reason so much of the world has lacked such; the philosophy that has dominated the world is selflessness. There is no virtue to humility, humbleness or self-sacrifice; this has been proclaimed for two thousand years, and it wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The middle ages, which were dominated by self-sacrifice, humility, and humbleness were the darkest period in recorded human history. "

Your viewpoint is tainted with tainted with philosophy, as everyone's is, but I have the feeling you feel your philosophy is absolute. Humans are not fully rational, nor ought they be, in my opinion. We are both rational and non-rational, and this balance is vital to our identity.

Being humble has never been dominant code of behavior. Look at history... So much has been about greed, nationalism, individual prosperity... often at the expense of others. There have always been rulers, and much of history has been dominated by a rigid class system.

I wonder what your "virtues" are...

As for the middle ages, this is another poorly thought out example. The middle ages had to happen. They weren't necessarily a time of darkness.

Sure, life wasn't peachy-keen in A.D. 600-1500, but the middle ages were a time of great political turmoil and set the stage for the Renaissance.

Europe found crucial parts of its identity in those often unfortunate times. The middle ages were responible for the formation of European nations, which ended up, in a way, ruling the world.

Much of the problems in the middle ages were due to a result of a lack of virtues. Who ruled Europe? Kings, feudal lords, knights, and the clergy. Many of these people were simply ruthless and semi-barbaric. This upper class went to church, and in the case of the clergy, proclaimed their beliefs, but did not adhere to them.

They abused their positions of power... Kings did not often get off their high horses to lend peasants a helping hand. Bishops of the time period participated in battle, despite not being allowed to do harm to others. They used maces instead of blades in combat, so as not to draw blood. Torture was often done under the orders of clergymen, even though it was not administered by them (since they were not allowed to do harm to others, they found secular officials to do the job under their guidance.)

These sorts of things certainly did not happen because people cared for the well being of others, did they?
69.
 
This is not an opinion!!!
Sep 7, 2001, 17:15
anon@207.140
69.
This is not an opinion!!! Sep 7, 2001, 17:15
Sep 7, 2001, 17:15
anon@207.140
 
A socialistic system and the free market cannot exist together, but they can.

I was just stating basic priciples. You seem to think that you can redefine terms that have been used for decades. I suggest that you look into a class at a local community collage or maybe an adult education course on the matter. The things I mentioned were simply corrections to your comments not attacks. I've included some definitions to help you guys out.

free market
n.
An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.

socialism
n.
1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

communism
n.
1.A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism.
2.A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

capitalism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


Please note the differences.

My point was that Socialism will tolerate a free market in certain cases. Communism however will not tolerate a free market. That's all I was saying. It's not my opinion, honest.
68.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 7, 2001, 16:52
anon@65.169
68.
Re: Capitalism Sep 7, 2001, 16:52
Sep 7, 2001, 16:52
anon@65.169
 
China has 1.3 billion some odd people, yet they have an economy 1/9th the size of the U.S. economy; if it isn't obvious, the correlation between statism and the lack of prosperity, given that figure, then nothing will convince you.]

A large amount of those 1.3 billion people are still working in the countryside on farms. Whereas out of the total population of the U.S., only 2% work on farms. China was not aided by the U.S. in industrialization as Japan was, plus they started a great deal later. It is unfair to compare a 3rd-world country's economy to a very well developed one.

A better example dealing with China would have been Hong Kong, which has/had a thriving semi-free market.
67.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 7, 2001, 16:19
67.
Re: Capitalism Sep 7, 2001, 16:19
Sep 7, 2001, 16:19
 
"The point is that they can or can not be related. There's no rule that says that the two must work in concert. Of course in America money buys politics (returning to the Mircosoft debate) so the two are virtually identical. Do they need to be? Not necessarily."


This is like saying that freedom and slavery can work together. It's an attempt to seperate cause and effect, the law of causality does not fail to apply however (causality is the rule that says they must work in concert). If you have a statist political system, you cannot have a free market because in order to be free, an individual must be free to keep the product of his/her effort; someone that is not allowed to keep such product, is a slave, and all forms of statism require some level of slavery.

The difference, is an issue of political power, vs. economic power. Political power is backed up by force, economic power is based on voluntary trade (not force). A socialistic system and the free market cannot exist together, because socialism requires economic sacrifice (high taxation in socialist Europe for instance, and all kinds of extreme welfare programs, etc.), in order for the government to pay for the socialism, it must exploit money from individuals by force. By reaching into the economic system, and exploiting money from individuals by force, a government is necessarily eradicating the possibility of an actual free market (which is a market free from force). Japan is currently paying the well overdue bill, on their socialism; which in Japan takes a very large form of 'public works.' Japan has run up somewhere around 8 or 10 trillion in debt, and has relatively little to show for it but a lot of unproductive public work ventures, and thousands upon thousands of companies that rely on public works to exist. Japan played an economic con-game for decades, and has been paying for it for a decade (and will continue paying for it).

What socialism comes down to, is always redistribution of wealth by force (from those according to ability to those according to need (ask yourself who determines and defines 'need')); this alone proves socialism and the free market cannot exist together (in order for the government to redistribute wealth, force is required). Force and the free market are contradictory, as are force and the mind - the mind does not function rationally under the use of or the threat of force (if one must use force to get another person to act, it means that the person is being forced to act against his/her better judgment, otherwise the force wouldn't be necessary). The correlation between economic, and innovation stagnation the greater the level of statism in a country, is no coincidence; Europe has been quite stagnant for over a hundred years, while America has produced countless products and inventions that are used by every industrialized nation. America in a short span of time has become the greatest economic power in history, not by force, but through the productive effort of some 22 million businesses, which produce 10 trillion in GDP.

China proceeds (as did the USSR) to steal technology from other industrialized nations, reverse engineer technology, etc. because their political system, based around the use of force, causes the minds being forced to fail to function rationally. China has 1.3 billion some odd people, yet they have an economy 1/9th the size of the U.S. economy; if it isn't obvious, the correlation between statism and the lack of prosperity, given that figure, then nothing will convince you.

And to cut short the argument: America's prosperity isn't due to exploitation. America has the world's first mass affluent middle class, and a standard of living that puts all but a few countries to shame (America's poor level is defined at around $15,000 per year or below, and by that standard over 95% of the world is poor; India's poor level is often defined in the $350 range by comparison).

Why would one desire to produce, if it is the lack of ability that gets rewarded, not ability? Whatever is a virtue, it is the lack of it that is rewarded under all forms of statism. 35% of the population ends of carrying the economic burden of the other 65% or so (including that 15% + that tends to remain constantly unemployed). Those 15% + that tend to remain unemployed under socialism, remain such because they can; because the government will force everyone else to pay for them to be unemployed.

---

"You are simply wrong. Please explain the seperation of government and the free market in Germany, or the entire EU for that matter. I'm quite interested to see how your imagination explains this."


You say I am "simply wrong" but you fail to provide any proof, this isn't unusual.

Germany doesn't have a free market economy; an *actual* free market economy means the seperation of state and economics. The "entire EU" does not have a free market either; France and others are borderline communistic (in France it is becoming near impossible just to fire an employee without approval of a government board, and may yet). Statists think the solution to the problems that statism cause, is... more statism; see: California energy problem.

The shabby little game that statists have tried to play, is to make capitalism into nothing more than an economic system so that they can claim to combine it with their statist system; i.e. to have their cake and eat it too.

So while the German government may proclaim to have a free market, it then proceeds to intervene in that market constantly, to enforce thousands of operational regulations, to collect massive percentages of tax on every profit, etc. all backed up by the threat of force. As I've said before, a market forced to be free (that is, a market controlled, and then proclaimed to be free), is not a free market.

66.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 7, 2001, 15:51
Bronco
 
66.
Re: No subject Sep 7, 2001, 15:51
Sep 7, 2001, 15:51
 Bronco
 
There's no rule that says that the two must work in concert.

Ok, please provide examples where two dissimilar ideologies work hand in hand and it doesn't result in a major change in the government of that nation. I can't help but think of the Soviet Union and how they tried to integrate some free market (capitalistic) principles into their communist regime and the result is now Russia.

I must admit that I don't really have a grasp of what you are saying here and I need further clarification in real world examples, not theories.



Snappy2Stroke

--I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. " - Thomas Jefferson
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
65.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 7, 2001, 15:10
65.
Re: No subject Sep 7, 2001, 15:10
Sep 7, 2001, 15:10
 
"Capitalism and socialism are not compatible"

You are simply wrong. Please explain the seperation of government and the free market in Germany, or the entire EU for that matter. I'm quite interested to see how your imagination explains this.

They are not compatible. It is quite simple really, in that one deals with social welfare and the other individual welfare. A mixture will exclusively and perpetually weaken capitalism while strenghtening socialism.

Oh, and Shingen, my hats off to you sir.


Edit: Sorry bout the double /sigh
This comment was edited on Sep 7, 15:11.
64.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 7, 2001, 15:09
64.
Re: No subject Sep 7, 2001, 15:09
Sep 7, 2001, 15:09
 
"Capitalism and socialism are not compatible"

You are simply wrong. Please explain the seperation of government and the free market in Germany, or the entire EU for that matter. I'm quite interested to see how your imagination explains this.

They are not compatible. It is quite simple really, in that one deals with social welfare and the other individual welfare. A mixture will exclusively and perpetually weaken capitalism while strenghtening socialism.

63.
 
No subject
Sep 7, 2001, 14:56
anon@207.140
63.
No subject Sep 7, 2001, 14:56
Sep 7, 2001, 14:56
anon@207.140
 
Please explain how they don't.

The point is that they can or can not be related. There's no rule that says that the two must work in concert. Of course in America money buys politics (returning to the Mircosoft debate) so the two are virtually identical. Do they need to be? Not necessarily.
62.
 
No subject
Sep 7, 2001, 14:43
anon@207.140
62.
No subject Sep 7, 2001, 14:43
Sep 7, 2001, 14:43
anon@207.140
 
"Capitalism and socialism are not compatible"

You are simply wrong. Please explain the seperation of government and the free market in Germany, or the entire EU for that matter. I'm quite interested to see how your imagination explains this.
61.
 
Re: BS
Sep 7, 2001, 14:30
Bronco
 
61.
Re: BS Sep 7, 2001, 14:30
Sep 7, 2001, 14:30
 Bronco
 
You seem to believe that political ideology and economic structure go hand in hand

Please explain how they don't.

Snappy2Stroke

--It is a far,far better thing that I do,than I have ever done;it is a far,far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
60.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 7, 2001, 13:55
60.
Re: Capitalism Sep 7, 2001, 13:55
Sep 7, 2001, 13:55
 
"#53... Did you go to BS University? You seem to believe that political ideology and economic structure go hand in hand. I think you're the one that suffers from propaganda."


First of all, prove it (that it is I who suffer from propaganda).

Second, political structure determines economic structure. Capitalism and socialism are not compatible, and the free market does not work with communism or nazism (thus Red China and the Soviet Union both lack/ed a free market economy). Political structure is one of the primary branches of philosophy, economic structure sits under (and is determined by) the political structure. A free market cannot exist without freedom; a market forced to be free at the point of a gun (a contradiction) is not a free market - all forms of statism must use force (initiate force) to achieve their goals, thus none of them are compatible with freedom.

---

"#53, you are talking out of your arse. You quote an impressive number of facts from the Nazi era, but in trying to equate that to Communism you completely fail to take account of the fact that the fundamental ideologies are diametrically opposed... why do you think one talks about "right-wing" and "left-wing"? It is true, that in extremism, both ideologies converge towards totalitarianism. That doesn't mean they're the same. Methinks you have gone totally overboard with your all-American commie witch hunt."


Communism and Nazism are not opposed, they are two rival gangs. I didn't say the were the same, I said they have the same philosophical basis.

---

"You also failed to separate the theoretical foundations of an ideology from their implementation. I suggest you read Das Kapital before throwing Marx (a political philosopher and economist) in the same category as Hitler (a despot who murdered millions, for Chrissake!) That alone is enough to disqualify your post completely."


Marx' philosophy has murdered far more than "millions." In its implementation it has murdered *tens of millions*, from Red China to the Soviet Union, in gulags and outright executions.

I haven't failed to seperate the theoretical foundations from their implementation. And no, it isn't enough to disqualify anything of what I have said. Marx was a political philosopher, he provided the method of implementing what Stalin, and Hitler accomplished; their actions are the implementation of his philosophy.

Your first sentence points toward the classic argument that communism works in theory, but not in practice. Communism fails in practice because it does not work in theory.

---

"And as for Kant: if you're not intelligent enough to read the original texts, then please refrain from passing judgement on this great thinker. His epitaph was (and I paraphrase): "There are two things that will never cease to amaze me - the glory of the firmament above, and the power of the moral imperative within." Does that sound like the grandfather of absolutist dictatorships to you?"


Oh Kant was definitely a genius, in his ability to attempt to destroy and undermine reason. You haven't refuted what I said about Kant, you've attempted to evade it. Kant believed that if you desired to gain a value (freedom, happiness, etc.), and you pursued it, you were immoral for pursuing that which you desired; he held that the virtuous is that which is done with complete selflessness, i.e. without any self interest. Kant held that an individual deserves moral credit only if his/her action is done from duty. Someone who is honest, because they are unwilling to compromise their integrity, but does not act honest out of 'duty' is not moral according to Kant; if an individual wants to be honest, that individual deserves no moral recognition according to Kant, but if that individual doesn't want to be honest, but is honest, then they do deserve moral reward.

Kant held that if there is any kind of reward involved, an action is no longer a virtue. So, if one proceeds to remain alive by their own productive effort, and receives the 'reward' of surviving, the person's actions are not a virtue; Kant banished one's effort in supporting one's own life from the realm of the virtous, thus it becomes okay to support your own life by the effort of others (i.e. to sacrifice others to your self, and your self to others; which is how statism functions).


Kant created the first philosophy of nearly pure self-sacrifice; it is no coincidence that individuals such as Marx who learned from (and followed) his philosophy have done such massive sacrificing.
This comment was edited on Sep 7, 14:00.
59.
 
Re: BS
Sep 7, 2001, 13:25
anon@4.35
59.
Re: BS Sep 7, 2001, 13:25
Sep 7, 2001, 13:25
anon@4.35
 
Amen, #57. #53 is scrooooooed up. I can't believe nobody taught him that fascism is a social ideology and communism is a economic ideology. I can't believe he lumped them together.

Anyway, reading through all these comments....here's some points that popped into my head:

1) Microsoft products are not superior. They are poorly programmed, filled with cruft (extraneous material), slow, ponderous, and generally bad quality. I know this because I have tried alternative OS's and they behave a lot better.

2) Microsoft did not get rich becuase Bill Gates is a programming genius who wrote this great software that makes everyone's life so much better. Microsoft got rich because Bill Gates is a MARKETING GENIUS who understands the concepts of MINDSHARE. In other words, he knows how to manufacture the need for his products. People don't need a new version of windoze every 2 years, but by golly, he makes them "need" it. Microsoft is everyone. It has captured the majority of public mindshare. Who cares about market share (although they've got plenty of that too) all that matters is that, when Joe Normal thinks computers, he thinks "microsoft".

4) Microsoft is a corporation. This means that it has A) just as much / many rights and protections as any single person living in the USA (freedom of speech, assembly, privacy, etc) and B) all the benefits of a corporation.
Let me say that again. Being a corporation has no drawbacks in America. Corporations were originally formed to be a seperate tax entity and therefore protect their owners from certain things: now that they have just as many righst as any person, they are virtually unstoppable. Look at Nike, McDonalds, Phillip Morris, Coca-Cola, etc etc. They rule America, not Dubya.

So, this non-breakup news truly sucks. I'm off to the greener pastures of BeOS, Solaris, and Linux. So what if I can't play games-- I don't give a fvck. Some people have to start making sacrifices if we're ever going to become a more enlightened nation.
58.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 7, 2001, 13:11
58.
Re: Capitalism Sep 7, 2001, 13:11
Sep 7, 2001, 13:11
 
#53, you are talking out of your arse. You quote an impressive number of facts from the Nazi era, but in trying to equate that to Communism you completely fail to take account of the fact that the fundamental ideologies are diametrically opposed... why do you think one talks about "right-wing" and "left-wing"? It is true, that in extremism, both ideologies converge towards totalitarianism. That doesn't mean they're the same. Methinks you have gone totally overboard with your all-American commie witch hunt.

You also failed to separate the theoretical foundations of an ideology from their implementation. I suggest you read Das Kapital before throwing Marx (a political philosopher and economist) in the same category as Hitler (a despot who murdered millions, for Chrissake!) That alone is enough to disqualify your post completely.

And as for Kant: if you're not intelligent enough to read the original texts, then please refrain from passing judgement on this great thinker. His epitaph was (and I paraphrase): "There are two things that will never cease to amaze me - the glory of the firmament above, and the power of the moral imperative within." Does that sound like the grandfather of absolutist dictatorships to you?

This comment was edited on Sep 7, 13:14.
Avatar 4021
57.
 
BS
Sep 7, 2001, 13:03
anon@207.140
57.
BS Sep 7, 2001, 13:03
Sep 7, 2001, 13:03
anon@207.140
 
#53... Did you go to BS University? You seem to believe that political ideology and economic structure go hand in hand. I think you're the one that suffers from propaganda.
56.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 7, 2001, 13:01
56.
Re: Capitalism Sep 7, 2001, 13:01
Sep 7, 2001, 13:01
 
"by your definition, USA wouldn't be a capitalist state either. The Right of Imminent Domain makes everything owned by the state if it so desires."

No, America isn't a purely capitalist nation (which is often called 'laissez-faire'). America does however feature a greater mixture of capitalism (capitalistic principles) than any other nation in history, but it still has a mixture of statism (a rapidly increasing amount of statism).

55.
 
Individualism
Sep 7, 2001, 12:55
55.
Individualism Sep 7, 2001, 12:55
Sep 7, 2001, 12:55
 
"I think that statement embodies a lot of what's wrong with money-based philosophy. An economy should exist for the benefit of everyone, not for individuals."


This philosophic statement would be hilarious if it weren't so common. Who do you suppose 'everyone' is? They are individuals. There is no such organism 'society' or 'the whole.' There are only individuals.

What the quote really means, is that the economy should exist for the benefit of some, but not for the benefit of others.

BTW: who do you suppose makes an economy? Individuals do.

---

"I don't think it's proper to have a system which benefits those on whom fate smiles, with a small amount trickling down to the rest. It's too Darwinistic (which is the way things work, but IMHO, is something that humanity has the power to overcome.)"


Fate didn't smile on Edison, or Einstein, or Ford, etc. They *created* wealth, or ideas, etc. The Wright brothers didn't have fate smiling on them, they learned how to fly.

And, if that is "the way things work" (in reference to darwinism), then how is it you think "humanity" can overcome it? You mean, you think humanity can fight reality? This is an example of what I stated previously, social subjectivism. Thinking that 'somehow' the group or the collective or "humanity" can overcome anything (the law of identity even), just as long as they 'will' it to be.

The way things work, isn't by social darwinism. The rational success of one individual isn't to the detriment of another; the man that created the transistor did not do so at the expense of the man that did not create it, and did not know how.

The individuals who created 'push button' labor did not harm other individuals, they made their jobs easier, their labor less intensive. The individuals who created the graphical user interface, if they grew rich by their invention, did not gain a reward anywhere near the value their invention has given in return.

---

"Ray is somewhat correct. People don't mind screwing each other over, as long as they can "rationalize" it with "I have to take care of #1"/"I worked hard, I deserve it"/"Survival of the fittest.""


It isn't necessary to screw someone over to be successful, to make money, etc. in a free society.

Of course one has to take care of "#1," selflessness is not a virtue. Since I don't care to write a book explaining it to you, I'll point out that selflessness, i.e. self-sacrifice, was Hitler's philosophy (and communism's, nazism's, fascism's, and is socialism's), how did that work out again?

---

"This is the curse of prosperity: A subtle and deeply-rooted selfishness develops in people; the virtues of humility, humbleness, and self sacrifice are washed away, and concern for the well-being of others takes a back seat."


There is no curse of prosperity. Rational self-interest is the cause of prosperity. Which is a reason so much of the world has lacked such; the philosophy that has dominated the world is selflessness. There is no virtue to humility, humbleness or self-sacrifice; this has been proclaimed for two thousand years, and it wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The middle ages, which were dominated by self-sacrifice, humility, and humbleness were the darkest period in recorded human history.

Care for the well-being of others does not require that you sacrifice your self to them. And care for others does not require humility, or humbleness.
This comment was edited on Sep 7, 13:34.
174 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 6.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older