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 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older
154.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 16:09
anon@63.150
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 16:09
Sep 13, 2001, 16:09
anon@63.150
 
"this country is so in love with all its questionable traditions they would never think of changing it."


I'll assume you're not a royalist then. I'm curious, Apeman. What kind of government do you want? I'm on the right of the political spectrum, you're on the left. I wouldn't want another Hitler, you would fight a Stalin. We both want a representative democracy. I'm all for a social safety net but want to gently prod the capable out of it. You don't want big business running amok, sadly it has too much influence in this country. I want a strong national defense. I know it's a cliche, but our freedom wasn't free. It was paid for in blood. I don't know your feelings on that subject. Surely there is somewhere in the middle where we can meet.

Pagan
153.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 15:46
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 15:46
Sep 13, 2001, 15:46
 
Hehe remember one thing from all this:
Yankee=American fron the NE part of the country.


Also, just wondering if you were going to try to reply or just resort to namecalling?

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin
152.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 14:59
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 14:59
Sep 13, 2001, 14:59
 
I have noticed that you like to state that Americans are a loud and unruly lot.

While there are surely many things that you can criticize about my posts (and justifiably so), I don't think that is one of them. I have mentioned some Americans being like that, and I have talked about stereotypes, but never have I said that they are all like that. I'm not anti-American. Some of my best friends are Americans!
Also, the only time I do respond in my supposedly "superior European fashion" is when some Yankee meathead rants on about how great the US of A is and how us poor, stone-age Europeans are enslaved by our commie governments.

however, after witnessing several House of Commons sessions on the BBC, I would say that Brits can be a bit boisterous at times

Oh yeah! I'll give you that. It's like a bunch of overgrown schoolboys. The fact that they sit so close, and at opposite sides, gives it the air of some school debate. Not necesarily desirable, but then again this country is so in love with all its questionable traditions they would never think of changing it.


Avatar 4021
151.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 14:26
anon@65.204
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 14:26
Sep 13, 2001, 14:26
anon@65.204
 
"ape "oh c'mon surely more than 5% of what I say is true?" man "


Hmmmmmmm, after struggling through all your postings and all those darn big words, I have noticed that you like to state that Americans are a loud and unruly lot. Well, okay I'll give you that (however, after witnessing several House of Commons sessions on the BBC, I would say that Brits can be a bit boisterous at times). I'll generously raise your percentage to ten. No, I'm not going to rip off the one tenth line. My spirit was crushed by those few simple words. I wouldn't wish the same on you.

Pagan
150.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 13:50
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 13:50
Sep 13, 2001, 13:50
 
No, I'll be charitable and call it ten. One tenth

Heh, agreed. And thanks for the words of support, by the way.

ape "oh c'mon surely more than 5% of what I say is true?" man


Avatar 4021
149.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 13:48
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 13:48
Sep 13, 2001, 13:48
 
Deleted. Sorry about the double post.
This comment was edited on Sep 13, 14:00.
Avatar 4021
148.
 
to conclude ...
Sep 13, 2001, 12:59
anon@63.150
to conclude ... Sep 13, 2001, 12:59
Sep 13, 2001, 12:59
anon@63.150
 
Now that this thread has wound down, I must cease my trifling Apeman bashing (just in fun) and end on a serious note. Even though I am not a Labour kind of guy, I was moved by Mr. Blair's comments following the attacks here on Tuesday. Not bad for a Clinton-lite.

Pagan
147.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 13, 2001, 08:52
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 13, 2001, 08:52
Sep 13, 2001, 08:52
 
And capitalism doesn't have any underlying philosophical principles?

Capitalism is based on the ideas of free trade between individuals. Its underlying philosophy is individualism.

That's hyperbola, Shingen. You're sounding like one of those militia guys again. You'd be paranoid if you think that "statist" governments set out to coerce and enslave their citizens. In fact, the thinking behind these governments is to try and make life for the average citizen (and yes, that can be taken in the mathematical sense here) better. Naturally an average is higher than the low numbers, and lower than the high ones in a distribution.

You have been fooled by the talk and not looked at what is happening, Apeman. Governments power comes from coercive threat of force. No matter which way you look at it, Governments in statist countries always reduce individual liberties. When your liberties consist of 'freedom from want', ie. the freedom to buy the bare necessities of life, you have become quite enslaved.

You will have to back that up with some hard evidence. Even economically (as if that was all that mattered?? are all capitalists that one-dimensional?) Europe leads in some, though of course not all, fields.

You have yet to back one thing up with hard evidence.


For each Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie success story, there are hundreds, maybe thousands who are never able to break free from their long hard low-wage job, and who remain hot dog sellers on the streets of Manhattan all their lives.

Untrue. Anyone can break away, some dont. This is stifled by non-capitalistic laws.


That is true; at the same time though, we have less people living under the existence minimum. You know, those drug-users who are too lazy to get a job and just steal your hard-earned bucks instead.

You have less people living under the so called existence minimum at the cost of everyone. And yes, poverty can be caused by laziness, addiction, drinking, gambling or other self destructive behaviors. It could be caused by being widowed or orphaned. And yes, what occures in social welfare programs is government theft through threat of force of your wages, which is given to whoever the government deems 'needy'.

No, only you libertarians see it as robbing. I see it as, "where is your provision for ensuring everyone is able to live at a certain standard of existence? How can we ENSURE [note voluntary donations are not the way to do this] that if people fall on hard times and need help, there will be means to help them get back on their feet again?"
Shingen, suppose you lost your leg in an accident or something, God forbid, and were no longer be able to go out to work. Under your "capitalist" system, you would be left to your own devices, hoping some kind-hearted millionaire would give you some of his money. Have you ever considered that?

First, i am not a libertarian. I beleive shingen has stated he was not also. Voluntary donations and charities that promote independancy are THE way to do this, apeman. The US has donated more charity than the rest of the world 4x over in recent years, and donations to charities are at an all time high. What do you think the rish do with their money? It is impossible to spend it on self consumption. Thus, many donate it to charities. But one thing that has been indoctorinated into your mind is that the government should ensure that people give money. It is not the governments right to ensure anything. People are not 'entitled' to welfare, or a standard of living. You must earn your success.

Losing a leg doesnt cause you to miss work in this country. Actually, most of the highest paying jobs are in the tech industry, and legs arent usually required for that. Your statement is unrealistic. But, if he was paralyzed from the next down, his situation would be more grim. Fortunately, there are many charity organizations that would help him. While he is hurt, in a pure capitalist/individualist country, maybe someone will come up with a way to cure him faster since they are unhindered by government.

it is only necessary to protect an individual from having his/her right to speech removed by the initiation of force (if force isn't used to do such, then freedom of speech exists). This same concept applies to every other individual right.

So you think there should be no limits to freedom of speech?
Stuff like defamation laws should be abolished?

Freedom requires tolerance of foolishness. No limits to free speech.

Defamation, slander, etc are not free speech as such, it is a lie told to harm someone. You raise an interesting point here. I remember reading about the Spanish merchants of a few hundred years ago. When someone refused to pay for services done, or acted in another way, such as slander, there was no government there to threaten them with force. Rather, they lost all of their reputation and integrity. In a well educated society, as it would be without the government monopoly, such slander and libel would be fairly apparent, and they offender would lose all standing. This would in effect drive them out of business for their immoral actions.

====

Bastiat defined the state as,"the great fictitious entity through which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else." I have come to realize that that is painfully true. Once people believe they are entitled to something, it is very hard to change the system, or even to consider changing it.

Goodnight all
Good night. Or rather, good morning now.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin
146.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 13, 2001, 08:15
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 13, 2001, 08:15
Sep 13, 2001, 08:15
 
The EU is far more than just a free trade zone (which is what NAFTA is

Correct. The EU is an alliance of mostly statist countries and welfare states.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin
145.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 01:50
anon@63.183
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 01:50
Sep 13, 2001, 01:50
anon@63.183
 
No, I'll be charitable and call it ten. One tenth.
144.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 01:38
anon@158.252
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 01:38
Sep 13, 2001, 01:38
anon@158.252
 
Five percent.
143.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 01:27
anon@24.240
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 01:27
Sep 13, 2001, 01:27
anon@24.240
 
"I think, personally, that you are just looking for an excuse to beat up on Apeman. I like Apeman, so I take offense to that. And besides, you aren't half as clever or witty as you seem to think you are."


95% of what Apeman says is completely wrong. However, he has proven quite capable of defending himself in this forum. I'm sure he appreciates your defense but he certainly doesn't need it. Now back to me. Would you acknowledge that I am at least a quarter as clever and witty as I think I am?
142.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 13, 2001, 01:25
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 13, 2001, 01:25
Sep 13, 2001, 01:25
 
Statism covers such political systems (for example) as socialism, communism, fascism, and nazism; they all rely on the same philosophic principles - they do vary in degree of brutality and violation of individual rights.

And capitalism doesn't have any underlying philosophical principles?

A 'statist' is someone that believes some individuals have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder other individuals.

That's hyperbola, Shingen. You're sounding like one of those militia guys again. You'd be paranoid if you think that "statist" governments set out to coerce and enslave their citizens. In fact, the thinking behind these governments is to try and make life for the average citizen (and yes, that can be taken in the mathematical sense here) better. Naturally an average is higher than the low numbers, and lower than the high ones in a distribution.

The Berlin Wall, for example. It is never necessary for a capitalistic country to build walls to keep people in.

That is correct. But just because the countries that do build walls are "statist", doesn't mean that all "statist" (argh I hate this word!) governments build walls. It is not all black and white. And a strong government doesn't imply it imprisons its citizens, either.

Yes, I dare call *most* of Europe stagnant, it mostly is and has been (from nearly every standpoint, in terms of producing new technology, in terms of expanding economically, etc.).

You will have to back that up with some hard evidence. Even economically (as if that was all that mattered?? are all capitalists that one-dimensional?) Europe leads in some, though of course not all, fields.

You say "Its's probably statements like this," is it or isn't it?

It is (statements like these that reinforces people's stereotypes of Americans). Me saying "probably" must've been my whacky British humour.

You mention the scenario of someone working all their life, and never making it out of poverty; how do you think Henry Ford made his money? Or Andrew Carnegie

For each Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie success story, there are hundreds, maybe thousands who are never able to break free from their long hard low-wage job, and who remain hot dog sellers on the streets of Manhattan all their lives.

Europe doesn't have many billionaires or millionaires

That is true; at the same time though, we have less people living under the existence minimum. You know, those drug-users who are too lazy to get a job and just steal your hard-earned bucks instead.

Check out how much is given to education each year by the wealthy, who donate to universities, to medical facilities, etc. The sum is likely greater than the GDP of some of the smaller nations in Europe. I can get you specific figures if you would like.

You don't need to. It is not much of a surprise given that the USA is a so much larger country than your "smaller nations in Europe".

You're thinking in terms of "where is your provision for robbing people?". That is, "where is your provision for forcing people to give their money away?".

No, only you libertarians see it as robbing. I see it as, "where is your provision for ensuring everyone is able to live at a certain standard of existence? How can we ENSURE [note voluntary donations are not the way to do this] that if people fall on hard times and need help, there will be means to help them get back on their feet again?"
Shingen, suppose you lost your leg in an accident or something, God forbid, and were no longer be able to go out to work. Under your "capitalist" system, you would be left to your own devices, hoping some kind-hearted millionaire would give you some of his money. Have you ever considered that?

it is only necessary to protect an individual from having his/her right to speech removed by the initiation of force (if force isn't used to do such, then freedom of speech exists). This same concept applies to every other individual right.

So you think there should be no limits to freedom of speech?
Stuff like defamation laws should be abolished?

Goodnight all,

apeman


Avatar 4021
141.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 01:12
anon@24.240
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 01:12
Sep 13, 2001, 01:12
anon@24.240
 

You might be right about that. I don't know if I've failed to register because 1) I'm just a wimp; 2) I can't get over the paranoia of leaving my e-mail address; 3)I'm extremely intimidated by your dizzying European intellect. Maybe a combination of all three.

P.S. You saying you don't remember me ... scratch that, certainly don't remember me, is not helping my confidence any.

Pagan, the you-guessed-it ugly ignorant illiterate American (obviously).
140.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 00:58
anon@158.252
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 00:58
Sep 13, 2001, 00:58
anon@158.252
 
Pagan wrote:

"Ahhhhh, Apeman is at it again. I neglect Blue for a few weeks, come back to see if people like Max Payne as much as I do and there's Mr. EU himself singing that same so tired socialist and European superiority song he's been wailing for-freakin'-ever."

Allow me to point out one thing. No where in the title of this thread do you see the words "Max Payne." The title of THIS thread, is "Microsoft Break-up Broken." So if you want to "see if people like Max Payne as much as I do," may I suggest you try looking in a DIFFERENT thread?

I think, personally, that you are just looking for an excuse to beat up on Apeman. I like Apeman, so I take offense to that. And besides, you aren't half as clever or witty as you seem to think you are.

Before some wag brings it up, I will say that yes, this thread HAS drifted somewhat from its original title, but at least it is an extension of it, in a way that "Max Payne" would not be.

But since you bring it up ... I thought Max Payne was a great game, for the first five or six hours I played it ... I'm on the last level now, and it is wearing a little thin. I wish it had just a little more gameplay. "Bullet time" makes the whole thing too easy.
139.
 
Re: same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 00:56
Re: same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 00:56
Sep 13, 2001, 00:56
 
Ahhhhh, Apeman is at it again. I neglect Blue for a few weeks, come back to see if people like Max Payne as much as I do and there's Mr. EU himself singing that same so tired socialist and European superiority song he's been wailing for-freakin'-ever.

Gosh, a fan?? To be honest, Pagan, you might remember me but I certainly don't remember you. And if you're a man, then you wouldn't be posting anonymously...

!Cuba libre!

apeman, the pinko commie (apparently)

This comment was edited on Sep 13, 00:58.
Avatar 4021
138.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 13, 2001, 00:51
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 13, 2001, 00:51
Sep 13, 2001, 00:51
 
Whether it is jealousy, fear, or any other emotion, it is quite obvious to me that the end result is a severe dislike or hatred towards the US. On a much smaller scale this may be compared to seeing the smartest kid in the class getting a faling grade on an exam. People find comfort in seeing successful (no matter how they got there, legally or not) fail.

Hmm, this almost proves my point... maybe it's not jealousy? Maybe other nations just don't think you guys are that fantastic?

Anyway, it's late here, and this is probably coming out all wrong, so I'd better stop.

Avatar 4021
137.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 13, 2001, 00:40
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 13, 2001, 00:40
Sep 13, 2001, 00:40
 
We are in NAFTA. We are in the UN. You are in the EU. You are in the UN. Make a point, that has some truth to it.

Your ignorance just becomes more and more apparent. The EU is far more than just a free trade zone (which is what NAFTA is). Please, inform yourself just a little bit!

Thanks.

apeman


Avatar 4021
136.
 
Capitalism, etc.
Sep 13, 2001, 00:38
Capitalism, etc. Sep 13, 2001, 00:38
Sep 13, 2001, 00:38
 
"Hey shingen, do you care if i paste this stuff to word? Its great."


Cyrezar, not at all, go ahead.

---

"Apparently, you failed too...
Most Americans just can't admit they are wrong / ignorant / etc. You just believe (not even think) you are right because you've been taught so by a stupid system (potitics, school, justice, etc.) so you just take this illusion of knowledge and voice it as if it was the truth (as stupid religion freaks do)... Go get a clue."


No, I have not failed at all, quite the opposite; if such were actually the case, you would be able to make a rational argument against what I have actually posted. You are demonstrating that you are unable to refute my arguments, and have moved on to unbacked, irrational statements, including ad hominem attack.

---

"Shingen, I can't believe just how blinkered you are. You are certainly eloquent; let me respond to a few of your points (if I respond to all I'll be here all night...)

1. Stop using the term "statism". It's a made-up word. There is nobody out there saying "yep, I'm a statist"."


Statism covers such political systems (for example) as socialism, communism, fascism, and nazism; they all rely on the same philosophic principles - they do vary in degree of brutality and violation of individual rights.

Statism can also be called collectivism; it's the political expression of altruism. All statist political systems hold that an individual's life belongs to the state, society, group, gang, people, race, nation, [insert other term here], and that said collective may do with an individual's life as it pleases, based on whatever reason is declared, to achieve whatever goal is determined by the gang in power.

Under statism, the government becomes a legalized criminal entity. It is the concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual rights.

A 'statist' is someone that believes some individuals have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder other individuals.

---

"What?? Look at Europe, please. We actually are moving towards living in harmony with our neighbours, knocking down borders, cooperating with one another. That is more than the USA can say about itself. And you dare call us "stangant"?!
Its's probably statements like this that make foreigners call Americans "arrogant" and "uneducated"."


In the section you quote, I didn't say anything about "harmony," "knocking down borders," or "cooperating with one another." And that isn't more than the USA can say about itself, the U.S. and Canada maintain the world's longest unguarded border. Mexico has been ruled by the same party politically for most of the previous seven decades, i.e. it has been a party-dicatorship (with the power being in the party, not solely in one person); so that combined with the issues of rampant immigration from Mexico, does require border protection.

A statist country, to the degree that it is statist, must put up walls to hold people in. The Berlin Wall, for example. It is never necessary for a capitalistic country to build walls to keep people in.

Yes, I dare call *most* of Europe stagnant, it mostly is and has been (from nearly every standpoint, in terms of producing new technology, in terms of expanding economically, etc.). Many countries in Europe have gotten better in the last decade, about removing government protected monopolies, lowering (or at least not raising) taxes, etc.

You say "Its's probably statements like this," is it or isn't it?

---

"Ah, the old myth of the "American dream". I see where you're coming from, but you completely fail to acknowledge the fact that some people are born into less privileged circumstances that others. Someone who grows up in a poor family, in some bad inner city neighbourhood, might work and work all his life and still never manage to escape his low-down life."


There is no myth about the "American dream." Thousands of people flee countries like China and India every year and come to the U.S. because they are free to achieve and prosper here, to start their own businesses, etc.; check out Silicon Valley sometime (or Boston, or Northern Virginia, etc.).

I don't "fail to acknowledge the fact that some people are born into less privileged circumstances," I've stated that one person's need is not a claim on another person's ability, life, or success; if you fail, you have no right to pull me down with you (I do have a right to help you out however, if I choose to, and if you accept such help). If you think you need a yacht, you have no right to get the government to satisfy your 'need' at my expense. There is no such thing as a "privileged circumstance" under capitalism; there are only circumstances where individuals have *earned* values. Statism makes it fully possible to buy political favors (that becomes the method of operation), to protect from competition; capitalism does not. It is this aspect, that has caused Europe to remain so stagnant - look at all the government sanctioned sector monopolies that make up so many of Europe's largest companies (some of which are slowly being turned over to the private sector).

A privilege is granted (and depending on how you define it, works to the detriment of others); economic power under capitalism is not granted (it is earned), just as individual rights are impossible to 'grant.'

---

You mention the scenario of someone working all their life, and never making it out of poverty; how do you think Henry Ford made his money? Or Andrew Carnegie (who was most certainly not a rich man, he created his wealth). Bill Gates did not get 50 million in funding for Microsoft, he started it on shoe strings. The Intel founders chipped in some small amount like $500. Etc.

It is only statism that can *prevent* someone from working their way out of poverty; to the degree that a country is statist, it prevents such. See: USSR, India, China, etc. and how they make it almost impossible to actually create wealth.

Europe doesn't have many billionaires or millionaires because it has attempted to make every one equal in wealth and earning potential; regardless of ability. This is another example of economic stagnation (as is the extreme debt to GDP ratios that many European countries possess).

All individuals are not inherently equal in ability and effort; they should not be rewarded as though they were.

---

"And don't tell me this is going to happen through voluntary donations. I think it's very noble if Gordon Moore gives millions to charity, but if you want to ensure a steady flow of money you will need to do more than just rely on the occasional goodwill of some millionaire."

&

"Where in your system are the provisions for charity? For helping the less fortunate?"


Provision for charity? Capitalism has proven to be the system that creates a vastly greater amount of charity than any other; as I've stated previously, America's wealthy do not spend a significant portion of their wealth on personal consumption (this is a fact, and it isn't difficult to track such). Americans give more money to charities every year than the rest of the world combined, several times over; take a look at the top 50 charities that operate in this country some time.

Capitalism doesn't prevent someone from giving to charity; if you want to give your money away to charity, you are very much free to do so. It *does* happen voluntarily. Check out how much is given to education each year by the wealthy, who donate to universities, to medical facilities, etc. The sum is likely greater than the GDP of some of the smaller nations in Europe. I can get you specific figures if you would like.

You're thinking in terms of "where is your provision for robbing people?". That is, "where is your provision for forcing people to give their money away?".


I'd like to point out also, that under capitalism, the 40% income tax (or whatever a country sets it at) on corporate profits would be removed, so unemployment would cease to be an issue any longer; charity would cease to be a significant issue (there would no longer be any significant number of homeless or very poor, because that 40% that normally would have gone to taxes, would be put toward expansion, i.e. job creation). However, as statist controls are introduced into a system, the statism becomes a rolling snowball; eg- see France, who often has 12% + unemployment, which is caused by the socialism. The statist controls cause the unemployment problems, and then more controls are passed to try and force unemployment to go away (eg- making it nearly impossible to fire people), which ends up creating even more unemployment (a business that cannot adjust to economic climate, or business failure, by firing people, will necessarily destroy itself). This scene has played out many, many times over the last several decades in Europe (in just about every country).

---

"Anyway Shingen, a few posts back I asked you to outline how the US (or any other country) would look under your proposed "pure capitalism" - you haven't responded yet... Please? I would be interested to hear of a system as unregulated as the one you're proposing being made to work in a country containing well over 200 million people."


I have outlined such, throughout this thread. I should be able to just say "capitalism"; but you don't understand what that is. The number of people are irrelevant to whether capitalism works; whether it is 20 million, or 285 million.

You seem to have a serious issue with regulations, thinking that it is necessary to force people to act in a certain way. The initiation of force, and regulations that require such, are anti-individual rights. It isn't necessary to create a thousand regulations protecting freedom of speech; it is only necessary to protect an individual from having his/her right to speech removed by the initiation of force (if force isn't used to do such, then freedom of speech exists). This same concept applies to every other individual right.

Regulations that require the initiation of force are not necessary (and are in fact extremely detrimental); all that is necessary, to protect individual rights, is to banish the initiation of force (and to defend against an individual or group that does initiate force). The only proper functions of government are the court system, the military, and the police. A government is an entity that holds a legalized monopoly on the use of force, the three mentioned proper functions of government all relate to such monopoly on force (military is used to protect against foreign invaders by way of defense, etc.; police act to protect against the violation of individual rights domestically, and to uphold justice, etc.; the court system punishes those that do violate individual rights, and it acts to settle domestic disputes, etc.).

If you have a specific question about some aspect of capitalism, and how it functions, feel free to ask.
This comment was edited on Sep 13, 01:00.
135.
 
same ol' story
Sep 13, 2001, 00:38
anon@24.240
same ol' story Sep 13, 2001, 00:38
Sep 13, 2001, 00:38
anon@24.240
 
Ahhhhh, Apeman is at it again. I neglect Blue for a few weeks, come back to see if people like Max Payne as much as I do and there's Mr. EU himself singing that same so tired socialist and European superiority song he's been wailing for-freakin'-ever. Boring, tedious & dull. Pssssst Apeman, just between you and me. Did you know that the Berlin Wall was erected to keep decadent Westerners out of that glorious worker's paradise that was East Germany. You may use that little tidbit at your next party when you're entertaining your rich friends who inherited their money from daddy, like you, and feel sooooooooooo guilty about it.

Pagan
174 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older