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 3.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older
134.
 
Whoops
Sep 13, 2001, 00:32
anon@158.252
Whoops Sep 13, 2001, 00:32
Sep 13, 2001, 00:32
anon@158.252
 
I'm sorry for the double post. Unfortunately the board will not allow me to delete it.
133.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 13, 2001, 00:27
anon@158.252
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 13, 2001, 00:27
Sep 13, 2001, 00:27
anon@158.252
 
Scroll down to 123. This is what you wrote:

"You might also want to note that there is no one saying 'yup, im a socialist. If you elect me, ill be sure to take your hard earned money by legal extortion and give it to poor people who are addicted to drugs.' They say 'We need to raise taxes to help the poor children.' Its exactly the same."

That last sentence is telling. The first part is your version of what a "socialist" would say, were he to be telling the "truth."
But that last sentence, "It's exactly the same"--that's all you.
So. Giving money "to poor people who are addicted to drugs" is EXACTLY THE SAME, in YOUR words, as "raising taxes to help the poor children."

If you raise taxes to give money to the poor - it what form is it primarily distributed?

You know very well.

In the form of "welfare."

You further reveal the hollowness of your own arguments by claiming in your last post, that you do NOT say it is always the fault of the poor, for being poor. Oh yes?

Let me quote you again:

"I did say that people can work themselves out of being poor."

They can? If that's true, if people who wish to work themselves out of being poor, "can," do so, then those who do NOT work their way out of being poor - must therefore CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO.

Is that not so? By your own, black and white logic, is that not the case? I'll make it easy on you. Let's exclude, say, the disabled. In your little social-darwinistic heart, perhaps even you have room for them, though you did not exclude them from your statement.
BUT everyone else, who is physically capable of working, who CAN choose to work--has the ability to work themselves out of poverty, is that not what you have argued?

If they can "work themselves" out of poverty, but choose not to do so, is not then, THEIR OWN FAULT?

If it is their own fault--why should we care about them?

Upon such simple-minded logic, rests the cornerstone of many a conservative's philosophy.

The fact is, to anyone who knows anything about the poor in this country--not just what they learned in Economics 101--there are MANY poor people who work hard all day, and are unable to escape the nine-to-five, minimum wage slave trade.

I didn't put words in your mouth. You put them there. At least have the consistency not to deny them.
132.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 13, 2001, 00:25
anon@158.252
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 13, 2001, 00:25
Sep 13, 2001, 00:25
anon@158.252
 
Scroll down to 123. This is what you wrote:

"You might also want to note that there is no one saying 'yup, im a socialist. If you elect me, ill be sure to take your hard earned money by legal extortion and give it to poor people who are addicted to drugs.' They say 'We need to raise taxes to help the poor children.' Its exactly the same."

That last sentence is telling. The first part is your version of what a "socialist" would say, were he to be telling the "truth." But that last sentence, "It's exactly the same"--that's all you.
So. Giving money "to poor people who are addicted to drugs" is EXACTLY THE SAME, in YOUR words, as "raising taxes to help the poor children."

If you raise taxes to give money to the poor - it what form is it mostly distributed?

You know very well what form.

In the form of "welfare."

You further reveal the hollowness of your own arguments by claiming in your last post, that you do NOT say it is always the fault of the poor, for being poor. Oh yes?

Let me quote you again:

"I did say that people can work themselves out of being poor."

They can? If that's true, if people who wish to work themselves out of being poor, "can," do so, then those who do NOT work their way out of being poor - must therefore CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO.

Is that not so? By your own, black and white logic, is that not the case? I'll make it easy on you. Let's exclude, say, the disabled. In your little social-darwinistic heart, perhaps even you have room for them, though you did not exclude them from your statement.
BUT everyone else, who is physically capable of working, who CAN choose to work--has the ability to work themselves out of poverty, is that not what you have argued?

If they can "work themselves" out of poverty, but choose not to do so, is not then, THEIR OWN FAULT?

If it is their own fault--why should we care about them?

Upon such simple-minded logic, rests the cornerstone of many a conservative's philosophy.

The fact is, to anyone who knows anything about the poor in this country--not just what they learned in Economics 101--there are MANY poor people who work hard all day, and are unable to escape the nine-to-five, minimum wage slave trade.

I didn't put words in your mouth. You put them there. At least have the consistency not to deny them.
131.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 23:53
Bronco
 
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 23:53
Sep 12, 2001, 23:53
 Bronco
 
There is the stereotype of the ignorant Yank who still argues his point loudly and aggressively even though he has no idea what he is talking about. Do you guys get taught that kind of sentiment in school?

I believe I missed Self Righteous 101. You used a key word here stereotype. We all know while they may have a 'grain' of truth to them, typically they do represent a warped view of the group - throwing out the middle and leaving the extremes.

I think another reason is that like it or not, the USA is pretty much the hub of the Western world these days. Hence if you live in the "centre of the world" (note the sarcasm...) you don't really have to look far afield, do you?

This statement does have a lot to do with the attitude of the 'stereotypical' US citizen. This statement also has a lot to do with the vitriol towards the US. 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.


I hope that in some small way I've shown you that not all people from the States are 'ignorant'.

Snappy2Stroke

--I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. " - Thomas Jefferson
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
130.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 21:51
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 21:51
Sep 12, 2001, 21:51
 
Yet again, "Cyrezai," you prove what a towering intellect you are. Why yes--everyone on welfare IS on drugs! There are no hard-working, drug-free people on welfare, therfore we don’t have to give a shit about anyone on welfare. It is their own fault they are poor, right?

Please tell me where i said everyone on welfare is on drugs?
Please tell me where i said we shouldnt care about the poor? Sounds like a big assumption to me. I did say that people can work themselves out of being poor, i did NOT say that it was always their fault.

I love how you can take complicated, multi-faceted social and political issues and reduce them to little Rush Limbaugh-sized nuggets of "wisdom."

I love how you flame me without giving any examples and putting words in my mouth.


Apeman--why are you bothering to argue with this guy? No matter what you or anyone else says, nothing is going to change his black and white, cartoonish vision of the world. You are wasting your time.

You are right, i see the world in black and white, instead of the many shades of gray you see. Right and wrong is absolute.
Im quite anxious for someone to explain to me why statism is superior to individual rights. As soon as you do that, ill jump into the boat with you gladly.







"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin

This comment was edited on Sep 12, 22:04.
129.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 21:35
anon@158.252
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 21:35
Sep 12, 2001, 21:35
anon@158.252
 

"ill be sure to take your hard earned money by legal extortion and give it to poor people who are addicted to drugs."

Yet again, "Cyrezai," you prove what a towering intellect you are. Why yes--everyone on welfare IS on drugs! There are no hard-working, drug-free people on welfare, therfore we don’t have to give a shit about anyone on welfare. It is their own fault they are poor, right?

I love how you can take complicated, multi-faceted social and political issues and reduce them to little Rush Limbaugh-sized nuggets of "wisdom."

Apeman--why are you bothering to argue with this guy? No matter what you or anyone else says, nothing is going to change his black and white, cartoonish vision of the world. You are wasting your time.
128.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 20:41
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 20:41
Sep 12, 2001, 20:41
 
Oh yes there is! Maybe not in America, but in other parts of the world, GASP! there are "socialist" parties, and even "communist" parties! And people actually vote for them - now would you believe it?!

My point exactly. They are statists.


How pathetic. You wouldn't happen to be somewhat biassed against socialism, would you?

As it is morally repulsive and inefficient, i am against statism in all forms 100%. I am also 'biased' against murder, theft and rape.

Well, if you weren't able to figure out that I was talking about the European Union (EU) then maybe you really are ignorant.

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.

So would you say you're completely against the system of welfare? Do you think anyone - no matter how unfortunate - can work their way up if they only try hard enough?

I am against that system for the same reasons i am anti-statist.

Anyone can. There is only the matter of 'will they'.

No - you tried this once before, and I actually responded. Now it's Shingen's turn.

Im sorry, what did i try? I dont remember telling you anything, besides that the perfect country would have maximum individual liberties. I can elaborate if you do not understand this ( although that is understandable, you coming from a country with a very coercive government). I think i stated before that it is quite simple.
Government keeps its hands out of business.
Government keeps its hands out of private lives.
Governments purpose is to protect the individual's rights.

Thats the perfect system. The perfect law, the law of liberty.


Again, I agree with you 100%. However, I would say that from my experience Americans tend to be particularly ignorant (that doesn't mean ALL of them are of course) and what's more, convinced they're in the right. There is the stereotype of the ignorant Yank who still argues his point loudly and aggressively even though he has no idea what he is talking about. Do you guys get taught that kind of sentiment in school? I'm just curious.

Unfortunately, due to the government's monopoly on schooling, ignorance will remain a major problem. Theres something insidious about having the government educate the people who vote for it. So the answer to your question is yes, the American children are taught that in school. They are taught how to think by the government.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin

This comment was edited on Sep 12, 20:55.
127.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 18:23
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 18:23
Sep 12, 2001, 18:23
 
I would think that part of the reason that Europeans tend to have a more wordly view is because of the size of their countries (you can drive from one end to the other of most European countries in 2 days max), the large numbers of neighbor countries (the US has 2), and finaly the large number of languages spoken in Europe versus the few (2 major
English and Spanish) spoken in North America.

Good point - I think that probably does have a lot to do with it, yes. I guess here in Europe we are constantly exposed to different cultures and languages, whether we want it or not.

Do the French and Germans truly view each other as a New Yorker and a New Jersian would now, members of a larger group? I can't imagine they all do.

No, I think you're probably right there. Of course each nation state within Europe still has its individuality - but many people are also aware that above all, we have an awful lot in common, that we are all parts of a greater whole.

I can't imagine having totaly different languages, cultures, histories, beliefs, etc. only an eight hour drive away.

Heh, you bet. Even within a country as old as Germany there are significant differences - think different accents, heritage etc. maybe like in the US, only more so.

This isn't an excuse for America's ignorance of Europe and the rest of the world. Just a possible reason.

I think another reason is that like it or not, the USA is pretty much the hub of the Western world these days. Hence if you live in the "centre of the world" (note the sarcasm...) you don't really have to look far afield, do you?

Look, there are good and bad aspects to the US. The same can be said of any other country

Again, I agree with you 100%. However, I would say that from my experience Americans tend to be particularly ignorant (that doesn't mean ALL of them are of course) and what's more, convinced they're in the right. There is the stereotype of the ignorant Yank who still argues his point loudly and aggressively even though he has no idea what he is talking about. Do you guys get taught that kind of sentiment in school? I'm just curious.

Well anyway, thanks for your post,

apeman


Avatar 4021
126.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 18:08
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 18:08
Sep 12, 2001, 18:08
 
You might also want to note that there is no one saying 'yup, im a socialist.'

Oh yes there is! Maybe not in America, but in other parts of the world, GASP! there are "socialist" parties, and even "communist" parties! And people actually vote for them - now would you believe it?!

ill be sure to take your hard earned money by legal extortion and give it to poor people who are addicted to drugs.'

How pathetic. You wouldn't happen to be somewhat biassed against socialism, would you?

Example please. I need examples, im an arrogant and ignorant American.

Well, if you weren't able to figure out that I was talking about the European Union (EU) then maybe you really are ignorant.

Anyone with a good idea can become rich, if they work at it. Thats one of the problems of welfare, however; giving handouts decreases the need to better ones self, and corrodes the work ethic. After all, why would you work for something you can get for free?

So would you say you're completely against the system of welfare? Do you think anyone - no matter how unfortunate - can work their way up if they only try hard enough?

Im curious, what would your proposed system be?

No - you tried this once before, and I actually responded. Now it's Shingen's turn.

This comment was edited on Sep 12, 18:09.
Avatar 4021
125.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 16:23
Bronco
 
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 16:23
Sep 12, 2001, 16:23
 Bronco
 
Europeans have a broader outlook on the situation, history and developements in the world.

I would think that part of the reason that Europeans tend to have a more wordly view is because of the size of their countries (you can drive from one end to the other of most European countries in 2 days max), the large numbers of neighbor countries (the US has 2), and finaly the large number of languages spoken in Europe versus the few (2 major English and Spanish) spoken in North America.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole concept of Nationalism really grew out of the Monarchies in Europe. Do the French and Germans truly view each other as a New Yorker and a New Jersian would now, members of a larger group? I can't imagine they all do. Now I learned in school (correct me if I'm wrong) that Germany is a little bigger than the State (Commonwealth) of Pennsylvania. I can't imagine having totaly different languages, cultures, histories, beliefs, etc. only an eight hour drive away. If this were true I would certainly HAVE to take a greater view of the world around me.

To those in Europe: Do you believe that at some point your countries will become mere 'states' in the EU? I don't know which came first NAFTA or the EU but it's obvious that they are two megagroups that were designed to compete in the world market. Where Asia falls in this I don't know.

This isn't an excuse for America's ignorance of Europe and the rest of the world. Just a possible reason.

heh.. oh yeah and keep in mind that statements llike "american educational system is stupid" will yield nothing but futile endless polemics...

I agree that these arguments can become endless but if you don't attempt to respond to them they can gain creedence.

Look, there are good and bad aspects to the US. The same can be said of any other country, anywhere in any time period. What truly saddens me are the blanket statements that some of the posters have made. These views are similar to the views of race that some people take.

Nobody (who has actual opinions) will leave discussions like this saying "ahhhh , you convinced me to change my opinion.. I changed my opion was because the arguments you layed out were superior and had solid proof... you found a loophole in my reasoning ..." hmm well it might depend on the age of the reader some..

While I haven't changed my opinions after reading this thread, it has allowed me to have an open constructive dialog with people that do believe other than I do. Discussions like this are better than screaming matches which can obviously (on a larger scale) turn in to something much more.


Snappy2Stroke

--I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. " - Thomas Jefferson
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
124.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 15:35
anon@63.73
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 15:35
Sep 12, 2001, 15:35
anon@63.73
 
I completely agree with apeman. I have lived in America for over eight years now, and I am extremely unimpressed with the american people. Most everyone I meet is pretty dull and dead intellectually spiritually and emotionally (go ahead and take that appart however you will ;] ). Very little national unity (You can always find unity if you look hard enough, but in comparison to european countries the findings will not be significant) Since I have experienced a move from one country to another and I see how difficult it would be for any american to understand the international european community.... certainly it would be nearly impossible to understand the differences between americans and europeans if you were brought up in suburbs of maryland.... Europeans have a broader outlook on the situation, history and developements in the world.

All this is considering that almost all my american aquaintances are those with american college education, people from the more fortunate american families...

heh.. oh yeah and keep in mind that statements llike "american educational system is stupid" will yield nothing but futile endless polemics... Asking people to "prove" the statements is arguably sillier than making the statements, because sufficient evidance is not possible. ( i am nto sure if any "evidence" at all is possible )

Nobody (who has actual opinions) will leave discussions like this saying "ahhhh , you convinced me to change my opinion.. I changed my opion was because the arguments you layed out were superior and had solid proof... you found a loophole in my reasoning ..." hmm well it might depend on the age of the reader some..

the best we can do is make our arguments constructive... hopefully we all change a tad bit after reading these texts.

pardon the poor spelling...
-fort
123.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 15:09
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 15:09
Sep 12, 2001, 15:09
 
1. Stop using the term "statism". It's a made-up word. There is nobody out there saying "yep, I'm a statist".

It is not a made up word. It is quite common in economic and political talk. You might also want to note that there is no one saying 'yup, im a socialist. If you elect me, ill be sure to take your hard earned money by legal extortion and give it to poor people who are addicted to drugs.' They say 'We need to raise taxes to help the poor children.' Its exactly the same. I dont think its easy to get elected saying one though.

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".

Example please. I need examples, im an arrogant and ignorant American.

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

Wrong. You seem to be under the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that for one to become wealthy another must become poorer. That is not the case. The wealthy get where they are by hard work and ingenuity. Anyone with a good idea can become rich, if they work at it. Thats one of the problems of welfare, however; giving handouts decreases the need to better ones self, and corrodes the work ethic. After all, why would you work for something you can get for free?

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.

Im curious, what would your proposed system be?

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin
122.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 13:41
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 13:41
Sep 12, 2001, 13:41
 
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".

2.
This is why most of Europe has been stagnant for a hundred years.

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".

3.
Capitalism isn't sink or swim, and there is nothing "cutthroat" about it - it is a system of justice; those that have not earned values are not given them as though they had (at the expense of those that did earn them).

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

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.


Avatar 4021
121.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 12, 2001, 08:17
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 12, 2001, 08:17
Sep 12, 2001, 08:17
 
"Prove it. Proclaiming all Americans "don't have any clue about anything" is not an argument, it is a failure to make an argument. You are apparently only capable of throwing out insults. "

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.

We are giving you a chance to argue your point instead of making accusations with no basis. Taught by a stupid system? what system? how is it stupid? are there other systems? are the other systems smarter? Sorry if i cant admit that i am wrong just because you dont like Americans.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin
120.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 11, 2001, 19:03
anon@154.11
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 11, 2001, 19:03
Sep 11, 2001, 19:03
anon@154.11
 
I agree, breaking up microsoft or even putting restrictions on what they can put in they're os is just plain stupid. Hey, I love my IE, i love my windows operating system with its amazing directx drivers that bring together some of the best games today. I'm a graphic artist and in school we are forced to use MACS. I hate it, really. Multitasking made hard and slow, with patetic hardware. And you wonder why apple is allowed to have they're mac os on they're over priced mac hardware. When windows makes they're browser integraded into the os everybody starts freakin out. Hey give old MS a break and think about what you have today because of them. sure, win2000, wasent the greatest, but xp? That might be a different thing...

Want to post your opinions about pc and mac's please do so.
at www.digital3dfx.cjb.net
119.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 11, 2001, 09:58
anon@194.102
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 11, 2001, 09:58
Sep 11, 2001, 09:58
anon@194.102
 
And the truth shall set you free............WRONG
Let's stick to the initial thread plz...... The gouvernment had no reason to break up Microsoft(they never resorted to any illegal actions).Prove me wrong plz.
I am not a Microsoft fanboy™ but you have to give them credit for what they did to this industry--------i dont understand why some ppl hate Microsoft and Bill Gates with such a passion, i dont say love them but at least respect what they did. Microsoft was the best thing that happened to the computer industry.
If you think that this gov. decision of "unbreaking" Microsoft is unfair please state valid arguments to support your oppinion. I do not accept examples like "I made a new ground-breaking software but microsoft scared all my investors away"......

oh and speaking of philosophical trends:
I am l33t!11111111 liek JEFFK!!!!!!!!!!!111111111
118.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 11, 2001, 09:54
anon@62.202
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 11, 2001, 09:54
Sep 11, 2001, 09:54
anon@62.202
 
"Prove it. Proclaiming all Americans "don't have any clue about anything" is not an argument, it is a failure to make an argument. You are apparently only capable of throwing out insults. "

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.
117.
 
World Trade Center
Sep 11, 2001, 09:39
anon@147.51
World Trade Center Sep 11, 2001, 09:39
Sep 11, 2001, 09:39
anon@147.51
 
We really need to start nukeing some people, I'm sick of this shit.
116.
 
Re: Capitalism, etc.
Sep 11, 2001, 08:43
Re: Capitalism, etc. Sep 11, 2001, 08:43
Sep 11, 2001, 08:43
 
Hey shingen, do you care if i paste this stuff to word? Its great.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin
115.
 
Capitalism, etc.
Sep 11, 2001, 00:47
Capitalism, etc. Sep 11, 2001, 00:47
Sep 11, 2001, 00:47
 
"Like I said before in another forum before they closed it: Can't discuss with Americans because they don't have any clue about anything; they just think they know stuff but they don't, especially about Europe, socialism, communism, etc.
They don't even know anything about their own country...
Freedom, freedom... Bulls!it I say, they don't know what freedom is, they only know what the illusion of freedom looks like...
Ignorant, Illusioned, Hypocrites, selfish, and the list goes on and on..."


Prove it. Proclaiming all Americans "don't have any clue about anything" is not an argument, it is a failure to make an argument. You are apparently only capable of throwing out insults.

---

"The US is on the path towards "socialism - ?" Is THAT what you said, Cyrezar?"


The U.S. is mixed; i.e. part statist part capitalist.

---

"Corporate control over the US government (not to mention most of the world) has never been greater."


Again, a failure to understand the difference between economic power and political power.

Corporations don't use force, governments do. Economic power is based on voluntary trade; political power is based around force. If a corporation does use force, it is the job of the government to retaliate / protect individuals from that force / provide defense.

If a corporation uses force as a means, it has ceased to be a corporation any longer. A corporation can only use force as a means if the government fails to protect individual rights; if the entity that was formally a corporation is given the ability to use force *by* the government (i.e. government sanction of the use of force by the ex-corporate entity), such entity has become part of the government; if the entity formally known as a corporation grows to hold more political power ('force power') than the government, such entity has become some kind of rogue government entity unto itself.

---

"All those multi-national companies, the big pharmaceuticals, the big oil companies, etc, with the millions of dollars they "contribute" to both Republicans and Democrats - you are saying they are doing so to further SOCIALISM?"


Many of them are furthering socialism; they often pay for restrictions (on their competition, or other various threats to their business), or pay just to have restrictions removed (essentially extortion by the government).

---

"Yet, you actually claim that "nothing less than a revolution will turn the US around from its path to socialism.""


The U.S. is becoming a lot more statist; for each tax or law that is passed, a dozen more are often passed for that one, and then those almost never get removed from the system - even if they fail to be actively enforced.

Europe has demonstrated for a hundred years how this works in practice.

---

"In return, you give up some of your individual rights as well. There's no such thing as a free lunch!"


Capitalism has nothing to do with "a free lunch" it is the opposite; it removes the possibility of a free lunch. Statism makes possible the free lunch, and then enforces the right of some to have a free lunch at the expense of others - all backed up with the threat of force.

"in return, you give up some of your individual rights" - this statement is a declaration that it is ok to use force - individual rights can only be violated by force. Even if one individual declares that they do not wish to recognize their individual rights, that does not give them a right to declare that some other person does not wish to recognize their rights.

There is no way to "give up" individual rights anyway - there is only a way to take away (eradicate/remove) individual rights, and that is by force. In a capitalistic system, even if someone decides to *attempt* to "give up" their individual rights (through a simple declaration for instance), their individual rights do not fail to exist, and it remains the government's job to protect such rights.

Individual rights are not something that are 'granted' by a government (or some group, etc.), they are something that exist so long as force isn't used to impede them.

---

"The USA is about the most un-socialist country I can think of."


The USA is very likely the least statist country in the world; however most of the rest of the world is quite statist by comparison (countries violate individual rights to the degree they are statist; Red China, the USSR, Cuba, Nazi Germany, etc. demonstrate such).

---

"So ... the fact that the DOJ--before BUSH INC. took over--tried to stop Microsoft from using illegal business tactics--that proves we're heading towards socialism?"


Anti-trust is just as immoral now as it was a hundred years ago; it was one of the first large holes for socialism to creep in - that is, it was one of the first major regulations that gave politicians power over the economy. Power over the economy is nearly like a holy grail for a politician, when it comes to expression of political power.

---

"They are basically basing what his believes were on what other leaders claimed to be doing in his name such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao who all followed little of Marx's ideas. Dictatorship of the workers did NOT mean there was an actually dictatorship, it meant that control of production and government would be moved away from the elitist ruling class and into the hands of the workers and common majority of the population."


Define "common majority of the population," there is no such thing. You mean, the "elitist ruling class" is not included in "common majority of the population"? What you mean, is that one group is given the right to violate the rights of others; there is no 'right' to enslave, which is what Marxist theory calls for.

That is, if someone is able to achieve great wealth by ability, intelligence, effort, etc. and that person comes to have *economic* power (which relies on voluntary trade, i.e. uncoerced trade), then suddenly that person's rights are negated. That person's wealth is declared to belong to "the people" (some group of people, chosen by whatever gang is in power) who did not earn it. For instance, John Carmack, who is a programmer of great ability; his *earned* wealth would, under proper Marxist theory, be redistributed to those that did not earn it, do not deserve it, and could not write a good 3D graphics engine.

Marxist theory revolves around giving unearned values; i.e. sacrifice. That is why it is immoral, that is why it doesn't work, that is why it has never worked, that is why it will never work.

The individuals who did not create the product, were not able to, did not try to, are rewarded as though they had. That is; from those according to ability, to those according to need. One individual's need is not a claim on another person's life, ability, or success.

---

"Marx would say that government now is a dictatorship of the capitalists. Corporations and greed almost completely dictates government action... just look at the US's war history.. vietnam, iraq, etc. It was all done in the name of corporations and greed. What about US intervention and funding of brutal dictators in south america? The evidence is all there. All I have to say to capitalists now is that you better watch out... change is coming if the corporate globalization protests are any indication. The numbers of protesters is only growing. The myth of the "New Economy" is quickly falling apart... the income gap is growing and with it will only come more restlessness and distrust of capitalism, the rotten system."


There is no such thing as a "dictatorship of the capitalists." Capitalism is the only system that protects individual rights, and therefore is the only system that makes actual freedom possible. You are displaying an inability to conceptualize 'freedom.' Your mind is so used to "it is either this gang, or it is that gang." Capitalism eradicates such 'political pull' gangs (i.e. gangs that use force as a means to achieve their ends).

U.S. intervention or funding of dictatorships have nothing to do with capitalism; it has to do with the politicians who were elected, who declared such acts. The United States is a mixed system, yet it has always been capitalism that has taken the blame (even though statism has displayed that it is a system which requires force, which can be easily shown either through historical example, or by logic from the ground up). That statism now exists in the U.S. political system to perhaps as great a degree as capitalism does, and that statism has demonstrated how brutal it is in application, why do you think it is capitalism that gets blamed? Because the the statists that backed the initiation of force, use capitalism as an excuse; just as statists use capitalism as an excuse when regulations are passed, a market collapses, and then the statists declare the free market (which wasn't actually present) doesn't work and that the market must be nationalized (i.e. pass more of the same regulations that caused the problem in the first place).


Protests aren't inherently a good or bad thing, nor do they inherently indicate which side of an issue is good or evil; of course statists are going to resist and protest freedom (that is, capitalism) in all its forms - without slavery statism loses its power (or to be more specific, the gangs in power lose their power). All statism requires some level of slavery. The proletariat in the USSR were taught to denounce capitalism, were taught that it was evil, etc. Keep in mind that every statist that denounces individual rights, or capitalism, is proclaiming that he holds a right to some value that belongs to you. Watch Fidel Castro denounce capitalism, yet proceed to execute individuals without trial (estimated to be in the tens of thousands over the course of his reign); watch the Stalins denounce the capitalist system as being evil, unjust, etc. and then proceed to lock a million (or ten million) people up in slave labor camps.

And prove it is rotten, you haven't done such (and will be unable to do such). Statists have tried just about every variation of political statism; all of the systems have failed to work for any significant length of time - statist governments will butcher 250 million people in slave camps, but won't touch capitalism. Capitalism is a political system that requires the protection of individual rights; that is not something that statists are interested in.

Capitalism has existed in one form or another in the U.S. for 225 years; it has worked for that length of time, and it has made possible the only mass affluent middle class in the history of the world (which is something statists declared was not possible under a capitalistic system). It created wide-spread prosperity, which is what statists proclaimed it could not achieve. It has led to a technological society without rival, yet statists declared that only [insert statist political system] would make such possible. etc.

America's 285 million people (roughly 5% of the world), nearly out produce the other 5.8 billion combined. It isn't the aspects of statism present in the American political system that make such possible - or China would be full of nothing but millionaires. It isn't that Americans are superhuman or somehow better than the other 95% of the world's population; it is that Americans are freer to achieve, to innovate, to prosper. It is capitalism that has made such possible.

There is nothing to "distrust" about capitalism, it is a political system; the only thing to distrust are the people proclaiming their right to enslave you for the benefit of the "whole" or the "collective" or the "common people" (which includes some but not others, depending on what the gang in power decides) - that is, the statists who believe it is their right to use force to achieve whatever goal they declare.

---

"In the US, we have socialism for the big arms manufacturers and other multi-billion dollar corporations ... taxpayers keep them in wealth whether their products work or not (take Bush Incorporated's "missile defense" for instance).

Big pharmaceuticals get help from the government, which pays for research, so they can then take the results and gouge consumers with incredibly high prices ..."


Unfortunately, what isn't often understood, is that these problems (some individuals bribing government officials, etc.) only grow worse under greater levels of statism (want to operate a business in China, get ready to pay hefty extortion taxes). Each regulation passed, acts as incentive for a corporation to pay to get exempt from said regulation; it's an extortion racket.

Capitalism removes such; then corporations can no longer buy special favor - there is no favor to be granted.

---

"We have billion dollar taxpayer bailouts for big business, like the S&Ls, when they fail."


Such is eradicated under actual capitalism. The government is not allowed to interfere with economics.

---

"We, the average citizens, get cutthroat, sink or swim capitalism."


Who do you think you are speaking for? There is no such thing as "the average citizens," an average is a mathematical device, it doesn't exist in actual. There is no "average person" or family with 2.5 kids.

Capitalism isn't sink or swim, and there is nothing "cutthroat" about it - it is a system of justice; those that have not earned values are not given them as though they had (at the expense of those that did earn them).

Statism punishes those that are able to succeed by taking from them through the use of force; there is no incentive to succeed if the products of your labor will be taken from you by some nearly random declaration by some politician or gang in power. This is why most of Europe has been stagnant for a hundred years.

---

"What will happen now to programs like Real player, WinAMP and Jukebox? It looks like this is the next 'browser' war.

Will there be any reason for a new user to install these other programs now?"


Re: WinAMP; I'm suprised AOL hasn't used their platform to build out a competing product to Windows. They have the applications which could be bundled from the beginning. AOL could probably team up with RealNetworks. This would provide a great deal of competition to the consumer edition of Windows.

---

"Just because you may not have kids does not excuse you from paying taxes in order to support their education."


If I don't have kids... who does "their" refer to? Other kids that are not mine?

What right does my neighbor have to come across the street, rob me, and then spend that money on his/her kid's education? Right... that is considered a crime; what makes it legal and moral when the government does it? There is no rational justification - that money (which the government takes) is still spent on my neighbor's kid/s, it is simply someone else other than my neighbor who is robbing me.

If the government didn't take 40% from each individual in taxes, a large chunk of that could be put toward a system of education that would introduce competition. An element of competition would raise performance (because the schools that did not do a good job in producing results would fail to attract students). Parents would have more choices for education because they would have the money that is normally taken. New methods of schooling would be created to attract the money that consumers would now have to spend on such. This would introduce innovation into the education system; something that it has very noticeably lacked. America has many of the best colleges on the planet because the college education system is not quite so controlled by the government as is the public education system (usually K through 12th grade); that is, the college education system is open to competition.


Another thing. Americans, under the supposedly evil capitalist system, give more away in charity each year many times over than the rest of the world combined. Just because the capitalist system creates great wealth, does not mean charity is eradicated, quite the opposite. Wealthy Americans do not spend any significant percentage of their wealth on personal consumption; they invest in the economy (eg- through venture capital) - which helps to raise productivity, increase innovation, and create jobs; they create charities to help those that are homeless or very poor, and so on. Gordon Moore (a founder of Intel) wasn't going to spend $15 billion dollars on personal consumption, so he gave half of it away (and will likely end up giving the other half away). Bill Gates has limited use for his vast fortune... even his $100 million or so dollar house is not a significant portion of his wealth (one fifth of one percent), particularly compared to what he has spent on fighting all manners of disease via charity (and only thus far); so he has directed it towards creating new value.

---

"Taxation is a fundamental part of how the government works. It would be great if they were smarter about how tax dollars are spent, but even then, you'd still need taxes in order to maintain society. Period."


Saying taxes are a requirement of society, is the same as saying that the initiation of force is required. A truly massive amount of money is spent on services like insurance, which is something that isn't needed everyday (in fact, it is rarely needed, essentially in emergency situations). There is no reason why individuals would not be willing to pay for government services, such as fire protection, police protection, military protection.

If the 40% that is taken by taxes were erased, consumers would on average have $12,000 + more to spend each year (which would actually lead to an increase in that average salary of $30,000 because some of it would be put toward consumption/production, which would expand the economy a great deal, which would lead to higher wages). If $1,000 of that $12,000 were put toward military protection, that would come to around $300 billion, which is near what is spent now on the military in the U.S. (around 3% of GDP).

It wouldn't have to be done solely in the form of a contribution/donation; fees for the use of the court system, to protect contracts for instance, could be put toward such. There are many other methods that can be done in the form of *uncoerced* services.


Regarding the eradication of taxes, and the correlation to increase in wages. There was a joint study by Republican and Democratic politicians released not too long ago (in April), that showed on average for every dollar in taxes that is cut, the government gets around $1.25 back in increased taxes from economic growth that is stimulated (this is based on historical examples). This demonstrates by example, how the money that isn't taken in the form of taxation, ends up expanding the economy and increasing the level of real wages (in order for the government to get that $0.25 more, there must be increased productivity, investment, production etc.).

Hong Kong is another good example; from something like 1965 to 1985, where taxes were extremely low, the Hong Kong government saw the greatest percentage increase in tax revenue out of any nation. I think Hong Kong's income tax currently sits around 17% / 19% or such.

Ireland is another good current example; they've benefited tremendously from cutting taxes. Many European nations are annoyed with Ireland for cutting taxes; it has led to other European nations having to compete with Ireland's tax rates to attract investment and jobs.
This comment was edited on Sep 11, 01:54.
174 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 3.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older