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 5.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older
94.
 
Re: Morans : \
Sep 8, 2001, 15:45
94.
Re: Morans : \ Sep 8, 2001, 15:45
Sep 8, 2001, 15:45
 
I seriously can't believe any of you think this is an even remotely good thing. Soon the software/OS industry will be just like the sound card industry; stagnent (sp). There will cease to be innovation, invention, or any creativity what so ever. Progress will cease and we will be forced to do the bidding, so to speak, of these corporate giants. Buying what the tell us to, using what they tell us to, and therefore becoming what they tell us to.

There will never cease to be innovation or creativity. If the current leader of an industry sits on its laurels, its competition will surpass it. You also overestimate the power of the company and underestimate the power of the consumer. The reason these companies exist is because they made their customers better off.

Now you may ask, "That's not so different from what it's like today, a few companies take over the government/country.. what's the big deal?

Well, I'm going to tell you:
When a government passes a law it's done by people we've elected. This is as close as we can come to voting on each and every law ourselves (which would be far to time consuming to actually be done.) But, when a company makes a decision it does not (except when considering how to best rip us off) factor in us, the people that decision will affect. The only promise the CEO of that company has made is that he'll get deeper into the "black" than the last guy did, how the hell does that help us?

Sure, once in a while we get a dumb ass of a president (current company included, of course) but he or she is only around for 4 years: CEO's stick around for 20+ and never have to worry about re-election until they stop making money (which is usually when he or she starts to benefit us more, and the company less.)

Incorrect. Companies do not make money off of making people mad at them. You are confusing government with a corporation. There is a major difference:

Government has no income. To give you something, it must take something away.

Companies have to worry about little things like cashflow, thus they must work to supply products or services that are in demand with consumers.

You may not like a particular company, but if they remain in business, obviously others do.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin
93.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 8, 2001, 15:32
anon@209.112
93.
Re: Capitalism Sep 8, 2001, 15:32
Sep 8, 2001, 15:32
anon@209.112
 
For the love of god, this a website about videogame news and shall be treated as a website about videogame news!
92.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 8, 2001, 03:29
92.
Re: Capitalism Sep 8, 2001, 03:29
Sep 8, 2001, 03:29
 
"Fair enough. I don't think I need to resort on attacks based on nationality, you are quite right. It was not my intention. But given your particular virulent strain of libertarian capitalist political philosphy, I'd think it's highly unlikely you are anything but American. Am I right?"


I'm not a libertarian. I am a capitalist, and I am an American.

---

"Can you give me an example?"


An example of what? The lack of individual rights in Africa?

91.
 
Re: Individualism
Sep 8, 2001, 03:25
91.
Re: Individualism Sep 8, 2001, 03:25
Sep 8, 2001, 03:25
 
"That's the purpose behind government and organization at all levels, down to the family... It is part of who we are."


The rational purpose of government, organization, or family is not the initiation of force, or the nullification of individual rights.

---

"Are you an anarchist?"


No, but that a government exists does not mean that government must exploit by force.

---

"You tend to oversimplify things by taking them to an extreme. Laws are maintained through force, technically, but that doesn't make setting a minimum standard evil."


Simplification and "extreme" do not necessarily require one another. A middle of the roader would consider either communism or capitalism extreme, but that does not mean there is anything simple about the concepts involved in communism and capitalism. If you mean, however, that I over-simplify by stating that capitalism is good, and communism is evil, that is incorrect, I have stated much more than just broad generalizations or simplifications, I have backed up my arguments with pages worth of proof, none of the principles I have stated have been refuted (and not for lack of trying).

---

"It's also the idea behind democracy. Go figure."


Democracy has nothing to do with attempting to avoid reality, which is what social subjectivism attempts to do by the will of "the people."

---

"A is A but what is A?

It depends on how you abstract it. Every human is a human. Every human is a collection of atoms. Every atom is an atom."


A is itself. You state that A is A, but then ask what A is; it *is* A. This is a concept, it means, a thing is itself (whatever the 'thing,' it is itself).

---

"So, it is evil to feed the mouths of others if it is at your expense, but it is good to let them starve, if it is not at your expense?

That's pretty stupid."


Not at all, you're assuming my philosophy has to be the opposite. It is perfectly fine to be charitable toward others, if you value their survival (if you are giving food for example, etc.) over whatever value you are providing (money for instance). There is nothing stupid about it, except your assumption.

Another for instance; if you value your wife, who is dying from cancer, and you can cure her by spending all of your fortune on medical treatment, there is nothing evil, immoral, or selfless about spending all of your money to save her (because in your value hierarchy, your wife is more valuable to you than the money spent saving her).

---

"But sacrifice requires great effort and compassion. Not sacrificing something might require less effort and compassion. If compassion is important to your moral code, then sacrifice is rational. "


Sacrifice does not require compassion; to sacrific someone else to your own whim does not require any compassion. Effort is not a gauge of morality; a robber may have to exert great effort to rob someone, whereas an individual working a very simple job may not have to exert much effort to earn a moral living.

Compassion does not require sacrifice. I can very easily be compassionate to someone without accepting a lesser value in exchange for a greater value.

Sacrifice means to take a lesser value over a greater value (death in exchange for life being the ultimate example of sacrifice); there is nothing rational about it, and in the history of sacrifical philosophy, there has never been a rational argument for sacrifice (because there can be no such thing).

---

"I don't need to clarify who "we" and "our" refer to.

At a certain level, we are irrational in our thinking. It's an abstract concept."


You certainly do need to clarify, if you wish me to understand why you were using such terms when discussing your own position.

And prove it, your statement has not done such. At what level does this occur, explain the level; what concepts are involved in this "level"?

---

"If you're stranded on an island with a weaker companion, but there is no alternate food source, would you kill your companion? Seems pretty rational does it? Very selfish (which, by your definition, is good.) Would it be irrational not to do so? By your thinking, yes. But in my thinking, it would be good, not evil."


No, there is nothing rational or selfish about it (killing that other individual). Your setup is typical of a statist: the basis is that one individual must always sacrifice another.

No, it would be irrational to kill that individual. It would not be rational because one cannot gain a value by destroying what makes the concept 'value' possible: life. An individual does not have a right to sacrifice that other individual to their self, because that other person's life is not mine or yours to take, regardless of how weak they are. My need for food is not a claim on his/her life, such that it would be my right to take it. Need is not a claim on anything.

---

"Things become more rational as you go deeper down, but with abstraction, things can seem irrational, but yet serve a function."


"Seem" and 'be' are not the same thing.

---

"Europe was largely the same even prior to the middle ages. During antiquity, what do you think was happening outside of what we normally call the "civilized world" in the deep dark forests of Europe? Even prior to Christianity, common folks in much of pagan Europe lived in a world of despair."


No, Europe was not largely the same. Europe was still influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle prior to the dark ages; during said ages, it was not.

Define "common folks," again you keep at it with collectivist concepts. There is no such thing as a common person, or an 'average' person.

---

"I'm sure the common man still had some fun in his life time, and could feel good. Faith may have been a significant part of the life of the common man in those times, and some people are capable of being extremely happy in the darkest of situations through faith alone. Wether their faith is true or not is unknown (is it rational? Is it not? There isn't enough evidence to say), but the fact of the matter is, people can be satisfied with it. And if it IS false, this means people are being sort of irrational, aren't they? Yet they can achieve happiness. But this might not be in accordance with reality. That doesn't make it evil.

Reality is not an absolute judge between good and evil because all of this is based on our perception."


Again, with the common man.

Faith is the negation of reason; faith paralyzes the mind's ability to think, because faith means to ignore the judgment of your own mind. Faith did nothing to end the dark ages; reason did end it however. People can certainly pretend they are satisfied by faith. No, irrationality cannot lead to happiness; happiness is the achievement of rational values, irrationality is itself not a value - irrationality requires contradictions, and contradictions cannot exist, thus they cannot be values. There is no such thing as "not in accordance with reality," there is no other option.

You're really beginning to show just how irrational you are.


Reality is the absolute judge between good and evil; your statement declares that perception is the determining factor: reality however exists independent of the mind and thus of perception. So whether one claims to perceive it to be so, that does not change whether it is or not.

---

"I haven't studied the works of St. Thomas Aquinas in detail, but he was probably not opposed to the concept of Original Sin, and that makes him evil doesn't it? So here we just might have an example of someone who is both good and evil... which is stronger?"


You say "probably not" and then proceed to base your statement on that you had said "was not." (because you then stated "that makes him evil doesn't it?")

Your statement is useless unless you can clarify your error.

90.
 
Re: socialism
Sep 8, 2001, 01:51
90.
Re: socialism Sep 8, 2001, 01:51
Sep 8, 2001, 01:51
 
You don't know what you're talking about, and by twisting history you insult those who died to fight the real fascists.
Your ignorance sickens me.

Hear hear. Not to worry though, this guys looks like a troll to me - don't even take him seriously. Anyone who isn't able to elaborate his political beliefs into more than one sentence shouldn't bother.


Avatar 4021
89.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 8, 2001, 01:48
89.
Re: Capitalism Sep 8, 2001, 01:48
Sep 8, 2001, 01:48
 
I've never claimed to be an American, you're assuming; why don't you just ask (then you can be more certain in your attacks on me based on my nationality)?

Fair enough. I don't think I need to resort on attacks based on nationality, you are quite right. It was not my intention. But given your particular virulent strain of libertarian capitalist political philosphy, I'd think it's highly unlikely you are anything but American. Am I right?

Colonialism ended in Africa for the most part decades ago, individual rights have gone unprotected in the vast majority of African nations since then, and no coincidence, conditions have not improved in such nations.

Can you give me an example? And please, don't mention Mugabe and the white farmers in Zimbabwe...

Avatar 4021
88.
 
Re: socialism
Sep 8, 2001, 01:34
anon@158.252
88.
Re: socialism Sep 8, 2001, 01:34
Sep 8, 2001, 01:34
anon@158.252
 
To whoever wrote:

"I wish the Europeans would wake up out of their brain-washed socialist stupor.
For every liberal, there is a fascist waiting to break out"

This is total bullshit, and an insult to history itself.
It is conservatives - the political right, who have long supported fascism - not the left!

Ronald Reagan, that great leader of American conservatism, called those Americans who fought against the fascists in Spain "premature anti-fascists" - in other words, there is a right time and wrong time to be "anti-fascist."
He said this before he went to Bitburg, in Germany, and laid a wreath at the graves of the Waffen SS, calling them "victims" of the war just like those they murdered.
This is historical fact, not opinion.
Go to any European country where skinhead fascists now thrive--ask them how they feel about leftists. You'll get a boot in your head if you do. They clearly belong to the right--not the left! They hate liberals more than you do.
After World War II, many top Nazis came to America and received shelter. Others went to South American countries where fascism was looked on approvingly. The right wing military dictatorships that ran those countries--as close to real fascists since the fall of Franco's Spain as you will find - in places like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Columbia - received financial and military support from the United States for decades, while their death squads murdered all who dared oppose them.

You don't know what you're talking about, and by twisting history you insult those who died to fight the real fascists.
Your ignorance sickens me.
87.
 
Morans : \
Sep 8, 2001, 01:23
87.
Morans : \ Sep 8, 2001, 01:23
Sep 8, 2001, 01:23
 
I seriously can't believe any of you think this is an even remotely good thing. Soon the software/OS industry will be just like the sound card industry; stagnent (sp). There will cease to be innovation, invention, or any creativity what so ever. Progress will cease and we will be forced to do the bidding, so to speak, of these corporate giants. Buying what the tell us to, using what they tell us to, and therefore becoming what they tell us to.

Soon it will be Microsoft and AOL/Time Warner telling us what to buy, what to do, what to think and where to go (I am, of course, going to the extreme, but this is what, IMHO, it really boils down to.)

Now you may ask, "That's not so different from what it's like today, a few companies take over the government/country.. what's the big deal?"

Well, I'm going to tell you:
When a government passes a law it's done by people we've elected. This is as close as we can come to voting on each and every law ourselves (which would be far to time consuming to actually be done.) But, when a company makes a decision it does not (except when considering how to best rip us off) factor in us, the people that decision will affect. The only promise the CEO of that company has made is that he'll get deeper into the "black" than the last guy did, how the hell does that help us?

Sure, once in a while we get a dumb ass of a president (current company included, of course) but he or she is only around for 4 years: CEO's stick around for 20+ and never have to worry about re-election until they stop making money (which is usually when he or she starts to benefit us more, and the company less.)

Oh well... things could be worse.. maybe..
This comment was edited on Sep 8, 01:29.
I eat pasta!
86.
 
Re: Individualism
Sep 8, 2001, 01:00
anon@134.197
86.
Re: Individualism Sep 8, 2001, 01:00
Sep 8, 2001, 01:00
anon@134.197
 
"Yes it was understood from your first post, that you think it is ok to force people to act according to how you would like them to. By determining that 'someone' should set such standards, you are stating that some group or gang should have power over the lives of individuals by way of force."

That's the purpose behind government and organization at all levels, down to the family... It is part of who we are.

Are you an anarchist?

You tend to oversimplify things by taking them to an extreme. Laws are maintained through force, technically, but that doesn't make setting a minimum standard evil.

"Again back to the social subjectivism: "if it is willed to be by 'the people,' it will be.""

It's also the idea behind democracy. Go figure.

"No it doesn't depend on how you "look at life." A is A, existence exists; it doesn't depend on how you look at it - that does not change reality, it is called the law of identity, it is the base principle of logic, learn it some time."

A is A but what is A?

It depends on how you abstract it. Every human is a human. Every human is a collection of atoms. Every atom is an atom.

"Devotion to the good of others is not a rational foundation for one's philosophy: there is always another mouth to feed other than your own, another desire to satisfy, someone else's "good" to be devoted to, another sacrifice to make."

So, it is evil to feed the mouths of others if it is at your expense, but it is good to let them starve, if it is not at your expense?

That's pretty stupid.

"Sacrifice means taking a lesser value over a greater value; there is nothing moral about that, and a rational mind would not accept such a deal - so force must be used."

But sacrifice requires great effort and compassion. Not sacrificing something might require less effort and compassion. If compassion is important to your moral code, then sacrifice is rational.

"No, irrationality is not "vital to our identity." Identity is non-contradictory, a thing is itself (A is A). You have failed throughout your post to back up what you've proclaimed, but have simply stated 'it is' without stating why; you cannot back up what you say, because your argument is contradictory, i.e. wrong. Also, you seem to have a serious issue with using "we" or "our" when stating your own position, who are you referring to exactly?"

I don't need to clarify who "we" and "our" refer to.

At a certain level, we are irrational in our thinking. It's an abstract concept.

If you're stranded on an island with a weaker companion, but there is no alternate food source, would you kill your companion? Seems pretty rational does it? Very selfish (which, by your definition, is good.) Would it be irrational not to do so? By your thinking, yes. But in my thinking, it would be good, not evil.

Things become more rational as you go deeper down, but with abstraction, things can seem irrational, but yet serve a function.

"Not peachy-keen? It was worse in Europe than it has ever been there in recorded history. The middle ages did not set the stage for (other than that they came before) the Renaissance, Saint Thomas Aquinas (thanks to Aristotle) and other philosophers did."

Europe was largely the same even prior to the middle ages. During antiquity, what do you think was happening outside of what we normally call the "civilized world" in the deep dark forests of Europe? Even prior to Christianity, common folks in much of pagan Europe lived in a world of despair.

The middle ages spawned nations, and brought different people into communication with each other.

I'm sure the common man still had some fun in his life time, and could feel good. Faith may have been a significant part of the life of the common man in those times, and some people are capable of being extremely happy in the darkest of situations through faith alone. Wether their faith is true or not is unknown (is it rational? Is it not? There isn't enough evidence to say), but the fact of the matter is, people can be satisfied with it. And if it IS false, this means people are being sort of irrational, aren't they? Yet they can achieve happiness. But this might not be in accordance with reality. That doesn't make it evil.

Reality is not an absolute judge between good and evil because all of this is based on our perception.

I haven't studied the works of St. Thomas Aquinas in detail, but he was probably not opposed to the concept of Original Sin, and that makes him evil doesn't it? So here we just might have an example of someone who is both good and evil... which is stronger?

"Statism is not an entirely new development; dictators, and socialist gangs are the modern variation of kings and feudal lords - they all rely on force (and forced sacrifice)."

Yes, but you think statism is natural, and rational. It's reality. People were never truly independent of leaders. Look at family structures. We're social animals and we've always had some sort of concept of heirarchy. Is that evil?

You can take philosophy to hair-splitting extremes, but we're never going to be able to fully comprehend what is real and rational... We're finite.
85.
 
Re: $LAVE$
Sep 8, 2001, 00:53
85.
Re: $LAVE$ Sep 8, 2001, 00:53
Sep 8, 2001, 00:53
 
"And interestingly enough it was exactly this kind of thing that brought about the rise of communist ideology in the early 20th century. Seeing the way workers were mercilessly exploited by their masters during the heyday of the industrial age was what led Marx to conclude that the only solution was the dictatorship of the proletariate. Might seem a bit of an anachronism nowadays, but it helps if you see it in its historical context."


Exploited? Masters? Then why didn't the workers start their own businesses and hire their own employees if they didn't like the jobs? Someone created the company that the "exploited" individuals worked for. If they didn't like the pay, they were free to start their own business and earn more money; an individual has no right to demand a certain standard of living from another individual, such standard of living must be *earned*.

The labor from that time period of initial industrialization was harsh because it was an early and primitive stage of industrialization; however it (the work) was no more difficult than the agrarian work that existed previously. It was industrialization that dramatically lowered the rate of mortality, such results were present even during the early years of industrialization.

The so called exploitation that occurred, was apparently preferred to what was occurring in Europe: immigrants fled Europe like it was a sinking ship, and it turns out that at the time it was.

If force was used to exploit workers, it was the job of the government to stop such; it has nothing to do with capitalism (it would be like blaming robbery or some other force-based crime on capitalism - capitalism does not absolutely prevent force, it does help to guard against it by declaring the government's job to be the protection of individual rights, the banishment of the initiation of force).
This comment was edited on Sep 8, 00:59.
84.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 8, 2001, 00:29
anon@208.190
84.
Re: Capitalism Sep 8, 2001, 00:29
Sep 8, 2001, 00:29
anon@208.190
 
liberals don't understand the right of the individual
83.
 
socialism
Sep 8, 2001, 00:28
anon@208.190
83.
socialism Sep 8, 2001, 00:28
Sep 8, 2001, 00:28
anon@208.190
 
I wish the Europeans would wake up out of their brain-washed socialist stupor.

For every liberal, there is a fascist waiting to break out.
82.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 8, 2001, 00:28
82.
Re: Capitalism Sep 8, 2001, 00:28
Sep 8, 2001, 00:28
 
"OK, you're treading on thin ice here mate... and once again displaying your US-centred ignorance. The real reason Africa is the mess it is today is because it was exploited for over a century by European colonialist powers, who left a legacy of poverty, dependence and in-fighting. I'm not saying that is the root of all the problems we are seeing, but it sure accounts for much of the status quo. Did you know, before the Europeans arrived in Africa there were already advanced civilizations there, such as the Benin, Zulu, and of course Ethiopia."


I've never claimed to be an American, you're assuming; why don't you just ask (then you can be more certain in your attacks on me based on my nationality)?

I didn't say how most African nations ended up in a mess (i.e. what lead to their current situations), or deny that European powers wreaked havoc on the continent, which it has not recovered from (thus my statements on Africa were not ignorant, as I did not state what you apparently think I did). I said most are in a mess because they do not protect individual rights, which is true; individual rights are a prerequisite to freedom, and the most important individual rights are property rights, which is something that most African nations lack. The protection of individual rights (and therefore the establishment of freedom) are the necessary means for African nations to fix their bleak situations. Colonialism ended in Africa for the most part decades ago, individual rights have gone unprotected in the vast majority of African nations since then, and no coincidence, conditions have not improved in such nations.


My exact statement was:

"because few (if any?) countries in Africa have ever had protected individual rights, specifically property rights"

This is true. Without individual rights, Africa will remain in shambles.

81.
 
Re: $LAVE$
Sep 8, 2001, 00:02
81.
Re: $LAVE$ Sep 8, 2001, 00:02
Sep 8, 2001, 00:02
 
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.

And interestingly enough it was exactly this kind of thing that brought about the rise of communist ideology in the early 20th century. Seeing the way workers were mercilessly exploited by their masters during the heyday of the industrial age was what led Marx to conclude that the only solution was the dictatorship of the proletariate. Might seem a bit of an anachronism nowadays, but it helps if you see it in its historical context.


Avatar 4021
80.
 
Re: Individualism
Sep 7, 2001, 23:57
80.
Re: Individualism Sep 7, 2001, 23:57
Sep 7, 2001, 23:57
 
"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..."


I didn't say there was no society, I said society wasn't an organism unto itself: it is made up of individuals; if you violate the rights of individuals, you violate the rights of everyone. Social rights, or 'group' rights, or collective rights, mean that one group of people have the right to violate the rights of other individuals; this is why the distinction of society not being something beyond a number of individuals is important - because statism always falls back to for "the public good" or the good of "the people" etc. which doesn't mean every individual, it means the good of some people to the detriment of other people.

---

"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."


Certainly, a number of individuals can be held to be a 'society' of individuals; but there is no such thing as "society" as statists use the term, to mean a collective mind (i.e. as though there is no individual).

---

"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."


No I'm not just a "cog in the wheel," there is no wheel (only a collectivist could think in such terms to begin with). Your attempt to destroy my argument by ad hominem will not work. Your statement would have been funny because evil, which is what your statement is, is impotent unto itself, but when put into action among a great number of people, it becomes a threat to freedom.

---

"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."


Yes it was understood from your first post, that you think it is ok to force people to act according to how you would like them to. By determining that 'someone' should set such standards, you are stating that some group or gang should have power over the lives of individuals by way of force.

---

"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."


The average American earns around $30,000 to $32,000 + per year; with somewhere around six or seven million millionaires in the US, with a total asset base in the U.S. of 45 trillion dollars (basically more than the rest of the world combined). The average person in Denmark by comparison, earns around $25,000; so no, the average person in Denmark is not wealthier on average than a person in the U.S.

There is only one way to "guarantee nobody goes homeless," and that is by force. But again, it is understood you think it is ok to initiate the use of force; and you also apparently think it is one individual's *duty* to support another individual (whether they want to or not).

---

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


Again back to the social subjectivism: "if it is willed to be by 'the people,' it will 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."


No it doesn't depend on how you "look at life." A is A, existence exists; it doesn't depend on how you look at it - that does not change reality, it is called the law of identity, it is the base principle of logic, learn it some time.

If you want to "apply survival of the fittest to every individual" that does not mean that is in accordance with reality; whether you 'want' it to be or not.

Who does "we" refer to exactly? And who does "our survival" refer to?

---

"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."


I knew how you meant it, and that is exactly how the Nazis 'meant' it. Devotion to the good of others is not a rational foundation for one's philosophy: there is always another mouth to feed other than your own, another desire to satisfy, someone else's "good" to be devoted to, another sacrifice to make.

---

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


Brutality goes along with statism and self-sacrifice (which is a fundamental of altruism, the philosophic system of selflessness): how do you suppose a socialistic government gets people to sacrifice? Practicing selflessness means that the well-being of others come before your own (thus statist governments, such as the Nazis, proclaim that it is your duty to serve the good of the 'whole' or the good of your neighbor or the good of the 'collective' or the party etc., and to not care about your self). Nazism, communism, socialism, fascism, put selflessness into practice as a political system.

Sacrifice means taking a lesser value over a greater value; there is nothing moral about that, and a rational mind would not accept such a deal - so force must be used.

---

"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."


If they were selfless, you are saying they had no self-interest in the work they did (otherwise it would be selfish work); so for instance if it was charitable work, they didn't care about it one way or another (if they did in fact care, it means the work would not be selfless). Will you please define what was remarkable about their lives?

---

"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."


Of course it is "tainted" with philosophy: everyone has a philosophy, some choose their philosophy knowingly, others accept such subconsciously (via the media, or by way of parents, etc.). Philosophy applies to every aspect of life.

To be rational means to act in recognition of and accordance to reality as it is; try disobeying reality sometime, reality does not bend to you. Individuals should act to be fully rational: rationality makes possible every rational value one could want to achieve, such as happiness - irrationality stands in the way of every rational value. The base of irrationality is contradiction, and a contradiction cannot exist in reality, in a thought process or in text (etc.) it is proof of error.

No, irrationality is not "vital to our identity." Identity is non-contradictory, a thing is itself (A is A). You have failed throughout your post to back up what you've proclaimed, but have simply stated 'it is' without stating why; you cannot back up what you say, because your argument is contradictory, i.e. wrong. Also, you seem to have a serious issue with using "we" or "our" when stating your own position, who are you referring to exactly?

---

"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."


Humbleness (along with altruism and therefore selflessness and sacrifice) is a principle of Christianity and most every other religion; Christianity was the dominant philosophy of the dark ages. So yes, humbleness has been a dominant code of behavior.

---

"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."


They were a 'dark' period in history. A thousand years went by with extremely little to show for them. The dark ages were a period dominated by the philosophy of Saint Augustine, the evil man who concretized Original Sin philosophically.

---

"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."


Not peachy-keen? It was worse in Europe than it has ever been there in recorded history. The middle ages did not set the stage for (other than that they came before) the Renaissance, Saint Thomas Aquinas (thanks to Aristotle) and other philosophers did.

The dark ages were dark on principle.

---

"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."


Which "crucial" parts would those be exactly? And beyond that, crucial does not mean good.

---

"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."


Statism is not an entirely new development; dictators, and socialist gangs are the modern variation of kings and feudal lords - they all rely on force (and forced sacrifice).

---

"They abused their positions of power... Kings did not often get off their high horses to lend peasants a helping hand."


Not only did kings not "get off their high horses to lend peasants a helping hand" but more importantly they made it next to impossible for peasants to help their own self.

79.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 7, 2001, 23:56
79.
Re: Capitalism Sep 7, 2001, 23:56
Sep 7, 2001, 23:56
 
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.

OK, you're treading on thin ice here mate... and once again displaying your US-centred ignorance. The real reason Africa is the mess it is today is because it was exploited for over a century by European colonialist powers, who left a legacy of poverty, dependence and in-fighting. I'm not saying that is the root of all the problems we are seeing, but it sure accounts for much of the status quo.
Did you know, before the Europeans arrived in Africa there were already advanced civilizations there, such as the Benin, Zulu, and of course Ethiopia.


Avatar 4021
78.
 
Re: Individualism
Sep 7, 2001, 23:24
78.
Re: Individualism Sep 7, 2001, 23:24
Sep 7, 2001, 23:24
 
[qNo "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...
Correct. But, the problem comes when inevitably the government takes more power than the people. In power, i mean through coercion. Take 'public' schools. They can teach only what the government allows. Some call that social engineering.

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?

If it wasnt so common, it would be hilarious because of how stupid it is.

Apparently you don't think like an individual, Mr. Invidual. You really are just a cog in the wheel.

How is that not thinking like an individual? Every thought is thought by an individual. And as long as im paying taxes to support little Timmie's schooling in Nebraska or paying Ms. Jones welfare check, then i will unfortunately and unethically be forced to be a 'cog'.

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.

You can have a minimum standard of living. But only if you work for it. Handouts should NEVER be given out. Dont pay the drug addicts in the slums so they can buy drugs; give them a job that they can take and better themselves. However, i am not proposing that government should organize this, it does a poor job to tailoring to individual needs.

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.

I am incredibly thankful that it is not feasible.....yet. Unfortunately, im sure some politician will start a campaign to 'protect the children' or 'clean up the streets'. They will give projects concerning this to the schools, ala cigarette ads. Of course, taxes will have to be hiked and new regulations will have to be written up, but its for the good of society, right?

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

Lets hope no one is that stupid.

These sorts of things certainly did not happen because people cared for the well being of others, did they?

Actually, those are pretty common practices today all over the earth wherever a corrupt government stands. Remember this:

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. --Lord Acton




"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin
77.
 
No subject
Sep 7, 2001, 23:19
anon@158.252
77.
No subject Sep 7, 2001, 23:19
Sep 7, 2001, 23:19
anon@158.252
 
75 was directed at 73, by the way.
And I forgot to add--there were plenty of things wrong with the old Soviet system before it split apart, but the Soviet citizens WEREN'T starving. Even if you had no career prospects and drank vodka on a street corner every day, the government still provided you with something to eat.
You are right, "falling further into starvation," if that is what I wrote earlier, was a bad way to put it.
76.
 
No subject
Sep 7, 2001, 23:18
anon@158.252
76.
No subject Sep 7, 2001, 23:18
Sep 7, 2001, 23:18
anon@158.252
 
75 was directed at 73, by the way.
And I forgot to add--there were plenty of things wrong with the old Soviet system before it split apart, but the Soviet citizens WEREN'T starving. Even if you had no career prospects and drank vodka on a street corner every day, the government still provided you with something to eat.
You are fight, "falling further into starvation," if that is what I wrote earlier, was a bad way to put it.
75.
 
No subject
Sep 7, 2001, 23:06
anon@158.252
75.
No subject Sep 7, 2001, 23:06
Sep 7, 2001, 23:06
anon@158.252
 
So when 20-something Russian yuppies cruise around in their new BMWs past 80-something babushkas starving in the streets, those yuppies are actually ... former high-level communist party members, just continuing their crooked old ways? Is that your argument?
And as for all these Chinese making money off foreign "bribes," who is it that is bribing them? It couldn't be those freedom loving American corporations, could it?
You talk about bribes like we don't have them here ... Ever here of "campaign contributions?" What do you think THOSE are?
How nice, that topic brings us right back to Microsoft, and the "contributions" it has made to both parties, particularly the one in power, now making its legal problems go away ...
174 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 5.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older