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 : : :
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.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
6.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@65.89
10.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
14.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@216.148
103.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
anon@64.164
2.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@63.207
3.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@217.81
4.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
5.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@12.26
9.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
7.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@128.194
87.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
94.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
8.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
11.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@128.194
28.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
12.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
17.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
18.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@216.148
30.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@134.197
31.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
36.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
42.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@134.197
46.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
48.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
13.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@4.3
15.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@65.89
16.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
25.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
19.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
20.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
21.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
23.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
24.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
22.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@207.13
26.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
27.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
29.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@209.3
32.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
33.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@134.197
35.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
37.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@209.42
41.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
49.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
52.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
34.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@4.3
38.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@158.252
39.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@64.167
40.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
43.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
44.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@64.231
45.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
47.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
50.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@62.49
51.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@62.49
53.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
54.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@207.2
56.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
58.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
60.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
55.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
70.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@134.197
78.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
80.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
86.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
anon@134.197
 91.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
    Re: Individualism
96.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
97.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
      Re: Individualism
98.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
       Re: Individualism
anon@158.252
99.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
        Re: Individualism
101.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
         Re: Individualism
anon@158.252
100.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
       Re: Individualism
57.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@207.140
59.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@4.35
61.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
62.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@207.140
64.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
65.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
63.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@207.140
66.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
67.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
68.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@65.169
72.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
79.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
82.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
84.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
     Re: Capitalism
anon@208.190
89.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
     Re: Capitalism
92.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
      Re: Capitalism
93.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
       Re: Capitalism
anon@209.112
95.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
       Re: Capitalism
69.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@207.140
71.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
73.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
74.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@134.197
81.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
83.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
    socialism
anon@208.190
88.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
     Re: socialism
anon@158.252
90.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
      Re: socialism
85.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
    Re: $LAVE$
75.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
76.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
77.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
102.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
anon@63.202
104.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
105.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
anon@213.3
108.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
106.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
anon@158.252
107.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
114.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
anon@134.197
109.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
110.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
111.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
112.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
113.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
115.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
116.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
119.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
anon@194.102
120.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
anon@154.11
118.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
anon@62.202
121.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
122.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
123.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
126.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
128.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
129.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
anon@158.252
130.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
132.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
       Re: Capitalism, etc.
anon@158.252
133.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
       Re: Capitalism, etc.
anon@158.252
137.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
146.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
124.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
anon@63.73
125.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
127.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
131.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
138.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
117.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
anon@147.51
134.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@158.252
135.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@24.240
139.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
141.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@24.240
140.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@158.252
143.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@24.240
144.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@158.252
145.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@63.183
149.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
150.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
151.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
      Re: same ol' story
anon@65.204
152.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
       Re: same ol' story
153.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
        Re: same ol' story
155.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
         Re: same ol' story
158.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
         Re: same ol' story
anon@158.252
162.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
          Re: same ol' story
163.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
           Re: same ol' story
anon@158.252
164.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
            Re: same ol' story
167.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
             Re: same ol' story
anon@158.252
168.
Sep 15, 2001Sep 15 2001
              Re: same ol' story
165.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
           Re: same ol' story
anon@63.150
166.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
            Re: same ol' story
169.
Sep 16, 2001Sep 16 2001
             Re: same ol' story
170.
Sep 16, 2001Sep 16 2001
              Re: same ol' story
171.
Sep 16, 2001Sep 16 2001
              Re: same ol' story
anon@24.240
172.
Sep 17, 2001Sep 17 2001
               Re: same ol' story
173.
Sep 17, 2001Sep 17 2001
                Re: same ol' story
174.
Sep 17, 2001Sep 17 2001
                 Re: same ol' story
anon@63.150
154.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
        Re: same ol' story
anon@63.150
156.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
         Re: same ol' story
157.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
          Re: same ol' story
anon@24.240
159.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
       Re: same ol' story
anon@158.252
160.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
        Re: same ol' story
anon@24.240
161.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
         Re: same ol' story
anon@158.252
136.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
142.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
147.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
148.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@63.150