I suspect that it was because the arrival of rail-roads upended the old logistics systems and the state post office was caught flat footed. State run systems are often slow to react to changes.
Because for that to happen, A LOT of pain would first have to happen, and people don't like pain. It's much like the argument of letting the market totally crash and quickly rebound in 2008, versus supporting it but having it linger for years. Like with the market, I guess people prefer slow and dull pain of slow steady growth to sharp and extreme pain of wild swings (even if the end result of the sharp swing gets you way higher than the slow and dull). I guess in some way it also has a lot to do with the majority's risk aversion, something so genetically ingrained that it can't really be "fixed"
It's amazing to see the contrast of responses between rational minds and conspiracy theorists. Would I be disclosing my lack of sanity by admitting I don't know which one you are reffering to as "conspiracy theorist?" Or would I be pointing out a lack of yours because neither of these two are particularly conspiratorial?  Fyi, my post was pretty focused on just answering the very last question. Maybe I should've made that more clear. |
|
|
|
Can't you two get married already? This is worse than those sitcom romances.
No, because it's unrequited love... |
|
|
|
Libertarianism is escapism. Escape from thieves. Libertarianism is escape from thieves, enslavers and murderers. But the rapists are alright. Signed, Ayn Rand Because an entire philosophy is defined by a single person't actions, right? All of Christianity is fucked up because: Raping boys is alright
Signed,
Random Catholic preast
Am I rite?  |
|
|
|
|
Because for that to happen, A LOT of pain would first have to happen, and people don't like pain. It's much like the argument of letting the market totally crash and quickly rebound in 2008, versus supporting it but having it linger for years. Like with the market, I guess people prefer slow and dull pain of slow steady growth to sharp and extreme pain of wild swings (even if the end result of the sharp swing gets you way higher than the slow and dull). I guess in some way it also has a lot to do with the majority's risk aversion, something so genetically ingrained that it can't really be "fixed"
|
|
|
|
Empirically, that isn't true. The rich have been getting a bigger percentage for the last 40 years. The poor have seen a real fall in their incomes and in many cases depend on having husband and wife both work in order to pay the bills.
Incomes have decreased, sure, but compare now to 50 years ago when it comes to things like access to information, movies and music, air conditioning and other house amenities, types of medical treatments, and other varieties of life support and entertainment. Just ten years ago the type of computer and internet speeds I have now would have cost thousands, photographs and music was very expensive and not easily accessible, food was more expensive and limited (Wal Art and H-Mart nearby are nice), and keeping in touch with friends and family was way more difficult and expensive. 60 years ago I likely would have worked at a dirty factory instead of a cushy office. And places like India, Dubai, and Hong Kong, can't even be compared to what they were just 20 years ago. |
|
|
|
That is a sad story. However, it doesn't change the fact that most things like waste, health care and crime fighting started off as private and were made government run as the private sector didn't do a good enough job. More like an even/equal enough job for the majority. What they say about rising tide raising all boats in economics is true, richer companies making well off people does make things way better for the poorest people too, if only because the new "rich" technology makes the whole world better as a whole. There is plenty of evidence of this, even in things like outsourcing, globalization, and sweatshops. But majority of middle and low income classes out vote the minority whom they are envious of. As a results, our technological and quality of life progress is improving, and more evenly, but at a way slower pace than if that growth had been totally unrestricted. If we had a more libertarian free market society these past two hundred years, you would likely be WAY poorer than the "rich," but would have very likely been living a way more technologically advanced and comfortable lifestyle. That's my opinion. |
|
|
|
What's wrong with a monopoly if people voluntarily accept it and are happy with its service as opposed to a government monopoly that is forced upon its people?
I don't know where to even start, Atlas. This is the dumbest thing I've seen come out of your mouth. You presume some supreme crap here, that has absolutely no basis in reality. Let me rephrase your question for you: "What's wrong with a monopoly that actively circumvents people so that they have no choice but to accept it's service, as opposed to an organization that can be changed yearly through organization-supported avenues, constitutionally protected collective action, and even violent protest?" Organization-supported avenues, collective action, and violent protest sounds exactly like the things that brought down private monopolies of the late 1800s/early 1900s. Why is government the only thing that can be changed by those means? Also, did you forget that modern government is already way more influenced by private enterprise and money than by actual individual voters? Sorry, but only some people paying to avoid sewage in the bay does not provide you protection from cholera the way a publicly run sewer does. This is what I am talking about. Even with individual choice, there are actions taken by the few that can have severe, life-threatening effects on the many. And your privatization does not allow for the protection of the many.
This is an often made mistake I was making until recently, too. You think through it, but then come to an acceptable conclusion, and stop. You thought through private ownership of sewers, but stopped before thinking the same about the bay. If the bay was privately owned, do you think the owner would allow peoples' sewage to be dumped into it without serious compensation or cleanup? |
|
|
|
I would almost suggest Atlas get a restraining order instead of just a defamation suit. I've mentioned before, you can't change people, no matter how hard you try, and especially online. People can only change themselves. It ironic Matthew would say Atlas is overvaluing himself, since from the amount of time and energy that Matthew pours into Atlas's life, it's pretty clear that Matt is quite obsessed with Atlas. I can't begin to guess why, but these slap fights are almost like watching to elementary school kids with one having a crush, not knowing how to deal with it, and bickering with the other instead, like some boy pulling a girl's hair just to get her attention.
This thread is about Atlas crying out for attention, not me. My thread was an honest question regarding the allowance of sock puppet accounts here. Also, I kept my discussion about Atlas' promises in PM only bringing what myself and numerous others feel is blatant theft to the public when it felt it was the right thing to do. Atlas posts provocative topics for people to discuss. His philosophy is not unique, but a lot of people see it as strange or extreme, and thus give them a lot of attention, after which Atlas continues to debate with them. Sure, he may answer in an "I am absolutely right about this" tone, and his cold logic no doubt is percieved as somewhat shocking, but seems he's only interested in discussing provocative topics, or in getting involved in some enterpreneurial venture. Both perfectly fine qualities. I don't really see the cry for attention from his end. There ARE a LOT of other posters that seem to completely obsess over every one of his posts, mostly it seems due to his rather uncommon philosophy. Too often it's also him posting that he is happy with who he is and what he does, and others, perhaps not happy or satisfied themselves, trying to bring him down to their level. Just because you went through shit due to your own personal similar quirks doesn't mean he will too. And if he does, so what? It builds character, or whatever. Your obsession with him seems almost disturbed. I'm not kidding when I say you sound like a girl completely romantically obsessed with some guy of whom you've built an ideal image in your head, and are now trying to change him when you realized he doesn't fit that image. He's not your lover, and you can't change him. You have nothing to offer him that he would want in exchange for deviating from where he is most comfortable. Also, redirecting the DNS is not transfer of ownership. If you didn't sign any contracts, it's on you for being stupid enough to set up any serious business agreements with an allegedly emotionally unstable 17yo. |
|
|
|
|
What? I was in a meeting. You still crushing on Atlas? Just confess already...
|
|
|
|
I didn't change the subject. Taxation is theft.
Too lazy to make an intelligent argument? Want to spout stupid slogans instead? I can do the same. Libertarianism is escapism. Common sense is just "common," not "sensible" |
|
|
|
|
Atlas, I agree with you on your opinions of most of the "advice" the people here give you. The only advice I'll ever give you is the following
Rebel against "growing up." It's not all it's cracked up to be. Neither are the "grownups."
If you know what you want to do with your life, stop and reconsider, because you're wrong.
Have fun and put your own needs first.
Everything else I might ever say or suggest is just a personal subjective opinion. Likewise for others' "advice."
|
|
|
|
2) I'm happy that Atlas thinks I provide him value as all my trolling from the beginning has been a futile attempt to wake him up from his self absorbed state. I now see that he's beyond what anything less than simple violence and jailtime can cure. For that reason, I'll officially stop bothering Atlas/newnameoftheweek. When he turns 18 I'll check back in.
3) I won't argue mental issues, beliefs etc with Atlas anymore because I'm uneducated. I'd probably only serve to strengthen his belief that there's nothing wrong with him. I will argue to my death that he has absolutely no sense of responsibility whatsoever and overvalues himself highly for someone woth no talents, skills or anything more than an obsession of philisophising everything.
I would almost suggest Atlas get a restraining order instead of just a defamation suit. I've mentioned before, you can't change people, no matter how hard you try, and especially online. People can only change themselves. It ironic Matthew would say Atlas is overvaluing himself, since from the amount of time and energy that Matthew pours into Atlas's life, it's pretty clear that Matt is quite obsessed with Atlas. I can't begin to guess why, but these slap fights are almost like watching two elementary school kids with one having a crush, not knowing how to deal with it, and bickering with the other instead, like some boy pulling a girl's hair just to get her attention. |
|
|
|
Yeah anyone who thought Obama was going to be any better than any of our previous presidents is/was deluded as all hell
I'm just happy we have someone who can say "nuclear" (and who got rid of DADT, is getting rid of DOMA, is standing up for abortion rights, is killing lots of terrorists around the world with small strike teams/drones instead of starting useless wars, etc.) |
|
|
|
A good example would be slavery. I know you don't like the analogy, but it works well.
The day that it will be possible to create full copies of people, including the momentary state of their synapses, IP will literally amount to slavery. This scenario may be a "fantasy world" case against IP, but it certainly is a future possibility and it doesn't violate any known laws of our universe. Rights should be universal. They should hold for all humans independent of place and time, present, past of future. This is almost exactly the point I brought up earlier in this thread, when we were discussing rights, and I was pointing out how their ideas will hit a major snag as soon as we create self-aware artificial intelligence (which will likely be fairly soon). |
|
|
|
The calculation is wrong as you forgot to include Bond interest in the 10% column.
Also bond interest does not get a tax credit - its deducted from gross income.
No bonds have been sold in 10% tax rate example, so zero bond interest. Net Income is Revenue minus Cost of Goods minus Bond Interest. The interest gets deducted from Net Income, so the taxable NI is reduced, and thus tax payments are reduced too, but those interest payments are going directly to investors, same as dividends would have been. |
|
|
|
Am I doing this right? Corp Tax Rate | 10% | 30% | Revenue | $15,000,000 | $15,000,000 | Cost of Goods Sold | $10,000,000 | $10,000,000 | Bond Interest | $0 | $3,333,333 | | Net Income | $5,000,000 | $1,666,667 | | Taxes | $500,000 | $500,000 | | Profit to Shareholders | $4,500,000 | $1,166,667 | Profit to Bondholders | $0 | $3,333,333 | | Total to Investors | $4,500,000 | $4,500,000 |
If Bond Interest is tax deductible, then wouldn't an increase in the Corporate Tax Rate just incentivize the corporation to sell more bonds to reduce taxes, and in the end the government will still take in the same amount in taxes, and investors will still get the same amount of money? (with only difference being the corporation is now more risky due to having more bond debt) |
|
|
|
Yeah, um, the idea that Wal Mart is able to exist and pay so little to employees only because we are all supporting Wal Mart and their employees with our tax dollars makes me extremely uncomfortable.
Then change the laws, but as it stands, these people are already eligible for these programs. The legal aid simply increases awareness of these programs, to the benefit of their employees and their dependents, and helps them with the processes. Target's employee base is likely just as eligible, they just aren't aware of them. Well damn. I always thought Target paid more than WalMart, but apparently that's not the case... |
|
|
|
Are you claiming to be one of the patent holders? I was expecting a "process for eating a can of soup" type patent.  If you read the details, the patent claims to disclose an invention distinct from existing maglev train designs. Yep. This was my Summer legal headache, and something I've been involved with for last ten years And yep. Totally unique, and incorrectly assumed to be impossible. |
|
|
|
...You live in a republic. ... The representative secures rights ... through legislation
... disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright. In fact, I doubt you can understand why the "whims of contemporary culture" deem a certain level of it necessary.
You are still confusing "rights" with "laws." One stands alone, the other just tries to describe it and put it on paper. You can still have rights without laws. For example, I think slaves still had a right to freedom and self-determination even if the written law said otherwise. That's why these laws change: society realizes that the law is going against basic rights, and fixes the broken legislation. Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.
But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment. As they should be.
Ahem... United States Patent 8,047,138 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
