Actually it is the principle, but I do also acknowledge that there are some things that aren't up for a vote. Rape being one of them. What principle guides you to abandon your principles? I like how you can declare rape not up for vote but I can't declare theft not up for vote. Seriously though, there are places to go which doesn't require that amount of riches. I don't belive they pay tax in Bahrain, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, if my google-fu is strong. Apply for citizenship. They are states, but places where there isn't a state around tend to be run by bandits. Again, how do I get there and how do I survive once there? How are these places better than the middle of the ocean? |
|
|
|
I do believe it would be rape, yes. Then the fact that X number of people declare Y is acceptable isn't the principle you're operating with. So, the fact that X number of people say they can steal from me and you think it's alright has to be based on something else other than "the community says so". It has to be available to you right now? This instant? Sorry, life doesn't work that way. Then you're back to the "agree or die" situation which you've already said isn't a real choice. In other words, because I have no choice, I haven't consented to anything. While I could go live on a moonbase or in the ocean if I were rich enough, I'm not. So, my staying put isn't consent. |
|
|
|
Do you really think this is how people who receive welfare think? Yes. What's the alternative to a welfare safety net? Charity. Of all of the things the government spends their money on, I would much rather pay and extra $200 in taxes to feed poor Americans than 50%+ of my tax money going towards bombing other countries. If you want to give your money away then you're welcome to do so. I'm all for charity. In fact, I would donate to a charity that had certain requirements, such as working at a job, going to school, etc. |
|
|
|
Colourful example. However, it does go against article 3 in the declaration of human rights, which I hold in quite high regard. The declaration of human rights is just another set of rules created by another community. What if the global community agrees to get fucked in the ass but I don't, is that not rape? Grow food, purify water. There are technical solutions. I didn't say it was easy, nor affordable for most people, or practical. Just that it was a possibility. If I can't afford it then how is it possible? You might as well suggest that I build a moonbase and live there. |
|
|
|
If the services were provided to you individually, but they aren't. They're provided to the group/community. Your community, in which you're a part, has decided that the services have value. So, if the community agrees to let Obama fuck them in the ass, even though I don't consent, it's not rape? You know, I actually agree with this.
Agree or die isn't a valid choice. That's what you're advocating. You suggested to someone to go live on a barge in the ocean yet, who can afford that? Where will fresh water come from? Food? Maybe it's not instant death like drowning is but it's not much better. |
|
|
|
Are there other areas of life where someone can provide services without permission and then demand payment without agreement? Is this behavior generally okay with you? He's just going to say that remaining in a geographical region counts as implicit consent. Which leads us back to the point that remaining on a ship at sea isn't implicit consent when the only alternative is jumping in the ocean and drowning. |
|
|
|
And what you consider theft is what I see as payment for services rendered. If that were true, I'd have the right to cancel these services. Stop dropping bombs using my tax money. Stop giving welfare checks to lazy parasites. Stop sending kids to be brainwashed by the state. I want these services to stop and I don't want to pay for them. By continuing to "render services" you're little more than a mafia Don that is rendering his protection "services" i.e. you're thief, a crook and nothing more. |
|
|
|
What evidence do you present that the monopolies formed under a free market are balanced by an invisible potential competitor? Internet Explorer is a terrible example, as it was sued under Anti-Trust laws and the evil government forced Microsoft to change its practices to create more "fair" competition. Please provide some kind of evidence for this claim. How exactly did the government intervene so that Internet Explorer was forced into more "fair" competition? Has Microsoft stopped bundling Internet Explorer with Windows? No, they haven't. Since you've failed to back up your claim, I can only assume you are referring to the European Commission's settlement with Microsoft whereby Microsoft agreed to present users with a browser selection screen. The problem with that theory though is that it only applies to EU countries and only happened with Windows 7, several years after Firefox had already been chipping away at Internet Explorer. Unless you provide some new information, your claims don't hold water. Firefox is exactly the evidence you required yet, unsurprisingly, it doesn't "count". That's not accurate unfortunately. That assumes that Nike will act ethically and that their only recourse to maintain their monopoly is the manipulation of their product's price and quality. If Nike has a monopoly then nothing prevents them from acting unethically and taking other steps to prevent competition such as using their size to demand exclusive contracts for raw materials necessary to produce shoes or overpaying for those materials thereby increasing the market's barrier to entry.
This is the same way with an ultra-powerful monopolistic pool. They can use their size and resources to prevent competition by dDosing for example.
The same argument applies to the raw materials monopolies. You are just welcoming competition by not selling to whoever bids the highest. |
|
|
|
Uhm, what evidence do you have of this? I mean yes, I understand the theory, and have heard it about a billion times, but what *evidence* is there.
The person you quoted gave a couple of good examples of non-governmentally enforced monopolies. Standard Oil. US Steel. Neither of these were monopolies enforced by governmental action. Both caused terrible drains on everyone, especially the workers (I doubt the people lining the gates begging for a days wages would have said that everyone was happy) who were essentially forced into servitude by the situation. But this is getting offtopic, I'm still looking for evidence.
Barrier of entry to market is not as trivial as you make it sound. Yes it may sound "fair" that it's difficult to enter a profitable market for late comers, but it doesn't help your point that monopolies are balanced by potential rivals if the barrier to entry is so high that competition is almost impossible.
Look, if I have a business harvesting moon rocks and you complain that I'm charging too high of a price or that it creates a terrible drain on the workers then start your own company. If you can't find investors willing to risk their money then what right do you have to say that the prices are too high? All prices are too high since consumers would like to get everything for free but when dealing with economics we have to evaluate actions, not words. Let's take oil for example. It's rare and hard to acquire. Therefore, the prices they charge reflect this. If the price of oil is too high then people will switch to other sources of energy. If they are still buying it, it doesn't matter if they are grumbling about the price, clearly the price isn't too high, otherwise, it wouldn't be selling. The same applies to any other natural monopoly. Free market monopolies aren't "bad" as long as you get rid of the idea that you should be able to get everything for free. The prices will always approach what it's actually worth. As a potential counter example, look at microsoft. An inferior product at hugely inflated prices from a terribly inefficient company that is essentially a monopoly due to legacy support requirements and an almost impossibly high barrier to entry at market.
That's just opinion, nothing more. Perhaps the software itself is inferior but you can't consider it in a vacuum. You need to consider human capital, how many people understand it, use it, can program with it, what kind of support there is for it, etc. If Linux was so wonderful, it would have taken over by now. Counterexample, Mozilla Firefox. Internet Explorer had a monopoly but now it's losing market share daily. Firefox is king these days. |
|
|
|
Unless it was really hard/expensive to begin making shoes, there was a very steep learning curve, or some other similar reason that someone could not easily enter the shoe market. Then Nike would have a lot more leeway in charging prices. If it's difficult to enter the market then Nike had the same difficulty entering the market. Turnabout is fair play. |
|
|
|
I always find these threads amusing, especially from the 'free market' types. Unregulated markets naturally tend towards monopolies. In a free market, even with monopolies there is still the threat of competition. Let's say that Nike has a monopoly in shoes. As long as everyone is getting what they want at a reasonable price, who cares? The reason why, even with a monopoly, Nike isn't going to start charging $1,000 for a pair of low quality shoes is that they know it would entice competition. They want to keep their monopoly so they refrain from doing that because, at a reasonable price and reasonable quality, there's no incentive for competition. Hence, the mere fact that someone could enter the shoe market will prevent Nike from getting uppity. Monopolies aren't bad unless they're enforced involuntarily which requires government action. Voluntary monopolies aren't a problem. |
|
|
|
1) You can leave the US. There's nothing stopping you. That's like saying that I'm free to jump in the ocean and drown if I don't like being on a ship at sea. Even if there were someplace I could go, I have no means to get there or to survive once there. Build a house in the woods somewhere far from civilization, not telling anyone where, have absolutely no contact with any other humans. Now it's "your house, your rules" and you won't have to pay any taxes. Why do I need to not have contact with other humans? Are you telling me that just saying "hello" to someone is grounds for being taxed? That's absurd. Also, there's large swaths of land in the USA that are deserted but I would still be subject to taxes there. Anyways, there's no reasoning with you so I'm just going to ignore you in the future. You're pissing Kool-Aid. If you have sex with 1,000 people and 999 consent but 1 doesn't, you're a rapist. If you take money from 1,000 people and 999 consent but 1 doesn't, you're a thief. That's all you are, a petty thief and in an ideal world I'd be able to deal with you like any other thief. I wouldn't think twice about putting a bullet in your thieving ass. Justify it all you like so you can sleep at night, thief, but we all know what you are, those of us that aren't self-deluded anyways. |
|
|
|
So you and your friends have a club with a membership fee. A majority of them want to raise this fee and you don't. You lose the vote and the fee is raised. You have no choice (other than leaving the club), but to comply. Notice you said, "other than leaving the club". That's why it's not a state. You can leave the club and simply stay on your own private property and not go on their private property anymore. I can't leave the "USA" club without abandoning my private property. And as was said in another thread, you always have the option of leaving. Don't like the rules of my house? GTFO! The entire USA isn't your "house", nor is it society's "house". Oddly enough, my house is an actual "house". So, I should be able to live in it under my own rules without statists like yourself kicking my door in, demanding I submit to their rules or empty my pockets. |
|
|
|
Dummy plug makes no difference. Still need help! Will offer a reward!
Update your drivers then try each card by itself in each slot. So, 2 cards and 2 slots means 4 different tests. If all 4 tests pass then put the cards in at the same time in CrossFireX mode and try playing a game with the load balancing meter on. If the game works then try a different miner. If none of that isolates the problem you might try another set of cards or a new motherboard. Good luck. |
|
|
|
That makes sense. I guess I'm at a loss for at what point a group of people co-existing with structure would be called a government. It becomes a government, or more specifically, a state, when it becomes involuntary, for example, if I don't want to pay for welfare but have no choice in the matter because I'll be thrown in jail or killed if I resist arrest. |
|
|
|
That depends on your definition of the north. Some soldiers did choose to fight for that very reason. The leaders were more concerned with the schism, but they didn't do the actual invading, did they? The majority of northern soldiers fought to preserve the Union due to a sense of duty, honor and patriotism. Do you disagree? If so, why? |
|
|
|
Back on topic ......my take is: if you don't like taxes... then put out your own fires, fight crime yourself, get off the paved roads and teach yourself and your kids what we learn in school. That ignores the voluntary division of labor. I don't have to make my own shoes but I do have to provide something to someone that does so they will voluntarily make me a pair. If I want cable TV or food, I will pay for it. I don't need the government to provide me those things. If I want fire protection, security, roads or my kids taught, I will pay for it. Again, the government isn't required for any of that. |
|
|
|
The direct cause was the secession, which was itself caused by non-abolishment supporters flaming the state's rights debate. Slavery was the catalyst that started the war. The south knew the north wouldn't stand for the schism.
That doesn't contradict anything I've said. However, if you think that the north was invading the south to free slaves rather than to keep the south in the Union, you're wrong. Welcome back to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Another advantage of this scheme is that your bandwidth and ping would not be determined by your ISP contract. You can instantly purchase bandwidth on-demand, directly from world market of routers, and the limit would only be your physical connection.
Thus ends "net neutrality".  Good riddance. Drop all regulations and let competition thrive. Then anyone that tries to charge outrages prices for delivering packets will be routed around. |
|
|
|
Your first sentence is in contradiction to your conclusion. The American Civil War was fought primarily for two reasons, neither of them being the abolishment of slavery. On the southern side, the war was fought for political independence in order to continue and expand slavery.
So the south were fighting for the non-abolishment of slavery then? If the North weren't planning to abolish slavery what were the South fighting against? Do you not understand the difference between the abolition of slavery and the non-abolition of slavery? My thesis is that the war was not fought for the abolition of slavery. The fact that the south seceded and then fought to remain independent because they wanted to avoid the abolition of slavery doesn't account for the reason why the north provoked war. The north didn't enter into the war because they wanted to free slaves.Focus your attention on the sentence in bold. That's the only point of contention. If you can prove otherwise, do so. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
