The Dangers of One Party Rule 569
Marxist Hacker 42 writes "Now that the Politics section is up and running, I can submit this story. Back in February, The American Prospect ran a speculative article on The Danger of NeoConservative One Party Rule. A quote: 'Benjamin Franklin, leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, was asked by a bystander what kind of government the Founders had bestowed. "A republic," he famously replied, "if you can keep it." There have been moments in American history when we kept our republic only by the slenderest of margins. This year is one of those times.'"
So true (Score:5, Insightful)
My two discussion questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Will this lead to a Stalin-like hard right rule in the United States, and the warned curtailing of rights that a single, right-wing party is feared to be? Or will it be neoconservative utopia, ushering in an era of low taxes, small government, trickle down economics, and an end to labor law disputes?
Not sure. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of all the political quotes I could use here, I'm going to use Dr. Ian Malcolm via Jurassic Park: "Life finds a way." What I mean is, if a majority of people in four years find their life is worse, they vote Bush out. They vote a Democratic congress. People have phenomenal capacity. If you think the people are voting for all the wrong reasons, go back to 11th grade: all men are created equal. People have the right to vote for Bush on an uneducated opinion just as much as people have the right to vote for Kerry.
(For the tin-foil crowd, no, I don't think elections will be made illegal or term limits extended in the next four years. Sorry.)
Often times in a democracy, other people win.
Good ol' Benji (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My two discussion questions (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the most important election ever! (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't. At least, I don't think so. Somebody's always saying that.
Re:My two discussion questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, if you guys on the right don't exaggerate, I guess it's gonna have to be Bush. But I'm thinking you might do it, too.
There is something more dangerous than (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My two discussion questions (Score:2, Insightful)
The truth is somewhere between the extremes- my questions list the extremes.
I mean, Stalin means the Gulag! Stalin means farmers being executed for not giving up all their food to the State!
Stalin also meant an end to party politics in Russia- effectively the one party state with him at it's head and all others executed or done in. That was my thought as to where a lock on all three branches might lead. Get past your prejudices and think for a second.
I personally guarantee you that George Bush is not Hitler, or Stalin, and the simple act of saying he is, or might be, is ridiculous.
Stalin and Hitler weren't Stalin and Hitler before they were elected and their parties got a lock on all three branches of government either.
I think any government that wants to survive would wind up curtailing civil liberties in the name of capturing Al Queda and friends. I really doubt that John Kerry, should he become President, would do much different from Bush on this question one way or the other.
Now that is likely very true- but now let me ask you- if either side, Democrats or Republicans, were faced with al Qaida AND was able to get a lock on the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive Branches, would that be better or worse than the same government having a political lock on only 2 out of the 3?
The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France, and I don't know if that's an improvement even in civil liberties terms.
We'd also get a President that would be facing a hostile Congress that would slow down his agenda considerably.
Under whatever leader we wind up with, you will not be prevented from comparing him to Hitler, or marching for hours screaming at the top of your lungs that he's evil. None of those rights are in any danger today. Not even the right to make a complete fool of yourself.
Haven't tried to join in an anti-Bush rally at any of his appearances, have you? (of course not, your next paragraph says that you are PRO-Bush). Just a hint- when Kerry's in town, you're likely to get as close to him as you want. When Bush is in town, your counterparts on the other side aren't allowed within 1/2 mile of the route or 3 miles of the actual appearance location. This has been enforced even in such liberal right-to-free-speech towns as Portland, OR. In fact, we had a very neat comparison of the two out here a few weeks ago. Bush traveled in secret, his route unknown until a few minutes before, tying up traffic wherever he went, and Sunset High in Beaverton was swept by Secret Service Agents before he arrived for anybody who didn't sign a loyalty oath, who were sent down to Evelyn Schiffler Park, across from my house. Kerry, on the other hand, gave out his route ahead of time so that he didn't cause traffic tie ups, and held his speech in Waterfront Park in Portland, and all were welcome.
I belong to a pro-Bush protest organization, and I enjoy making a complete fool of myself sometimes, so relax. Neither of us are going to be prevented from expressing our views.
I already have been twice- but the courts have OK'd free speech zones, so there's nothing I can do about it.
slow down cowpoke (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I get to sentence four. I am not giving my civil liberties up, even a little bit, not because of Al-Qaeda or for any other reason. I'm probably the nine-millionth person to quote Ben Franklin on this, but "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
And then I see sentence five: "The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France." And your credibility is shot.
a) Do you honestly think that?
b) If so, why?
c) What the hell?
spreer
That's fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer my information presented with an obvious and admitted slant. It's much easier to take in the grains of salt that way. What really peeves me is when a news source tries to pawn itself off as being impartial or balanced when it really isn't. I can totally deal with bias if you'll just be upfront with it.
A Heat Sink is a Good Thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but I think the editors have made a brilliant stroke by creating the "Politics" section. It's a heat sink.
The heat generated by a power transistor is an inevitable part of its operation. Unfortunately, it tends to degrade the component's operation, to the point where it's no more than a two-legged* blob of molten silicon. To prevent this, we use a Heat Sink. The transistor can then function normally, with the waste heat dissipated somewhere other than the silicon.
Slashdot generates heat, too, in the form of strong opinions that don't actually contribute to the discussion at hand. Post a story about the next release of Knoppix, and someone will say something about the government supporting/restraining Open Source, then someone will say something about the current administration, and pretty soon you're looking at a hole in the screen where a discussion used to be.
The Politics section is Slashdot's heat sink. People like me who have strong opinions can vent them here, where they don't affect the articles in the Games, Science, and Apple sections. The heat is inevitable, but you can at least make sure it doesn't interfere with your performance.
* I know transistors have three connections. I'm thinking of the power transistors where the body is the ground connector. And Bush sucks, by the way.
Re:Left Wing Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Please tell me where to find this "objective journalism". I haven't seen any in over a decade, if ever.
Re:Supreme Court Appointees? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Supreme Court Appointees? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, men had to fight for those rights. They weren't "given" to them by any one/thing.
Re:Utter Crap...... (Score:5, Insightful)
sincerely,
Daniel Dvorkin
former SSgt, USAF
USAR infantryman 1987-1989
USAF medic 1989-1997
We Already Have It (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Correction . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
For the past sixty years the United States have been tilting heavily in one direction
In what direction would *that* be?
You imply that it is the left, but the US is and has been (for *at least* the past sixty years) one of the most right-winged first world nations around. The "Democrats" in the US would be what is considered very conservative in most of Europe and also in Canada and AU.
Re:I pine for the day.. (Score:3, Insightful)
How very unpolitical and nonpartisian of you.
Re:Good ol' Benji (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare to the highway workers that stand around on that same dollar scratching their asses...
Fear not, and the real problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ten years ago the current minority party held the Presidency, House and Senate. They had held the House and Senate for decades. It was just as hard to defeat an incumbent back then as it is now.
The danger to the USA is not a NeoConservative monoparty. That sounds like FUD to me. The danger to the USA is that we have learned to vote ourselves funds from the public checkbook.
Re:Utter Crap...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Civil rights violations under Clinton are "more telling"?
The Clinton administration was much more open. No FOIA denials. No imprisoning people without access to lawyers. No Karl Rove with dirty tricks. No Ashcroft (I don't care *how* much of a social conservative you are, Ashcroft is the scariest thing since Hoover). No Cheney urging for war, with defense contracting cronies growing fat on public funds.
The Assault Weapons Ban was stupid and a bad idea, I agree.
But the gutting of the intelligence departments and military? I call bullshit. Back up what you're claiming.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Senator Ron Paul (R) from Texas says... (Score:2, Insightful)
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo - CONNED !
The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who's really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?
Someone is responsible, and it's important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they're wrong--and I believe they are--we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it's the government's responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.
One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.
The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down--even if we vote to lower them. They can't, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced--and they certainly should have been--but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.
When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or "printing" new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the "tax" is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a "tax" burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.
Re:My two discussion questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Try looking at american politics from a foreign viewpoint. In the grand scheme of things, both the Republicans and the Democrats are right of centre. The Republicans are just more right wing and way more authoritarian
Re:My two discussion questions (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you just knee jerk call people who disagree with the president or his policies, communists, socialists, terrorist sympathizers, and all kinds of other nasty illogical names. And before you whip you the "leftist" label out of your rear and try to apply it to me, I'm a Libertarian. My party stands for free markets, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. You remember those words? It's what Bush promised us and then delivered the exact opposite.
Re:So true (Score:1, Insightful)
so VOTE FOR KERRY! :).
Any reasons why you would vote for Bush, please post them.
Any reasons why you would NOT vote for Bush, please post them too.
Re:Think very carefully... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So true (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, what a long article (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, contrast that with the Republican's message: reduce taxes on the people who have capital to encourage them to invest and create new jobs. Or even shorter, "trickle down."
That's all a huge pile of crap, as we all know, but the message works in part because it's very simple. Nobody's going to read and understand 20 pages of dense prose with hundreds of perfectly rational arguments, leading to a beautiful well-supported conclusion.
Everyone, take a lesson from this. If you write about politics, keep it short. Keep it simple. Use simple words. Short sentences are nice. Make your point quickly, and wrap it up.
Re:So true (Score:5, Insightful)
"Then, we figured out it was Bin Laden's people from Afghanistan."
You mean Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
"Then, everybody like you said we'd be quagmired if we attacked Afghanistan. We attacked Afghanistan and overran it in like 10 days. Bin Laden fled to the Afghan-Pakistan border."
Where he remains free three years later while American troops are still stuck in Afghanistan while the Taliban control ever-increasing sections of the country. A quagmire.
"Then, Iraq kept rattling its swords. Everyone like you said Bush should go to the UN and get a resolution. So he did. Everyone like you said Bush should give the inspectors more time. So he did. Finally, the time was up and we invaded with the Brits and dozen or so other countries. "
No, he didn't wait until time was up. He went ahead before the inspectors could finish the job. Up until then they were saying there were no signs of WMD. Bush didn't believe them, invaded anyway, and whaddya know? The inspectors turned out to be right.
"Everyone like you said we'd get bogged down, and that we should have gotten France, Germany, and Russia's permission. We blitzed through Iraq like a hot knife through butter."
As the Iraqi soldiers melted into society waiting for us to stop bombing. We did, and they started to take back their country again, now absolutely controlling several sections. Meanwhile the U.S. troops are bogged down, more than 1,000 dead, and no end in sight.
"It also turned out that the people who wanted Saddam to continue in power, combined with those who wanted an Iranian-style totalitarian Islamic rule, decided to fight a guerilla-style set of skirmishes, assuming that the USA and the new Iraq government would back down. Well they didn't and they won't (unless of course Bush is voted out)."
Bush will run even if he is elected. The American people will demand it after, oh, 5,000 dead, or 10,000 dead, or sooner or later.
"Finally, these same Islamic radicals killed several hundred children in Russia. The Russians now see things our way and are going to kick some pre-emption butt."
Chechnyan separatists, you mean.
"Oh yeah, the economy's picking up steam, Al Quaeda people are being arrested left and right, we rolled up the Pakistani nuke connection, we captured Saddam and the Iraq people are going to try him, Libya dropped its WMD programs and surrendered, there've been no more terrorist attacks in the USA, and no one that you know has actually been affected by any Patriot Act provisions. You also have more money in your pocket than you did at the start of this administration due to tax cuts."
The economy is very slowing improving, Al Qaeda is more numerous than it has ever been as new recruits more than make up for old ones arrested, the Pakistani nuke connection is ever dangerous, they did get Saddam but where's Osama?, Libya did back down, there have been more terror attacks then ever even though not in the USA, and yes I do know people affected by the Patriot Act. As for more money in our pockets, only if we were rich to begin with. The pittance the rest of us got was spent long ago.
Re:Think very carefully... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My two discussion questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Specific to this report. there are a few very very important points that are conveniantly omited.
Re:My two discussion questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: trickle-down eco (Score:3, Insightful)
Explain how they reap the greatest benefit from "our society"? I get my money by selling my labor to an employer, who is not "society", but a specific group of individuals. Everyone else is free to market their skills and labor just like I am. Some do better, some do worse. But the fact that some individuals have more valuble skills or ideas than others doesn't mean they owe "society" the time of day. I got my skills at my own expense, not "society's".
You just want tax policies that make the wealthy wealthier while leaving average Americans struggling to make ends meet.
Um, tax policies don't make anyone wealthier besides the government. Money the government doesn't tax isn't a gift, it's money you earned that you get to keep.
I take it you favor tax policies that penalize people for hard work and success?
You are probably happy that there has been an ever-widening disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
As a matter of fact, yes, I'm delighted!
$0 is still worth $0. So if there's a ever-widening disparity between $0 and max-dollars, that means that means more wealth is being created, and the potential for acquiring wealth is greater than ever. If people are able to earn ever greater sums of wealth relative to $0, that's a Good Thing!
You probably think that it's great that CEO salaries have been skyrocketing while workers' salaries are spiralling downwards.
As far as I know, companies are paying CEO's with their own money, not with mine, so, truthfully, I don't give a rat's-ass what they pay them.
And slavery was outlawed a long time ago. If you don't like what you're getting paid, you're free to find an employer who is willing to pay you more. If you can't find an employer who will pay you more, that's a pretty good sign you're already earning what you're worth.
Re:My two discussion questions (Score:2, Insightful)
And what was life expectancy before the industrial revolution?
What you're managing to ignore, here, is that while life may have been nasty, brutish and short at the dawn of the Industrial Era, it was still a vast improvement over what came before it.
Or you end up with open warfare between unionizers and police forces, as America saw at the turn of the century.
Yes! And this time, I hope the police win!
Besides, because roads just build themselves, and the police and fire department don't need to be paid. They fund themselves by magic!
Peas and carrots don't plant, grow and harvest themselves, either. But I can always find them available at the grocery store, without taxpayer funding, thankyouverymuch!
The more we get taxed, the more our society fails to suck.
Fails to suck for who? I can see that it would suck less for the guy on the receiving end of the hand-out. It sucks quite a bit more for the guy who works to create the wealth.
Consider Bill Gates -- he makes billions of dollars a year.
The operative word is he makes billions of dollars a year. That is, he creates billions of dollars of wealth. It doesn't just drop on his head, he gets it in exchange for creating products that people want to buy.
Now pretend we tax away all but a million dollars of it. He's not really suffering, since a million dollars is still an enormous sum of money. Yet we now have enough tax money to give jobs to 10000 civil servants (assuming each one requires 100000 in salary, office rent, etc). Frankly, I'll happily make Bill Gates subsist at the millionaire level to create 10000 jobs.
If Bill Gates doesn't create that wealth in the first place, you don't have fuck-all. Exactly, why should Bill Gates work to subsidise 10000 civil servants? What do they do for him? Why should Bill Gates be forced to be a milch-cow for people that add no value to the economy?
Re:So true (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, regarding the crazies that attacked us from Afghanistan....So WTF are we doing in Iraq?
And remember, when Clinton went after Al Queda he was roundly criitcized by Republicans and in the press for trying to divert attention from Monica. Too bad the right-wingers were more obsessed with bringing down Clinton than they were concerned about the gathering threat of Al Queda.
Re:So true (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with referring to the perpetrators of the Russian school attacks as "Chechnyan separatists," because that's what they are. They're also militant, because they use military-style tactics and training to prepare for and execute their attacks. So I don't see that the "liberal media" is doing us a disservice by using those terms.
Where in the "liberal media" have the attackers in Russia been referred to as "activists" or "freedom fighters?" Doing a quick survey of Google News, I find one story from today referring to them as "captors [kansascity.com]," one that makes no mention of the attackers [miami.com] (it focuses on the US plans for dealing with similar attacks), one that refers to them as raiders [nwsource.com], and a Guardian article laced with words like "extremist", "terrorists", and "child-killers" (quoting Vladmir Putin). The last article also mentions that Chechnya has a Muslim majority, and mentions the possibility that some of the attackers were Arabs with links to al-Qaeda.
Yes, Islamic militants are a major source of terrorism, and to ignore this in dealing with Islamic terrorists is a bad idea. But many of the people and organizations who use violence to achieve political ends have nothing to do with Islam, and it would be a mistake to conflate terrorism with Islamic militants, or Islamic militants with Islam.
I for one am looking forward to November, when Kerry will be elected. I personally think that the hyperconfrontational posture Dubya is taking can only energize terror networks around the globe.
Re: trickle-down eco (Score:2, Insightful)
I fail to see why creating roads needs to be government function. Private airlines and railroads are also available to transport goods. In fact, government subsidizing the highway system was one of the things that backrupted many railroads. And I fail to see why the wealthy should be any more responsible for the upkeep of infrastructure than anyone else.
The public roads are available to anyone. The fact that a businessman was smart enough to take better advantage of an infrastructure that was built just as much for your benefit as for his, it doesn't follow that he owes you anything for it.
It provides them with police protection so that they aren't constantly in fear of kidnapping, murder, etc.
Oh, give me a break! Who's in a better position to afford his own security, you or Bill Gates? Obviously, he can afford his own security. Maybe you should be reimbursing him for having to pay for yours as well?
So you never went to a public school? You never went to a museum the received federal funds? Your teachers weren't educated in public schools? Your parents never got a tax credit that helped pay for your education? You didn't get to school using taxpayer funded roads, sidewalks, public transportation, etc.? My, you must have an interesting story to tell.
You haven't explained why those things are necessarily a function of government. There are plenty of privately funded schools, museums, roads and forms of transportation. The fact that I've used some that were publicly funded doesn't necessarily mean they had to be, or should be.
Untrue. It costs money to run the government. If tax policies are such that the rich are not as burdened as the middle-class and poor, then they policies are helping to make them wealthier. If the taxes force many lower-income people to seek out part-time work, there is a labor glut which drives down wages, helping make the wealthy wealthier when they hire people at the deflated wages.
Well then, the obvious solution to that is to cut taxes so that low income people aren't put in that position.
Come to think of it, most lower income people aren't paying income taxes anyway. So how does giving the rich a tax cut harm the poor again?
And don't tell me that you are entitled to keep everything that you are paid, because you are not. It's not "your money", despite what the Bushies would have you believe. If you want to live in this society, then you are legally and morally obligated to contribute to it in the form of taxes.
Sez who?
Yes, it is my money, despite what parasites like you would have me believe. If I have no claim to it by virtue of working for it, you certainly have even less claim to it by virtue of not working for it.
Don't give me this bullshit about "hard work" by the wealthy. You want to see hard work? Go watch coal miners at work. Watch garbage collection people. Watch janitors. Watch the single mother of two who works for 8 hours as a waitress and then works another 4 hours as a maid in a hotel. Watch someone who is doing manual labor at a construction site. Don't waste my time with stories about some guy sitting in an air-conditioned office.
You're in serious need of a class in economics.
Not all "hard work" necessarily creates value. Simply because you work hard doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to compensation for it. You can spend your days digging a hole to China in your back yard, but while digging a hole to China may be hard work, it creates no value to anyone. Nobody is going to pay you anything to do it.
So let me re-phrase that: Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?
Most of the examples you provided were work that produces little value. Which is why it's lowly compensat
Re:So true (Score:5, Insightful)
To equate two things is to say P->Q and Q->P. If someone is an Islamic terrorist, he is also a terrorist. But the converse is most certainly not true. All terrorism is a worldwide problem, regardless of the ideology. Terror by militant Islamic groups just happens to be a large component of the problem.
The religion of Islam is no more to blame for Islamic terrorism than Christianity is to blame for abortion clinic shootings. Both have adherents with wildly varying interpretations of the faith. These people aren't terrorists because of Islam, but because they are dirt poor, fed anti-Western propaganda all their lives, and feel that they have nothing to lose.
You're making a huge mistake in declaring one third of the world's population to be your enemy. Did I mention you're an idiot?
Re:So true (Score:5, Insightful)
So, by that logic, if I (an American citizen) went to another country and killed somebody, people in that country should assume that all Americans are murderers?
What if I were Catholic? Does that mean all Catholics are murderers as well?
Next time think for a moment before you make sweeping statements...
Re:My two discussion questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Slave labor was outlawed in Britain a long time before it was in the United States.
If those factory laborers didn't think working in the factories was an improvement over the available alternatives, what were they doing there?
You're deluded if you think public services like roads and public safety could be privatized without serious negative consequences.
And with what evidence were you planning on backing up that assertion with?
Pure libertarianism, as you promote it, strikes me as nothing more than veiled contempt for anyone who makes less money than you.
I see. And what do you suppose I feel for anyone who makes more money than I do?
You also fall into a logical trap when you believe that, because a person like Bill Gates owns a multibillion dollar company, that they are necessarily creating value, or that they deserve to be compensated proportionately.
I don't recollect that I used the word "deserve" anywhere. The point is, he aquired his money justly through lawful, voluntary transactions with private parties. Whether he "deserves" his money or not is of no concern to me, any more than whether or not Britney Spears "deserves" to be cute, or Arnold Schwarzenegger "deserves" to have a physique like Adonis, or whether some people "deserve" to live to be 100 or others "deserve" to die before they reach adulthood. The point is, he acquired it legitimately, and it is not my job in life, or yours, to go running around like God Himself insuring everybody gets what they "deserve", which is an arbitrary and subjective value judgement, at best.
It's as though you look at a $300B company like Microsoft, and automatically assume that those $300B would simply not exist were it not for Microsoft.
In no way did I assume that $300B value couldn't, or wouldn't, exist without Microsoft to create it. If Microsoft didn't exist, it's possible Apple, or Commodore, or Atari, or Borland, or IBM would have created it.
But whether they could have or would have is irrelavent. The point is, Microsoft did.
In fact, it's far more complicated. First, had Bill Gates never been born, computers would still be around, they would still be doubling in power every year and a half, they would still have operating systems, and computer use and intercommunication would still be energizing the economy.
That's purely speculation. In fact it's possible that wouldn't have happened at all without Microsoft. Remember, by making it's DOS operating system available to all comers, Microsoft forced hardware vendors to compete on value and price, which in turn drove down prices, which in turn increased demand, which in turn created markets for ancillary products and services (such as networks, peripherals, etc.). It is questionable whether this "virtuous cycle" would have been initiated had the computer market been left to proprietary vendors, which other than IBM clone manufacturers, was all of them.
In order to calculate the real value of Microsoft to the economy, you can't just look at its market cap. You have to ask how its anticompetitive practices are hindering the development of the computer industry. You have to ask about the costs of its desktop monopoly. You have to ask about the real value of new versions of Office, which serve primarily to break compatability with older versions.
You also have to ask if those markets in which Microsoft holds a monopoly would even exist, at least to the extent that they do, were it not for Microsoft.
Admittedly, it's unfair to look only a
Re:So true (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume you are referring to the Iraqi population's response after we invaded their country and sent it back to the stone age.
Post 9/11 (before Iraq) the general response from the Arab/Muslim community was actually quite sympathetic towards the US and virtually every Arab/Muslim political leader did condemn Bin Laden and co.
Even now, while it is true that the muslim communities in other countries have definitely cooled towards us you don't exactly see American flags being burned in India or Bangladesh or even Indonesia (three of the larger Muslim populations in the world).
I'm not saying whether invading Iraq was right or wrong but, now that you bring it up, it's a good example of the need to look at the context in which things occur.
Heck, we have our own skin-heads and KKK and other extremist groups who are generally reviled but I can guarantee you that if the US was reduced to razed earth and those same militant minorities managed to strike back in some way there would be a percentage of the population who would indeed be dancing in the streets.
[shrug] Timing is everything...
Re:So true (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually no, I had after the WTC buildings on my mind when making that comment, I remember seeing a crowd on TV just going crazy (litterally). Maybe you're a muslim and take offense to my comments, I know not all Muslims are bad or even the religeon. But in that part of the world religion is still an effective method of controling minds to carry out killing (much like christianity did when the population was ignorant)
I can guarantee you that if the US was reduced to razed earth and those same militant minorities managed to strike back in some way there would be a percentage of the population who would indeed be dancing in the streets.
I would rather not speculate on that, I'll just comment on the now; We don't dance in the street at the news of thousands of innocent people dying, They do.
I didn't bring up Iraq, It's not my favorite of subjects. a big frickin mess. I will say that Iraqi's might not like us in their country, may hold some sceptisizm or whatever but I doubt they _hate_ us. After all we never attacked the people. The iraqi's are being killed by car bombs 10 here 15 there, 25 sometimes by the arab forigners though. I understand watching us closely but I think they can see who the real threat is between us and the terrorists I just wish they weren't scared to say it like the rest of the world.
Re:So true (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So true (Score:3, Insightful)
The correct action, right after the 2nd plane hit, would have been an order for the Air Force to intercept and establish contact with all airliners currently on radar with their transponders turned off. As a pilot himself, he should have known that was the correct course of action. In addition, he should have appologised to the children, told them to go home and hug their parents, and left the school to find a communications center so that he could get in contact with the chain of command.
Once in contact with the chain of command, he would then be in a position to gather more information and take necessary action. He could have, at that point, prevented the attack on the Pentagon, or at least the chase pilots would have been able to radio a warning to evacuate Wedge 1.
The next day, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, followed quickly by Afghanistan. Every illegal alien in the country should have been rounded up and either deported or held for questioning. Mecca should have been a radioactive ruin.
Not taking these actions proves W to be a coward- a puppet of the corporate interests who can't think for himself.
Re:Woah! Major problem!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's put aside the fact that it would be impossible to figure out who actually benefits from it, as well as the fact that you've created a world where everyone who thinks they have done me some "service" are now sending me bills. The real problem is, the faintest whim of a rich person is valued as much as the fondest dream of a poor person.
Say I'm a very wealthy individual. I want the statue's boobies draped. How much do I have to want it in order to make it happen? Not much. I'm rich enough that I can simply speak the word, and some hireling will take care of all the details.
Now say I'm a very poor person. Scraping together $1000 would be a huge deal. It might even be impossible. Yet I'm as horrified by the sight of Justice as anyone. Because I'm living in a libertarian system, my opinion matters zero, because I don't have the capital to enforce it.
Under a system where dollars are essentially votes--which is what I feel you are proposing--the opinions of the rich matter, and the opinions of the poor don't.
It isn't? I thought that the reason you were pushing libertarianism was because you thought it the most just, equitable system, and that everyone would be better off living under its precepts.
Now, are you saying that the only reason you're promoting libertarianism is because you believe that you could cash in big time? If so, I'm ignoring any further displays of moral outrage.
To me, your attempt to equate taxation to slavery is simply further indication that you're a libertarian just because you think taxes suck. In reality, there is no comparison. With slavery, the basic rights of a human being are being violated. You would be hard pressed to get more than a few people to agree that taxation is inherently immoral.
If you're a slave, there is nothing you can legally do to end your enslavement. If you're a rich person who thinks he is being charged an unfair share of taxes, all you have to do is quit whatever employment provides you your income, and live like the rest of us shmucks.