So, why was MS fined for bundling IE?

Have we forgotten the whole MS Antitrust fiasco? You remember that Microsoft WAS FINED because they bundled a fucking WEB BROWSER with their OS and made it the default, right? MS didn't force anyone to use it.

And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.

LOL. And Microsoft is still evil.

As a foreigner, I believe it is incumbent upon you as American citizens to OUTLAW THE FUCKING NSA.

Seriously? A WORLD CLASS COMPANY SHIPPING TO DECOY ADDRESSES to avoid ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT SPYING?

WHAT THE FUCK, AMERICA?

Why would Mr. Rich invest in a brewery, or purchase the trucks, if only a handful of people will be able to afford beer?

Does Mr. Rich CEO NOT invest if he's taxed? Don't be ridiculous. Mr Rich WILL be taxed, and millions of Average Joes WILL be able to afford MORE. Probably even making up for the difference.

And if debt is such a good thing as an asset, then why the fuck do banks need "bailouts"? Oh yes, because DEBT is DEBT and not REAL MONEY.

So if we tax Mr Rich he won't invest? Is that really what you're saying? You're implying the government should confiscate *everything* Mr Rich makes and make him get the same salary as Average Joe?
NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT.

And Mr Rich *WILL* invest anywhere that will make him money. The USA has, actually, very high taxes compared to many other countries. But their market is HUGE, and their population wealthy.

Or you could invest in, say, 0% tax Fantasyland, population 300. 3000. 3 million, even. Where will Mr. Rich make more money? in 400M USA or in 3M Fantasyland?

Slippery slope is nice for online arguments.
But, you know, in real life (for example, in courts), slippery slope is not allowed. Everything is judged in a case-by-case basis. With, you know, the "spirit of the law" (and not the literal text of it) and "common sense".

For a more graphic example: What makes the economy "move" more?

1 million Average Joes buying a six pack?
or
1 Rich CEO buying a $50K Rolex?

Consider how many people you need to produce 6 million cans of beer, distribute them across the country, put them in shelves, sell them, etc.
And how many people are involved in IMPORTING one watch from England and putting it in a shelve, and selling it?
Are there more walmarts, or boutique stores that sell Rolexes?

Again, as I said, Mr. Rich CEO will, most likely, invest his money. The bulk of that money just goes into the ridiculous "full circle" financial system that allows DEBT to be considered an ASSET.

Again, the point of my original comment still stands: Slashdot Libertarians are defending the ultra-rich, as if they have any remote chance of becoming that rich.

It's just amazing.

Hey dude, wake up... the day you'll be as rich as Buffet you'll be able to skew laws in your favor anyway. Don't worry about that.

I don't know what's up with people defending the likes of Warren Buffet or any other guy who got rich by pure financial speculation. I'm not a marxist, and I have some money in investment funds. I just don't believe people who are that disgustingly rich should be given any mercy when it comes to taxing. They have all sorts of schemes NOT to pay taxes (like, precisely what this article says: sending their money abroad).

Simple:
there are MILLIONS of each Average Joe for every Mr. Rich CEO out there. And, combined, they will SPEND more money.

Is that a difficult concept to grasp? Give Average Joe more money to spend, and HE WILL SPEND IT. And look! It will end up in Mr. Rich CEO's bank account anyway! Because he'll be selling more.

The rest of your comment is just stupid rambling I won't bother addressing, because you're so incredibly dense, obtuse and unwilling to accept any idea other than your own.

Nazis and commies experimented. NASA money put the experiments to good use.

And yes, car emissions will float from Montana to LA and cause smog, acid rain, etc. Just like now they're produced in China. And "float over" to the US.

Too many quotes to keep quoting you. Here are your answers:

1. People would choose "i dont want to pay no taxes and dont want no vaccines on my kids" and then complain the roads are bad, and private education is expensive.
2. GPS. (And before you go all fucking retarded and tell me "hurr durr nasa didn't invent this, the military did" let me ask you WHO DEVELOPED THE LAUNCH TECHNOLOGY FOR SATELLITES?)
3. Because air doesn't stay in one place. Are you fucking retarded?
4. Cars will be replaced anyway.

Here, my friends, is one of the /. libetarians I was talking about at my original post.

You're right. Cuba calls itself "socialist".

But for some reason it doesn't allow its citizens to access TV, Internet, or leave the country.

I see no difference with NK.

OK, I'll try to put this in simple terms and math for ya.

Let's assume you're making $1000/mo and you need $900 to live. If you pay a 10% tax, you're left with just $900, which means:
* barely affording enough to live, and most important:
* no money left for "consumption"

Which is bad, because that extra money is what drives tourism, hobbies, and all other sorts of activities you do to "enjoy your life". "Barely affording enough to live" is basically the same as communism.

Now let's take Mr. CEO making $1M/mo and needing $100K/mo to live. Take 10% off him and he still has $800K at the end of the month. Which he will, most likely, put in the bank (or stock market) for even more money (probably money they will loan to Average Joe who can't afford a new car).

You see: not everyone is equal. A wealthy person has *more* spending at the end of the month (bigger house, more power, employees), but still has money to spend. Barely Living Joe has much less spending, has to sacrifice a lot of luxuries. And yet, they both are paying "10% tax".

In other words: a flat tax "hurts" the poor much more than it hurts the rich.

A simple image to put it as an example: http://ctworkingmoms.com/wp-co...

Now, again, why do you want Average Joe to have more cash in hand at the end of the month? Because Average Joe is much more likely to *spend* that money, which drives the economy, rather that putting it in a bank.

Really? And it's never because Comcast either bought the competition OR pushed them out of business out of unfair competition?

Never ever ever?