"But I feel MUCH better with that power in the hands of my government, than with a private citizen." What magic keeps someone in government from becoming corrupt or greedy for power? NOTHING. It was the government that bailed out the bankers. End crony capitalism by shrinking the government.

mod++

I'm in China (on business) and even my cab driver was on the phone. This would be the US one up-ing China

I don't see how you equate the Civil Rights laws with NN, please clarify.

A quick search revealed that at least one embedded Linux vendor offers this too without per-phone royalties:

"Meanwhile, MontaVista added that it protects its customers from technical and legal risks through warranties on all editions of MontaVista Linux and indemnification against claims involving the code it creates and delivers."

Just more FUD IMHO

Dang, I got an email just the other day saying I won this contest, but I threw it out because it was in all caps!

or you could get the netflix and just watch them once for $10*12 = 120, plus you can stream a boatload of stuff from them too (though you have to return the disks after you watch them :-) )

Is this just the latest application of the Golden Rule? He who has the gold makes the rules...

Heh I work in open-source all day. A good flaming is good for my thick skin.

I think setting rules to keep competition healthy is great, particularly with companies that incorporate. They exist under the law for the benefit of the state in exchange for protection under that same law.

IMHO this is a conflict of interest because they _ARE_ rule setters. They can always change the rules to their benefit.

No choice, you have to regulate natural monopolies. I guess the difficulty here is defining what a natural monopoly is, I think you are talking about utilities and the like.

"Oh god please, not this crap again" sorry I should have not introduced this tangent. "By the way, when you say that "capitalism should be constrained by the competition", do you imply that government has the obligation to step in and ensure competitive market, even if that means direct intervention?" heh, well there is the slippery slope. what do you see as "direct intervention"? Government take over, public option, etc no. Stopping companies from becoming "to big to fail" yes. Stopping "monopoly capitalism" yes.

Couple of things :-) 1. We are a republic not a democracy. Mob-rule would suck IMHO 2. I'm not advocating replacing the government with anarchy and capitalism, I'm saying they must work together. Letting one overwhelm the other would be bad, very bad. Government should be constrained with checks and balances, and capitalism should be constrained by competition.

I think you miss-understand me. I'm not advocating a system of only voting with one's money. I agree that we must go into the polling place an make choices about policy (how can deciding between McD's and BK make any difference in influencing the current war?) I'm saying, in the marketplace when we vote with our dollars we are causing real change. Day-to-day decisions are based on our desires and abilities. Yes we could want more and be jealous of others who have more, but we still purchase what is right for us at that time. When the market is manipulated then choice is removed and our dollar vote is void.

In both of your examples you have shown how capitalism and representative governments must work together to ensure a best-case outcome. I don't disagree with you that we need the government, I'm just saying that the "dollar vote" moves many of the mundane choices into the hands of the individuals who are best able to make the decision for themselves.

In the case that someone damages something of yours you ask to have them repair it (i.e. you sue them). Then the damage to your property is reflected in the cost of their product (because all costs are added to the cost of the product). Then the consumers of that product can choose to buy another company's products that were environmentally responsible. It is common practice today to "call out" companies that do socially unacceptable things and have consumers "vote" for another's product.