Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Something is wrong (Score -1) 303

by roman_mir (#43757735) Attached to: Bill Gates Regains the Position of World's Richest Person

The whole game is set up so that a few accumulate a lot that could otherwise be feeding the many.

- this entire story is of-course full of socialists envious (jealous) of more successful people, socialists that completely miss the entire point that wealthy individuals like Gates created that wealth, without them that wealth doesn't exist and it doesn't pay for anybody's food because it is not brought into existence in the first place.

Also this topic is filled with completely ignorant people that don't understand anything about economics, believing that money that Gates and other like him have money that is not in fact being used by the economy, as if it is outside of the economy. His money is being used productively, that's why he is able to grow it while donating huge amounts to charity.

Given the attitude of the mob in his place I would probably convert my money into gold or commodities, like oil or food and then shoot it into space with space rockets rather than donating it to anybody, it's immeasurable how sick and ignorant you all are.

Comment: Re:Buy American? (Score 2) 289

Gimme a break, man. Look at the Large Hadron Collider -- that could have been us, but we slashed the funding. A Nobel Prize?

Well David Jeffrey Wineland (USA, NIST) won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011 for laser cooling and manipulation of quantum states.

Brian Kobilka (USA, Stanford) and Robert Lefkowitz (USA, Duke) won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2012 for work on G protein-coupled receptors.

Some other recent USA winners of scientific Nobel prizes:

Saul Perlmutter, Physics, 2011
Brian P. Schmidt, Physics, 2011
Adam G. Riess, Physics, 2011
Ralph M. Steinman, Physiology or Medicine, 2011
Bruce Beutler, Physiology or Medicine, 2011
Richard F. Heck, Chemistry, 2010
Ei-ichi Negishi, Chemistry, 2010
Thomas A. Steitz, Chemistry, 2009

Comment: Abolish all patents and copyright (Score -1, Troll) 215

AFAIC all patents and copyright should be abolished on a general principle that government has no authority to protect or promote any business (or private protection scheme of any ideas or implementations) in the first place and all of a sudden the problem disappears. You want protection? It's your private business, use trade secrets and contracts.

It should be noticed that the decision in the story does not do that. You can patent your business idea or implementation, but it should be an idea or implementation that is not a pure math. So you can't patent a theorem on faster signal transformation but probably can patent business idea on using your faster formula to achieve a specific result.

Comment: Re:Buy American? (Score 1) 289

I think a lot of the better educated in the US are starting to look with interest at Europe's social protections.

Eurozone suffers its longest downturn ever as France sinks back into recession...The eurozone is in its longest recession since it was created, after GDP fell by 0.2% in the first three months of 2012...

Comment: Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages (Score 1) 289

Another person spouting nonsense about "free trade". It's not by definition, but according to simplistic theory. Furthermore, even that theory requires conditions that often aren't met (e.g. balanced trade). "Mutual benefit" means it benefits both countries in terms of their aggregate statistics

Free trade means two people decide to engage in a mutually beneficial economic transaction, so it benefits both parties. That's a fact.

Trade statistics don't matter. The US could run a trade deficit forever and become more wealthy because those trades ARE making the people in the country more wealthy, or else they would not be engaging in the trades.

Comment: Re:You have consented to large government (Score 1) 104

by roman_mir (#43735821) Attached to: Australian Government Initiates Covert Internet Censorship

The point that you're missing is that every time there was any resource contention, any conflict whatsoever, the larger, more organized group of people won out.

- I am not missing anything, the entire point of USA Constitution is to ensure that individuals are not treated by the government in that exact manner - where the federal government exercises its power to destroy any freedoms of individuals (and when we talk about State rights, we are not automatically giving authority to State governments, we are talking about individual rights).

The point (and which you're missing again) is that there's always a power center. If government is weak - whether it is by design, or because it is too local - it is overtaken by private power

- no, you are missing the point. With local decisions being made locally (and for all I care even your street shouldn't be forced into a scheme of government that it objects to) there is competition and thus you have huge number of choices, real choices that you can make as to how you prefer your locality to be governed if at all. I am not talking about restricting your ability to gang together with a bunch of likeminded neighbours and to come up with your own system of local government if you want one.

The problem with that ridiculous assertion is that the only people who think that way are those whose basic needs are fulfilled, aren't threatened by government overreach or warlord terror

- so you know all about all "those people" and you know all of their personal conditions. By the way, your personal conditions are not supposed to change the way a government treats you under law, whatever your personal circumstances are, you shouldn't be getting any special treatment. That's the only way to achieve a society that does not discriminate against people while creating the most diverse market, market where individuals are not obstructed from actually creating new wealth and are not punished for that either.

Holy crap. I had no idea that you could so completely misread Stalin.

- I didn't misread a thing. He was happy he could control people easier because to them very large numbers stop being personal and become abstract.

Of-course Stalin and every ruler like him and every government employee under him should be tried for every case of murder, every case of maiming, every case of destruction and confiscation of private property.

Millions upon millions of cases because these government kill, maim, steal from millions and millions of individuals. That's what is lost when people think of others as just of large numbers - the fact that they are individuals.

That's it. If something has the slightest negative effect on you, it is terrible, regardless of how much it helps others.

- millions of people were killed by Stalin's government. I don't know where you see positive effects in that, positive effects for the entire country in fact, that was robbed of the most incentivized, most individually entrepreneurial people.

Considering how badly you mangled the Stalin quote, I'm waiting for the entire paragraph in Mein Kampf where you got that quote from. In German.

- I am in Germany. I spend enough time here over the last 3 years that I can easily give you the necessary paragraphs, but will YOU be able to read them?

Der Foderalismus als Maske ...

Die Bedeutung der Einzelstaaten wird kunftig uberhaupt nicht mehr auf staats- und machtpolitischem Gebiet liegen; ich erblicke sie entweder auf stammesmassigem oder auf kulturpolitischem Gebiete. Allein selbst hier wird
Heer und Einzelstaaten die Zeit nivellierende wirken. Die Leichtigkeit des modernen Verkehrs schuttelt die Menschen derart durcheinander, dass langsam und stetig die Stammesgrenzen verwischt werden und so selbst das kulturelle Bild sich allmahlich auszugleichen beginnt. ....
Im ubrigen wird eine junge sieghafte Idee jede Fessel ablehnen mussen, die ihre Aktivitat im Vorwartstreiben ihrer Gedanken lahmen konnte.
Der Nationalsozialismus muss grundsatzlich das Recht in Anspruch nehmen, der gesamten deutschen Nation ohne Rucksicht auf bisherige bundesstaatliche Grenzen
seine Prinzipien aufzuzwingen und sie in seinen Ideen und Gedanken zu erziehen. So wie sich die Kirchen nicht gebunden und begrenzt fuhlen durch
politische Grenzen, ebensowenig die nationalsozialistische Idee durch einzelstaatliche Gebiete unseres Vaterlandes.
Die nationalsozialistische Lehre ist nicht die Dienerin der politischen Interessen einzelner Bundesstaaten, sondern soll dereinst die Herrin der deutschen Nation werden.
Sie hat das Leben eines Volkes zu bestimmen und neu zu ordnen und muss deshalb fur sich gebieterisch das Recht in Anspruchnehmen, uber Grenzen, die eine von uns abgelehnte Entwicklung zog, hinwegzugehen.
Je vollstandiger der Sieg ihrer Ideen wird, um so grosser mag dann die Freiheit im einzelnen sein, die sie im Innern bietet.

- now you see, that's a quote. What I did with Stalin's words was completely paraphrase them, but you can't understand the difference obviously.

BTW, that's chapter 10, mask of federalism (that's if you in at the deep end, you can find an English version fairly quickly, or do you want me to Google it for you?)

you think that at the core, liberty is a stronger need for humans than safety

- for individuals that's the case.

and you think that power structures are not part of human nature.

- wrong interpretation of my words.

What you call the evil central government is nothing but the formalization of what used to be ad-hoc power structures.

- wrong understanding of USA, of the Constitutional Republic.

You're arguing that individuals can't compare to the killings of today's central governments

- nobody can compare to the killings of central governments.

what you're missing is that until the emergence of nationalism and the nation-state, individuals WERE the central government.

- no, they were not central governments by any definition.

In other words, the vast majority of genocides, wars and misdeeds going on in the world until about 1800 were done at the command of individuals sitting atop a pyramid whose order was enforced through violence.

- yes, individual FREEDOM is a new idea, economy based on non-intervening government is a new idea. Idea that individuals are better at trying, failing but building an economy without central government is a new idea.

Your ideas are as old as the world, ideas of freedom are very young, they are going to become more prevalent I think than your old ideas.

Comment: Re:You have consented to large government (Score 2, Interesting) 104

by roman_mir (#43734055) Attached to: Australian Government Initiates Covert Internet Censorship

there hasn't been a single group of people operating without a central government that has made a mark on history.

- I see, so what you are looking for is an empire, you can't just have people living without being oppressed by an empire because you are looking for "historic marks". Well, that's your idea - there should be 'historic marks' and the human cost is irrelevant.

But we know of historic marks, Stalin was historically remarkable. So was Lenin. Hitler. Mao. Pol Pot. Nixon. Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy. FDR. Hoover. Teddy Roosevelt. Bush the first. Clinton. W. Obama. Genghis Khan. Alexander. many more, I do not consider them to be good for people as a general principle though they left their marks alright.

OTOH I consider people like Martin van Buren to be historically significant because they did NOT leave marks like that and instead allowed the PEOPLE to live their lives in a much freer society because of much smaller government intrusion. He was for complete separation of government from banking, from money, from business in general and he did not sell out for more power. He strengthened peace with the British instead of pursuing war.

Warren Harding would be another case, he was the POTUS when USA went through its first Federal reserve inflated bubble crash that cause a depression. He did not do anything and instead cut government spending by 70% and the problem dissipated in 1.5 years.

(you still haven't defined where central government stops and local government starts, by the way)

- good question. As with everything there are grey areas here, but at the least with local governments you know the people that are elected, they live in your town probably and they do their business in the town, they are responsible to people in the town. I suppose the real difference is proximity to power, the more central the power is the further away you are from it, the more abstract it is, the more institutionalised it is, the less you can have direct influence on the outcomes for your locality. Ideally there is enough competition that you can choose to live in a town with central government or in a town where there is no government of any kind at all and all decisions are completely on individual and business levels.

the ones with a larger or more effective central governments always won out.

- you find this to be desirable, I do not.

the largest and most successful nations/organizations in history were marked by highly effective, pervasive and very large central governments.

- I disagree with your definition of the word 'successful'.

AFAIC any system that destroys individual rights is unsuccessful by definition. What is the success for an individual in that scenario? Ability to steal from a minority by using a huge institutionalised authority that has enough apparatus at hand that crashing an individual is not even an afterthought, I disagree that this is even remotely a success story.

Just for fun, show me nation-wide numbers.

I will do better. Stalin said something I agree with: when a person is killed people see it as a tragedy. When millions are killed, that's just statistics.

Governments are the biggest criminals and harbour the biggest criminals in history of humanity. Every government that started a war for power and resources and egos are criminal by definition. In the eyes of history the only difference between war criminals and heroes is who lives to tell the story.

I don't need to talk about hundreds of millions killed by central governments over the millennia, how about Iraq to make this simple? What local government, what private institution or individual can boast up to a million people dead over 10 years of murder and destruction?

Did you know that in Mein Kampf, Hitler specifically argued that the State power must be diminished for the explicit purpose of increasing central federal power? Same was the directive in USSR, all power concentrated at the top.

Empires and emperors love power and they won't share it with anybody, especially with the people. When you argue the case for stronger federal power you are arguing the case against people and for the criminals.

Many are called, few volunteer.

Working...