Quote:
Original post by thedevdan
Quote:
probably the vast majority of people have pirated. should we have draconian law written arbitarily by the elite against the majority?
You can't just throw around stuff like that. First of all, you have no idea who has pirated. Second, assuming most people have, is it fair to punish those who haven't? Under what moral grounds is it fair to do so?
Generally speaking, it is unlawful to walk around with loaded weapons and point them at people's heads: even though
most people wouldn't actually kill anyone. Under what moral grounds is it fair to 'punish' those who don't plan to shoot people in the head by prohibiting them from pointing loaded weapons at others?
Quote:
Quote:
Instead what I'm doing is trying to be pragmatic. The developers and publishers are worried about piracy - i am. Their concerns are valid. It doesnt mean their response is.
If there response isn't valid, let them pay, not everyone else.
Ah. So, the developers and publishers should pay? A good plan.
Quote:
Quote:
people should be wary when you propose outlawing a mass activity. It just seems cold and facist.
If, in a society, rape and murder is common, does that make it right? Would I be fascist if I beleived they should be illegal? Do you beleive what is right and wrong is dictated by the whim of the majority?
He only say that
people should be wary. Mass activities shouldn't
usually be unlawful. When they are, something is wrong. Whether it is a fault with society (as would be the case if rape or murder was common) or with the law (as, IMO, is the case with piracy) deserves investigation.
Quote:
The purpose of government is just the opposite: protect the minority from the majority.
The purpose of government is
also to protect the majority from the minority.
Quote:
Quote:
more nonsense. the internet has developed capitalistic hapazardly in regions were there is already a semblance of telecoms network - like britain. But in many of europes developing provinces like estonia and others government intervention in the infrastructure has really enhanced things.
In every backwards country like those, businesses either are banned from putting in place infastructure, too heavily taxed and regulated, or do not want to invest in something that big that they know the government will take from them and nationalize.
Backward country. I like that. I suppose you can prove that Estonia has not benefitted from government intervention. I suppose you can prove that if Estonia nationalises a private industry, the government doesn't reimburse its former owners.
I note that Estonia has higher GDP growth, lower unemployment, less people at minimum wage, higher industrial growth, and a two hundred times lower national debt than the United States.
Quote:
Quote:
he state can provide the direction for others to follow - otherwise you get people randomly pulling in all sorts of directions leading to an inefficient use of resources. this is why socialistic approaches are more efficient in practice - nevermind what the ivory tower economists think as they mathematically masterbate on the blackboard.
Never mind what years of history have taught us. Never mind what America has taight us. Never mind what China has taught us.
As much as it pains me, I have to agree with thedevdan. Planned economies
do not work. No man is smart enough to predict how an economy will behave. You
need redundancy, but a planned economy sees redundancy as inefficient, and so works to eliminate it.
The only system that gives everyone the equal right to live their life is socialism, but the only system that actually works is capitalism. The only fair system is a hybrid.
Quote:
Never min what Europe's decaying economy has taught us.
Europe is, on the whole, not socialist.
Quote:
Quote:
At some points it is amusing to point out despite the properganda clung by some so tightly - the real truth is:
capitalists deal in fantasy, socialists deal in reality.
OK, where in history has socialism showed itself to be better than capitalism? Keep in mind the US, Europe, and China.
Define 'better'. In the UK, if I have a life-threatening illness, I can get treatment via public healthcare even if I can't afford it. I think that's 'better' than private healthcare.
