Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition

[Steve Ballmer]

I don't know no McOck, and I can't think of any reason anybody would even say that...

[Machinesworking]

They haven't banned you for bigotry yet, so why would they ban him?

Because he opened a racist thread, claiming black people have lower IQ, etc. I guess it is for that he was banned, Or even for trolling, maybe.

Right, and every time you're challenged by someone from the USA you immediately start in with the provincialism and bigotry, even if the subject is DAWs. You're a bigot, period.

[stringtapper]

I don't know no McOck, and I can't think of any reason anybody would even say that...

Dear Pepe, forgive me, are you calling policies that directly lead to teenage delinquency "progress"?

The point is not that we should "lie on the ground", but rather that we should be aware of the fact that nothing ever goes entirely as planned; and the more complex the system we try to influence, the more unpredicatble the outcome. The point is to advocate caution. The point is to debunk the implied or even ouvert interventionist notion that you can control human behavior as easily as you can enact laws.

But without the government, they can have no legal power, and no legal privilege. True monopolies can only exist by government mandate. You're asking people to not want special privileges, I'm asking that people not be able to obtain them. You're asking to change human nature, I'm asking to reform a legal system. Both goals are probably impossible, but mine is less impossible than yours.

You've just been Steved.

You've just been McCocked.

[Steve Ballmer]

Riiiiiiight, two guys have the same opinion, THEY MUST BE THE SAME PERSON.

I'm Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates's evil alter ego.

[stringtapper]

Riiiiiiight, "two guys" who joined the forum ten days apart have the same opinion and the second one doesn't show up until the first one has been banned, THEY MUST BE POTATO.

fixed

[Steve Ballmer]

My first post was months ago. YOU ARE HIGH (potato).

[stringtapper]

Kryptonian months?

Try 21 days ago.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=195155

Funken also hates youtube videos that can be displayed on mobile devices.
And Windows

And what may I ask is wrong with Windows?

You're experiencing symptoms of excessive MULTURBATION©.

[Steve Ballmer]

Kryptonian months?

Try 21 days ago.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=195155

Funken also hates youtube videos that can be displayed on mobile devices.
And Windows

And what may I ask is wrong with Windows?

You're experiencing symptoms of excessive MULTURBATION©.

Over two weeks before McOck's latest post (is he even banned?!). I swear, I have no idea where you're getting this.

[Machinesworking]

You've just been Steved.

This is on topic and worth responding to.

But without the government, they can have no legal power, and no legal privilege.

Hmm? this is where it gets muddy, this first sentence. A corporation is going to have to have some basic rules of operation.
The problem is IMO that corporations evolved along the same time frame the democracy did, and hedged their bets, made up the rules of engagement based on democratic principals. They had the money to influence the opinions of the people and the ruling class. So what we have now is supposed monopoly laws that are never enforced. <-- IE even not considering corporate welfare, there is an unfair skating of the law done by corporations to this day.

True monopolies can only exist by government mandate.

Honestly this seems mostly backwards to me, monopolies can only exist without government mandate. IE if there is no law stating that monopolies cannot exist, then they will. You can argue that some will disappear if not handed government loans and welfare, but without monopoly laws the free market would of course allow for monopolies. So in effect it seems as if you're advocating more intervention on the creation of monopolies and less intervention on the bankruptcy of existing monopolies. So far there are monopoly laws that are not enforced, and corporate welfare that's not even really a law, but just given. So it's pretty much an open mafia scenario..

You're asking people to not want special privileges, I'm asking that people not be able to obtain them. You're asking to change human nature, I'm asking to reform a legal system. Both goals are probably impossible, but mine is less impossible than yours.

Well, considering that the current laws aren't being obeyed, why would a smaller less intrusive government be able to effectively enforce the laws it still is supposed to enforce? This is my essential issue with small government libertarian ideology, that it like communist/socialist ideology asks for a leap of faith.

Communists: A beneficial big government will relinquish power when the people are taught the ways of socialism.

Libertarians: A small lightly funded government will prevent monopolies and allow business to be completely beholden to the market/people.

It seems to me both ideologies are inherently flawed, in that they both overlook the natural world. Groups of people whether they are called "governments" or "corporations", succumb to the lowest common denominator in human nature, greed and lust for power.

[Forge.]

[ This is more or less your first post in the thread ?

apart from starting it?

EDIT: oh it looks like others already made that connection

[Steve Ballmer]

[myrnova]

... come on... whoaa... come on... i... hhhmm... cough... love... this... hhhmmm phew... company

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

Four words: He.Could.Be.Cocky

[Steve Ballmer]

@Machinesworking

This discussion is pointless unless we can both agree on the parameters. Looking back at the initial posts in this thread, the topic as started by a now absentee McOck appears to be interventionism versus interventionism as competing ideologies, with "chaos" as a the primary talking point. On the other hand, your string of points focuses nearly entirely on the alleged problem of monopolies in a libertarian state, only brielfy dipping into communist lore in order to provide a comparison between the viability of both systems.

Good so far?

Ok, so in that case, can we agree to focus on monopolies, irrespective of political environment, as the main talking point of our discussion?

If so, I'd like to begin addressing your points by first asking you a very simple question: why do you view monopolies as something bad?

[nathannn]

why do you view monopolies as something bad?

You are really asking some one to waste their time by asking them to respond to this.
The answer you will get to this ridiculous question is the same answer you have already heard through out your life and is the same answer you would get just by asking yourself the question and then using common sense. The only types of people I could ever see not thinking monopolies are bad are people who can be defined as socio/psychopaths.

[Steve Ballmer]

why do you view monopolies as something bad?

You are really asking some one to waste their time by asking them to respond to this.
The answer you will get to this ridiculous question is the same answer you have already heard through out your life and is the same answer you would get just by asking yourself the question and then using common sense. The only types of people I could ever see not thinking monopolies are bad are people who can be defined as socio/psychopaths.

I am asking Machinesworking to answer this, not you, for reasons I don't expect you to grasp at this point. Congratulations on wasting your time.