|
Is Bill Gates a Greedy Bastard?
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:47 PM | Message # 346 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
"By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the United States. The state of Ohio successfully sued Standard, compelling the dissolution of the trust in 1892. But Standard only separated off Standard Oil of Ohio and kept control of it. Eventually, the state of New Jersey changed its incorporation laws to allow a company to hold shares in other companies in any state. So, in 1899, the Standard Oil Trust, based at 26 Broadway in New York, was legally reborn as a holding company, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (SOCNJ), which held stock in 41 other companies, which controlled other companies, which in turn controlled yet other companies. This conglomerate was seen by the public as all-pervasive, controlled by a select group of directors, and completely unaccountable." From Wikipedia/Standard_Oil
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:47 PM | Message # 347 |
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
Quote (J-Breakz) I know, and I'm saying that in your logic we shouldn't even be allowed to use libertarianism in a political sense because it was never used in a political sense in the first place. It was used in a philosophical sense. DUDE !! thats the freaking thing i am trying to say the term libertarianism in a political sense was coined by people of the left anarchist tradition your kind latter adopted in the 1970. Capitalists are shouldn't even be allowed to use term libertarianism . The real libertarians are the libertarian socialists .
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:47 PM | Message # 348 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (Menace) DUDE !! thats the freaking thing i am trying to say the term libertarianism in a political sense was coined by people of the left anarchist tradition your kind latter adopted in the 1970. Capitalists are shouldn't even be allowed to use term libertarianism . The real libertarians are the libertarian socialists
WOW, you really don't understand what I'm trying to say. Names and parties always change and adapt as time progresses. The U.S. Democrats used to be a lot different from what they are today, same with the Republicans. So it's natural libertarianism can adapt, as a matter of fact we're not the only ones that use libertarians to describe being pro-free market: Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand, Great Britian, etc. There's more but I would think it's safe to say most countries accept libertarianism in a political sense to be about pro-capitalism. However, that isn't the point, what you don't understand what I'm TRYING to say is that using your logic we SHOULDN"T even be allowed to use libertarianism in a political sense because it's first use was never meant to describe any political stance. Therefore the real libertarians are the metaphysical libertarians.Added (07/Dec/09, 3:20 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Quote (eboyd) Quit with the appeals to authority. If Proudhon was in favor of a magic donkey king it wouldn't make a difference. The words of a man are of no consequence. I'm sure I could pick out political ideas that Proudhon, Kropotkin, Tucker, Bakunin, Goldman, etc., promoted that I disagreed with. I am bound to no authority with the way I think. What is said in this debate is all that matters.
...huh?
livin life like some cheesy movie
Message edited by J-Breakz - Monday, 07/Dec/09, 3:18 PM
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:47 PM | Message # 349 |
|
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
Quote (J-Breakz) WOW, you really don't understand what I'm trying to say. Names and parties always change and adapt as time progresses. The U.S. Democrats used to be a lot different from what they are today, same with the Republicans. So it's natural libertarianism can adapt, as a matter of fact we're not the only ones that use libertarians to describe being pro-free market: Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand, Great Britian, etc. There's more but I would think it's safe to say most countries accept libertarianism in a political sense to be about pro-capitalism. However, that isn't the point, what you don't understand what I'm TRYING to say is that using your logic we SHOULDN"T even be allowed to use libertarianism in a political sense because it's first use was never meant to describe any political stance. Therefore the real libertarians are the metaphysical libertarians. I don't care the term libertarian in a political sense was used by us and its attributed to us . If you capitalists stole in the 1970's its your deal but in EUROPE at least the term libertyarian was always used in conjuncture whit socialist .
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:47 PM | Message # 350 |
|
Watchers
|
I thought you were trying to use Proudhon to say what we should agree with. My bad.
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:47 PM | Message # 351 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (Menace) I don't care the term libertarian in a political sense was used by us and its attributed to us . If you capitalists stole in the 1970's its your deal but in EUROPE at least the term libertyarian was always used in conjuncture whit socialist .
What do you mean you don't care? You stole it from philosophers, it's attributed to philosophers! Added (07/Dec/09, 4:35 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Quote (eboyd) Now, back to Standard. After some research, I have found that all of the companies that you mentioned that had knocked Standard out of it's monopolistic position that it held, eventually coming to it's peak at 90% of the market share in 1880, had elevated to the position they held for various reasons. First of all, Standard had been bound in legal problems since 1879, the year before it hit it's peak, so it already needed to begin being a bit more careful about it's business practices, which, in effect, made them lose some grounding. By 1890, though past their prime, still well ahead of the pack and, technically speaking, in a position of monopoly, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed. While only moderately successful until the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, and otherwise known as a failure in the eyes of the American public, it did at least knock Standard out of a monopolistic position, forcing them to start the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, a company that never held a share of the market that even came close to Standard of Ohio. This is exactly what would be expected with moderate regulation. Companies such as Texaco, Gulf and Sun were hardly bigger than local companies until 1901, 11 years after the Sherman Antitrust Act and, not at all coincidentally, the same year oil was found in Texas. If the oil hadn't been found in Texas, Standard may have held a much higher share by their 1911 break up. As for Shell and Chevron, Shell didn't exist until the early 1900's and Chevron is a direct descendant of Standard, so both of those are moot points. And btw, Gulf and Texaco were actually born in 1901. There are a handful of companies, including Sun, that predated 1901, one of which was started in 1882, but they were all small companies until 1901, hardly competitors for Standard at the time.
Alright, I'm getting bored of arguing this. So I'm just gonna try to end it. The reason why Standard Oil became successful was because rockefeller was a very hard working man: "Rockefeller was unquestionably an able, hands-on businessperson. He oversaw every step of the production process in the early years. Chernow writes that "he was often seen at Kingsbury Run at 6:30 A.M., going into the cooper shop to roll out barrels, stack hoops, or cart out shavings, reflecting the thrift inculcated by his mother and his puritanical religious upbringing" (p. 79). He made small improvements to cut waste. For example, he hired chemists to increase the kerosene yield per barrel of oil. He also tried to make use of the by-products of oil, selling benzine, paraffin, and petroleum jelly, and at one point drawing up plans to convert sulfuric acid into fertilizer (p. 100). Rockefeller found that he could obtain better barrels, and at lower prices, by having Standard Oil produce them. Standard Oil could then make them for less than a dollar per barrel, down from $2.50 from external barrel suppliers p. (100). " He was able to secure large loans not because of some evil scheme or whatever. But because banks trusted him:
"Local bankers trusted Rockefeller because of his strict adherence to Baptist morality, honest presentations of his business predicament, and outstanding credit history (p. 105)."
Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. by Ron Chernow (That's coming from a book that tried to make Rockefeller look like an evil person.) Quote (eboyd) prices for kerosene had fallen from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time of the trial. At the time when Standard Oil company was at its peak was when Kerosene prices was at it's LOWEST. The price of Kerosene was higher before and after. If Standard Oil was some evil monopolistic dictatorship wannabe type of corporation wouldn't it make sense for Kerosene to be unfairly high? But why would Standard Oil even have their prices high when there are 147 competitors not counting the foreign firms? Are we still arguing that he used predatory pricing? I have shown historical evidence that if he did truly attempt predatory pricing than it was easily combated. If we're still arguing it though then you have to show me proof that prices had an upward spike.
livin life like some cheesy movie
Message edited by J-Breakz - Monday, 07/Dec/09, 4:53 PM
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:48 PM | Message # 352 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
there weren't any other big corporations outside of Standard until 1901, when the Sherman Antitrust Act had long since taken a big chunk out of their share of the market (though it was still in the 80% range) AND the Texas oil had already been discovered. today, with these laws still in tact, plus additional anti-monopolistic laws, the most wealthy company in the world, Standard Oil descendant ExxonMobil, has a mere 3% market share in the oil industry. yes, there was less oil that was known at the time, but that is a big fucking difference. why are you ok with Rockefeller being a multi-billionaire? while he was one of the world's greatest philanthropists as well (probably out of guilt, to make himself look good, and just plainly because he didn't know what else to do with his money), he still had millions, possibly even billions that he spent for his own reasons. that is at the expense of thousands, possibly millions of Americans and others around the world who had to live in the streets, impoverished, with no food or shelter, that often died of pneumonia at a young age, and a very large percentage of them were children. if Standard was instead run cooperatively, he would have still lived in the $300,000 per year range, which is PLENTY, he would have owned a corporation that would have inherently been giving back to the community, it's lower wage workers would have been making substantially more or had more benefits, possibly even both, and everyone would be happy. such greed is unwarranted. no one needs to make millions, especially at the expense of the lives of others around the world. and btw, i am not denying Rockefeller of his absolute genius for business. any good historian will tell you the man was the most brilliant businessman in the history of the world. however, there are two sides to the story. i have already, numerous times in this thread, laid out the terrible things that Standard Oil did to gain it's empire and you have ignored every one.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:48 PM | Message # 353 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Greed posing as philanthropy
Tony Gosling
John D Rockefeller began as a humble oil business book-keeper in Cleveland, Ohio and in just seven years rose to control a tenth of the entire US oil business. In the late 19th century the oil industry was a free-for-all, the law of the jungle ruled. Rockefeller used this 'individual freedom' to pursue several extremely successful and deceitful tactics to accumulate capital. He would secretly buy up or create new oil related companies such as engineering and pipeline firms. These seemed to be independent operators. Rockefeller and his close colleagues secretly controlled the firms and gave Standard Oil, Rockefeller's main oil company, hidden rebates. Another tactic was to buy up a competing oil company, again secretly. Officials from this company could then be used very effectively to spy on, and give advanced warning of, deals being hatched by his real competitors. Almost certainly the most lucrative secret deals done by Rockefeller and his partners were with the railroads. These 'in harmony' deals meant those refineries and oil traders not 'in harmony' with standard would find that railroads would refuse point blank to move their oil, whatever the price. Oil, of course, is free at source, so once the investment in refining and extraction plant has been made the only really important cost was transportation. Rockefeller's secret railroad rebates on the transportation of his oil kept his competitors guessing for years. None of them could understand how he kept pump prices so low. They were all bemused that Standard Oil had being growing at such a rate. How he managed to persuade the railroads to give him rebates and keep the deals secret is still not clear. Allun Nevins has produced an official biography¹ of the Rockefeller empire but even he cannot help but question its morality. Of a railroad contract signed on 17 October 1877 he says, "The commission was excessive for the services performed. It was ethically indefensible." "Today," he says, "we must condemn the misuse of power not only as a crushing blow to the company's competitors but as an indirect tax on the public." At judicial enquiries such as the Hepburn Committee, which delivered its report on January 22nd 1880, Standard Oil representatives and those 'in harmony' were tight lipped. They often refused to attend court hearings and regularly disputed its validity. They would give disdainful, condecending replies to the examiners which spoke of an seeming immunity to the rule of law. The committee decided that "Standard Oil violated... social justice" in its monopolistic deals with the railroads. Standard Oil had its own intelligence and espionage service. Rockefeller saw that a little knowledge can be decisive in the business world so he combined this good supply of information on his competitors with a total wall of silence he himself presented to the outside world. 'No comment' was all that journalists came to expect from the Standard offices. But what about the man himself? Old film of John Rockefeller shows him moving in a curiously stiff and wooden fashion, expressionless. He proffessed to being a Baptist and went to church regularly, but did he enjoy it? Anthony Sampson in his book 'The Seven Sisters' quotes John Rockefeller as having a favourite maxim; 'Don't let good fellowship get the least hold of you'. Jerome Greene called him, "the most unemotional man I have ever known". One shadowy deal that Standard Oil of California (or SOCAL) struck back in the 1930's changed the face of urban America for ever. The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Phillips Petroleum Co., Mack Truck and General Motors collaborated on a project with SOCAL called National City Lines. The tram systems in the urban US were suffering from under-investment and often crippling debt repayments so National City Lines stepped in across the States to liberate the populous from their cheap and cheerful old 'streetcar' systems. They were replaced with motor buses or they were gradually closed down completely. The demand for motor cars soared returning massive profits for all involved in the deal. By 1940 General Motors alone had been responsible for the disposal of more than 100 urban streetcar operations. In the late forties the consortium was found guilty by the federal grand jury under anti-trust (anti-competitive) legislation but the $5,000 fine was laughable. It did not even amount to the annual profit returned from the conversion of a single streetcar. National City Lines sold the dream of the bus and the car to businessmen and politicians right across the continent. In Detroit, even the chairman of the rapid transit company declared the car as the 'magic carpet of transportation for all mankind'. Mayor LeGuardia in NYC said the car represented the best of modern civilisation, whereas the tram was simply an old-fashioned obstacle to progress. So where are the Rockefellers now? The current head of the family is David Rockefeller, Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank and prime mover in the secret 'Bilderberg' and 'Trilateral Commission' elite groups. His personal secretary, Alice Victor, was one of the only woman present at the 1996 covert Bilderberg meeting just outside Montreal. Amongst the 120 or so most were Peter Job, Chief executive of Reuters, James D Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada and representatives from most of the boards of US and European Banks. Press coverage of these conferences of the super-powerful is virtually nil. The entire meeting is 'off the record' for the mere likes of you or I. They may have moved the core of their interests from Oil to Banking and branched out considerably but the Rockefeller family have not given up the fascination of clandestine operations to keep their business empire beating at the heart of the capitalist machine. Quote (J-Breakz) At the time when Standard Oil company was at its peak was when Kerosene prices was at it's LOWEST. The price of Kerosene was higher before and after. If Standard Oil was some evil monopolistic dictatorship wannabe type of corporation wouldn't it make sense for Kerosene to be unfairly high? But why would Standard Oil even have their prices high when there are 147 competitors not counting the foreign firms? Are we still arguing that he used predatory pricing? I have shown historical evidence that if he did truly attempt predatory pricing than it was easily combated. If we're still arguing it though then you have to show me proof that prices had an upward spike. i'll try to find some reference to it, but does it even matter? they were knocking out up-and-coming businesses left and right using dirty tactics. that alone is bad enough. and we wouldn't have been able to stop them from raising prices anways if there was no sort of regulation going on. answer this for me though: do you think a society needs rules/laws to function correctly (ie: to prevent the small minority of people prone to certain heinous crimes like serial killers from killing people)?
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:48 PM | Message # 354 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
http://realhiphop4ever.ucoz.com/forum/12-3559-90247-16-1260227448
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:48 PM | Message # 355 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) there weren't any other big corporations outside of Standard until 1901, when the Sherman Antitrust Act had long since taken a big chunk out of their share of the market (though it was still in the 80% range) AND the Texas oil had already been discovered. today, with these laws still in tact, plus additional anti-monopolistic laws, the most wealthy company in the world, Standard Oil descendant ExxonMobil, has a mere 3% market share in the oil industry. yes, there was less oil that was known at the time, but that is a big fucking difference.
Why are you okay with the government forcing the price of Kerosene to rise? Quote (eboyd) why are you ok with Rockefeller being a multi-billionaire? while he was one of the world's greatest philanthropists as well (probably out of guilt, to make himself look good, and just plainly because he didn't know what else to do with his money), he still had millions, possibly even billions that he spent for his own reasons. that is at the expense of thousands, possibly millions of Americans and others around the world who had to live in the streets, impoverished, with no food or shelter, that often died of pneumonia at a young age, and a very large percentage of them were children. if Standard was instead run cooperatively, he would have still lived in the $300,000 per year range, which is PLENTY, he would have owned a corporation that would have inherently been giving back to the community, it's lower wage workers would have been making substantially more or had more benefits, possibly even both, and everyone would be happy. such greed is unwarranted. no one needs to make millions, especially at the expense of the lives of others around the world. Quote (eboyd) and btw, i am not denying Rockefeller of his absolute genius for business. any good historian will tell you the man was the most brilliant businessman in the history of the world. however, there are two sides to the story. i have already, numerous times in this thread, laid out the terrible things that Standard Oil did to gain it's empire and you have ignored every one.
What do you mean I ignored your arguments? I have gave you my opinion on the methods that you view as terrible even though they help provide the cheapest product available. Added (07/Dec/09, 6:27 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
In fact it's you that have seemed to ignore what I stated about them! Added (07/Dec/09, 6:37 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Quote (eboyd) Greed posing as philanthropy Tony Gosling John D Rockefeller began as a humble oil business book-keeper in Cleveland, Ohio and in just seven years rose to control a tenth of the entire US oil business. In the late 19th century the oil industry was a free-for-all, the law of the jungle ruled. Rockefeller used this 'individual freedom' to pursue several extremely successful and deceitful tactics to accumulate capital. He would secretly buy up or create new oil related companies such as engineering and pipeline firms. These seemed to be independent operators. Rockefeller and his close colleagues secretly controlled the firms and gave Standard Oil, Rockefeller's main oil company, hidden rebates. Another tactic was to buy up a competing oil company, again secretly. Officials from this company could then be used very effectively to spy on, and give advanced warning of, deals being hatched by his real competitors. Almost certainly the most lucrative secret deals done by Rockefeller and his partners were with the railroads. These 'in harmony' deals meant those refineries and oil traders not 'in harmony' with standard would find that railroads would refuse point blank to move their oil, whatever the price. Oil, of course, is free at source, so once the investment in refining and extraction plant has been made the only really important cost was transportation. Rockefeller's secret railroad rebates on the transportation of his oil kept his competitors guessing for years. None of them could understand how he kept pump prices so low. They were all bemused that Standard Oil had being growing at such a rate. How he managed to persuade the railroads to give him rebates and keep the deals secret is still not clear. Allun Nevins has produced an official biography¹ of the Rockefeller empire but even he cannot help but question its morality. Of a railroad contract signed on 17 October 1877 he says, "The commission was excessive for the services performed. It was ethically indefensible." "Today," he says, "we must condemn the misuse of power not only as a crushing blow to the company's competitors but as an indirect tax on the public." At judicial enquiries such as the Hepburn Committee, which delivered its report on January 22nd 1880, Standard Oil representatives and those 'in harmony' were tight lipped. They often refused to attend court hearings and regularly disputed its validity. They would give disdainful, condecending replies to the examiners which spoke of an seeming immunity to the rule of law. The committee decided that "Standard Oil violated... social justice" in its monopolistic deals with the railroads. Standard Oil had its own intelligence and espionage service. Rockefeller saw that a little knowledge can be decisive in the business world so he combined this good supply of information on his competitors with a total wall of silence he himself presented to the outside world. 'No comment' was all that journalists came to expect from the Standard offices. But what about the man himself? Old film of John Rockefeller shows him moving in a curiously stiff and wooden fashion, expressionless. He proffessed to being a Baptist and went to church regularly, but did he enjoy it? Anthony Sampson in his book 'The Seven Sisters' quotes John Rockefeller as having a favourite maxim; 'Don't let good fellowship get the least hold of you'. Jerome Greene called him, "the most unemotional man I have ever known". One shadowy deal that Standard Oil of California (or SOCAL) struck back in the 1930's changed the face of urban America for ever. The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Phillips Petroleum Co., Mack Truck and General Motors collaborated on a project with SOCAL called National City Lines. The tram systems in the urban US were suffering from under-investment and often crippling debt repayments so National City Lines stepped in across the States to liberate the populous from their cheap and cheerful old 'streetcar' systems. They were replaced with motor buses or they were gradually closed down completely. The demand for motor cars soared returning massive profits for all involved in the deal. By 1940 General Motors alone had been responsible for the disposal of more than 100 urban streetcar operations. In the late forties the consortium was found guilty by the federal grand jury under anti-trust (anti-competitive) legislation but the $5,000 fine was laughable. It did not even amount to the annual profit returned from the conversion of a single streetcar. National City Lines sold the dream of the bus and the car to businessmen and politicians right across the continent. In Detroit, even the chairman of the rapid transit company declared the car as the 'magic carpet of transportation for all mankind'. Mayor LeGuardia in NYC said the car represented the best of modern civilisation, whereas the tram was simply an old-fashioned obstacle to progress. So where are the Rockefellers now? The current head of the family is David Rockefeller, Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank and prime mover in the secret 'Bilderberg' and 'Trilateral Commission' elite groups. His personal secretary, Alice Victor, was one of the only woman present at the 1996 covert Bilderberg meeting just outside Montreal. Amongst the 120 or so most were Peter Job, Chief executive of Reuters, James D Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada and representatives from most of the boards of US and European Banks. Press coverage of these conferences of the super-powerful is virtually nil. The entire meeting is 'off the record' for the mere likes of you or I. They may have moved the core of their interests from Oil to Banking and branched out considerably but the Rockefeller family have not given up the fascination of clandestine operations to keep their business empire beating at the heart of the capitalist machine. Quote (eboyd) i'll try to find some reference to it, but does it even matter? they were knocking out up-and-coming businesses left and right using dirty tactics. that alone is bad enough. and we wouldn't have been able to stop them from raising prices anways if there was no sort of regulation going on.
What dirty tactics? Every dirty tactics you've presented I've explained to you how it isn't really dirty and you stopped arguing me about it. And yes, proof of an upward spike would matter because that's what the whole idea of predatory pricing is. If he kept that low of a price then I would think that it's because the Standard Oil processes are efficient to the point where Rockefeller can still make a profit from lowering prices to the way he did. And if businesses died out because of it, so what? They failed to have a business plan as efficient as Rockefeller's and in the end the consumers benefit the most. And yes you would be able to stop Standard oil from raising prices without any regulation, because other companies would provide the product at a lower price. It doesn't matter how big an oil company is, they're still at the mercy of the demands of the consumer. Added (07/Dec/09, 6:45 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
And frankly, who are you to tell someone what they can and cannot do?? How much they can and cannot make?? Added (07/Dec/09, 6:52 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Quote (eboyd) do you think a society needs rules/laws to function correctly (ie: to prevent the small minority of people prone to certain heinous crimes like serial killers from killing people)?
livin life like some cheesy movie
Message edited by J-Breakz - Monday, 07/Dec/09, 7:35 PM
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:48 PM | Message # 356 |
|
Watchers
|
This does have to do with laissez fare economics. I'm making a point. I also will talk about what you just posted other than that later. I'm doing a test right now lol. Just answer the question. It doesn't matter. Do we or do we not need laws/rules/regulations to protect society from criminals?
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:48 PM | Message # 357 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) I'm doing a test right now lol.
Good luck on your final. I got finals in a couple weeks too and I am nerrrrvous. Quote (eboyd) Do we or do we not need laws/rules/regulations to protect society from criminals?
I think that's an individual's opinion for themselves and I don't have a right to say a whole society does. If they feel the need to have themselves protected from a threat of someone harming them physically then they can settle an agreement with a private defense agency. However, "individuals minding their own business pose little threat to neighboring regions, official or ideological justification by those neighbors for attacking them is also proportionately diminished." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency Regulations would involve a statist institution so I don't think we need regulations. Added (07/Dec/09, 9:40 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
And I read the "Greed posing as philanthropy" article. What a horribly biased piece of work claiming an act that raised the standard of living to be a bad thing. What's your point in showing it?
livin life like some cheesy movie
Message edited by J-Breakz - Monday, 07/Dec/09, 9:28 PM
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:49 PM | Message # 358 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) Regulations would involve a statist institution so I don't think we need regulations. What?????? How so????!?!?! The society could also be cooperatively policed by the individuals that it is composed of.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:49 PM | Message # 359 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) What?????? How so????!?!?!
Are you talking about like business regulations? But whatever, you understand what my stance would be on that.Quote (eboyd) The society could also be cooperatively policed by the individuals that it is composed of.
I guess, I'm not sure how efficient that would be however.
livin life like some cheesy movie
Message edited by J-Breakz - Monday, 07/Dec/09, 9:50 PM
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:49 PM | Message # 360 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
And btw, what about people who don't know that someone is doing something criminal to them? Like if someone is defrauded and their identity is stolen. What will be in place to prevent that?
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
