US joining the Wendelstein 7-X fusion project

If solar panels and other "green" techologies keep getting cheaper at the current rate, I wonder whether there is any point in fusion research.

The objective of fusion research is to develop a power plant that, like the sun, derives energy from fusion of atomic nuclei.

...one of a total of nine projects in the Innovative Approaches to Fusion programme of the USA Department of Energy

If solar panels and other "green" techologies keep getting cheaper at the current rate, I wonder whether there is any point in fusion research.

hmmm if they can make a micro-version of this device, that would be really interesting

If solar panels and other "green" techologies keep getting cheaper at the current rate, I wonder whether there is any point in fusion research.

Think about areas of the planet where the sun doesn't shine so much.
Think about polar regions that don't see the sun at all for long stretches at a time.
Think about future subsurface settlements on land or in the oceans.
Think about space exploration...

Proton-boron fusion produces no neutrons, little gamma and both the fuel and byproducts are non-radioactive.

cheap clean energy might lead people to ask for more than foodstamps, our leaders will not allow such disruption to stability.

Do you have any idea of the scale of energy output that fusion energy potentially offers?

Also Galt's invention was not a perpetual motion machine

Your stupid comment implies that Galt was not a free man, that his genius was the property of society.

.....he invents a device that renders capitalism obsolete.

For Galt to have his capitalist Shangri,....

With free energy just about any economic system would work. I'm sure most have heard and many subscribe to the "utopias look great on paper" argument. Well this would be the "on paper" example.

Since we are talking about a work of fiction, after all, let's compare Atlas Shrugged to Star Trek. Does poverty exist in the Federation?

Money?

How about property? (Sure does.)

"the foundation of Darwinism (Mathusism)"

-I trust you will in the future be exhibiting more diligence in choosing and checking sources?

Come on, that was Roddenberry's socialistic vision!

If resources are effectively unlimited, why not give everyone what they want?

However, with free energy everyone would have equal access to wealth and everyone would have an essentially unlimited quality of life.

"the foundation of Darwinism (Mathusism)"

Well,,, in addition to demonstrating your inability to functionally analyze economics (many analysts are coming to the rational conclusion that a society's wealth exactly equals its expenditure of energy - eg. observe as oil available for import drops dramatically in near future) you're sure demonsrating you inability to understand evolution.

Frank has a point - the primary point of capitalism is the efficient use and distribution of resources. If resources are effectively unlimited, why not give everyone what they want?

That makes no sense as goods and services and demand and supply would still exist.

If I gave everyone on the planet one million dollars, it wouldn't make a ratzl-ass difference, but only to change the numerical value of th dollar.

If I gave everyone on the planet one million dollars, it wouldn't make a ratzl-ass difference, but only to change the numerical value of th dollar.

If I gave everyone on the planet one million dollars, it wouldn't make a ratzl-ass difference,

Although it would likely make the latter group effectively as poor as the former since the money isn't backed up by anything and we'd have a sudden burst of hyperinflation - rendering the savings of the 'not so poor' group worthless)

Give a man a machine that spits out fish every day forever for free and he'll eat forever, but teach a man to fish... wow that one really falls apart, doesn't it?

Goods and services take energy to produce and/or are stores of energy themselves. The most profitable corporations in the world are all oil companies. How do you think free energy would affect them and their shareholders?

Automation will continue to increase []. How does capitalism work when there is systemic majority unemployment? Not everyone can be a stock broker, doctor, soldier, or other conservative approved occupation.

Although it would likely make the latter group effectively as poor as the former since the money isn't backed up by anything and we'd have a sudden burst of hyperinflation - rendering the savings of the 'not so poor' group worthless)

Yes, that was the point of my post. It would make no relative difference.

This is your problem, you go from free-energy to free-everything-else without taking the necessary step in between, which is that people still must produce things of value.

However, with free energy everyone would have equal access to wealth and everyone would have an essentially unlimited quality of life.

An unlimited quality of life just isn't good enough. A Randite must also limit the quality of life of others for no other reason than a false sense of achievement.

This is your problem, you go from free-energy to free-everything-else without taking the necessary step in between, which is that people still must produce things of value.

The point is that with free energy you can effectively get 'free anything' - since everything can be reduced down to energy (or close enough so that it makes next to no difference). The entire concept of 'value' will vanish if you have enough energy to extract whatever materials you wish out of a 'handful of dirt'. It's all in there. Currently it's just not economically viable to get it out. But with an infinite/free energy source that no longer matters.

Oil at one time was already dirt cheap,

I'm not going to discuss "free-energy" anymore with you, because that was never Galts invention

you go from free-energy to free-everything-else without taking the necessary step in between, which is that people still must produce things of value.

Someone still has to sweep the floor.

As Mathus showed there can be no liberal PETA'esque utopia because people will ALWAYS compete for resources.

my point with giving everyone one million dollars or oil (no difference)

You're like the man who was against weaving-looms because he thought it would cause mass starvation, or the man who was against Ford because he thought it would put horse carriage makers out of work.

Products take energy to make yes , but you irrationally equate that cost to the ENTIRE value of the product

no I don't get my economics from talk radio, but it's clear to me you get your's from a borderline cartoon show; star-trek.

To prove this statement utterly absurd,... The energy cost of manufacturing a typical car is less than 10% the cost in energy used by that car during it's life. So, if energy were "free" it would not render the intrinsic value of the car zero.

You question my lack of economic sense, but base your argument on ideas from a fantasy tv show.

Oil at one time was already dirt cheap, and it didn't result in communism.

Rand, albeit rather ignorant of science at the time, never had Galt invent a free-energy device; (I explained above how it worked).

In anycase, since such a thing is not physically possible, it's not a logically legitimate premise for undermining Rands principals, nor capitalism. So things that can't exist can't have effects on things that do.

Now, you perport to solve this dilemma by invoking a magic device, so anyone can just print out, atom by atom anything they want. So now you are layering more false notions to defeat capitalism

ohhh but only it were possible to build things atom by atom

Note to self; never attend a star-trek convention.

In anycase, since such a thing is not physically possible, it's not a logically legitimate premise for undermining Rands principals, nor capitalism. So things that can't exist can't have effects on things that do.

Oh, so if Rand writes the impossible into her books, its my fault for pointing it out?

no I don't get my economics from talk radio, but it's clear to me you get your's from a borderline cartoon show; star-trek.
To prove this statement utterly absurd,... The energy cost of manufacturing a typical car is less than 10% the cost in energy used by that car during it's life. So, if energy were "free" it would not render the intrinsic value of the car zero.

What's the other 90%? Parts?

Where does the cost of the parts come from? Mining, refining, and manufacturing, all of which require great amounts of energy.

Labor?

But you have to realize that the march of technology is invariably steady and automation will most likely eliminate unskilled labor in our lifetime. Do you really think capitalism can function either with massive unemployment or a society entirely comprised of professionals? You said it yourself "someone has to sweep the floor [under capitalism]."

The USSR and China were/are not classless societies.

QED

Also, where's your evidence for the Laffer curve?

An old liberal is a sad thing.

That estimate comes from environmental tree-huggers even.

An honest liberal would not have falsely read into Galts work as free-energy, but merely a competitive energy source.

Note to self; never attend a star-trek convention.

You're like the man who was against weaving-looms because he thought it would cause mass starvation, or the man who was against Ford because he thought it would put horse carriage makers out of work.

As Mathus showed there can be no liberal PETA'esque utopia because people will ALWAYS compete for resources.

It's the left wing liberal and socialistic mentality that desires some fantasy child-like utopian society were no one ever suffers.

@Ethelred, Thanks for the drive by bucket of 1's.

An old liberal is a sad thing.

Hope you're at least having fun with the meaningless rating system though.

How many times have you otherized people, just in this topic Noumenon?

I bring order to chaos. The only good Republican is a dead Republican.- Vendicar_Decarian

"America is dying from it's own ignorance and it's it's massive corruption. This is a very good thing for the world." - Vendicar_Decarian

"I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar and therefore worthy of being skinned alive."- Vendicar_Decarian

Crap like that sort of RightWingNutRetainerClip nonsense gets a one every time I see it. I not a liberal but I am aware that Randites think anyone that is not equally delusional is a vile evil commie pinko fascist LIBERAL and that somehow liberal is the worst insult available.

It's the left wing liberal and socialistic mentality that desires some fantasy child-like utopian society were no one ever suffers. "Right-wingers" have the maturity to understand this is not possible, nor in accord with nature,.. that competition and survival of the fittest must be the driving force of societies. Darwin applied ideas from Malthus to nature. Socialism is ad-hoc and by definition counter to nature, while capitalism is in harmony with natural forces and instincts of man.

Somewhere in the middle we make do.

-- There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Frank misrepresents Rands book as meaning "free-energy",

but since this is a physical impossibility

(whether Rand meant that or not),..

it can't be used to undermine capitalism on a logical basis..

Just more semi-clever colourful word-salad, and sweeping generalizations designed to invoke vague impressions. The opposite of logic.

That's better than a "fairly specific reply"?!!

That quote is vacuous of meaningful content.

The opposite of logic.

I'm not getting into a link battle and won't read that one.

Where I'm I being illogical, specifically?

Ranting about the wonderousness of a FICTIONAL FANTASY LAND vs the horrors of a fictional tv series. That you can't see that as illogical is not a surprise.>>

and remarkably that's all there was on Atlas Shrugged!!!

it's likely that neither Ethelred nor Frank even read the book they hate so much.

The post immediately prior to your reply contains facts not opinions,

how does ultra cheap energy cause money to have no value and thus make capitalism obsolete?

Frank misrepresents Rands book as meaning "free-energy"

but since this is a physical impossibility (whether Rand meant that or not),.. it can't be used to undermine capitalism on a logical basis

Free-energy is irrelevant to the story, understand!?

Without the device the gulch would fall apart. Please explain to me without non-existent technology (magic) how Galt would keep the inhabitants of his gulch from being murdered by the poor? History is fairly clear on this

Ethelred, I could have programmer my computer to post the reply you just made

just more subjective argumentative vacuous non-sense. Zero facts, nor concrete objections.

The core point of Rands book is not fiction.

Capitalism and conservatism are existent realities access the globe.

Rand just used a literary device

The "gulch" is not a government, for the poor to come and attack

That is the point they stopped to send a message that economies cannot function without them.

Please explain to me without non-existent technology (magic) how Galt would keep the inhabitants of his gulch from being murdered by the poor? History is fairly clear on this

Further, neither one of you two knuckleheads are qualified to say anything about that book

nor could provide an objective reply against it as I requested a multitude of times.

PS I worked as a software developer for six years and have written technical articles for print

You are clearly delusional on economics and since you got your idiot ideas from the books that is ample evidence that the books are grossly incompetent on economics.

Further , I can not continue discussion with Ethelred

ignorant of the book,

if I had read the book, by the very act of disagreeing with it, Noumenon would have been convinced I had not read it. "How could anyone disagree with Rand actually having read her,"

and is arguing merely for sport,

and I must say pretty childish.

PS I worked as a software developer for six years

so more clueless child banter from you.

Can you be specific as I asked previously?

I commenting on Frank misrepresentation of Rand's book.

My personal opinion is she is idealistic

the fundamental principals are sound.

that is, if you were honest and understood at minimum Rands core point.

Further , I can not continue discussion with Ethelred

I understand it. It's crap.

Yes, Ethelred, Rand controlled both sides of the book

why when you ask MY opinion

I said she was idealistic.

which OBVIOUSLY are an existent, relevant and legitimate ideology,.

as contrasted with big government social engineering

She argues for the former as do I.

how does ultra cheap energy cause money to have no value and thus make capitalism obsolete?

Where did I say that? Nowhere. Really this is like arguing with Dogbert and Johanness. You try to make up both sides of the discussion. I tend to notice thing like that.>>

Please point out to me "once more" how it is that I lied or misrepresented Frank.

I see Ethelred is now arguing with each letter I post.

Frank for having never read a book he was in essence giving a review of.

This is fraud and yet IT never phased you Ethelred, hmmmm.

What about her ideas are crap Ethelred?

How, in what way,.. etc

I never said Atlas Shrugged actually happened as a historic fact Ethelred,

The core point of Rands book is not fiction.

I said capitalism and conservative principals are existent and legitimate ideas.

Egoism and individualism is what she propounded as not evil things, but entirely natural things.

Collectivism and ad-hoc social engineering are unnatural in comparison.

Capitalism simply operates according to this intrinsic survival mechanism and as a consequence is a powerful force.

Collectivism and ad-hoc social engineering are unnatural in comparison.

Lefties like Darwinism (as I do) but apply it when it's convenient.

In capitalisim there will ALWAYS be winners and loosers. Unfortunately in a system without a safety net the loosers will revolt, crime will rise to a point of anarchy.

Radicalism is the antithesis of conservatism.

Capitalisim will FAIL without a strong social safety net, unless we immediately jail all those who have lost their jobs.

In capitalisim there will ALWAYS be winners and loosers. Unfortunately in a system without a safety net the loosers will revolt, crime will rise to a point of anarchy.

There will never be 100% employment (businesses don't want that, the higher the employment rate the more they have to pay their workers). There will always be people who are physically, mentally, or otherwise unable to work.

By saying that this is not true you are saying that if you and your kids were starving that you would not steal a loaf of bread, you would just sit there and watch them die.

In my opinion, those who advocate against all social programs, who are against any program that helps the poor, and who believe that businesses can solve our problems NOT Forward, Multi-Step thinkers.

I meant to give j-n a five rather than a 4,... as he seems to be the only one (other than me obvoisly) posting actual content

.

I meant to give j-n a five rather than a 4,... as he seems to be the only one (other than me obvoisly) posting actual content

Like this you mean?

.

??

I meant to give j-n a five rather than a 4,... as he seems to be the only one (other than me obvoisly) posting actual content

Like this you mean?

.

??

The current deficit is several times higher than Bush's highest year,... and he did not even represent conservative ideals to well. Obama's stimulus plan is higher than all military spending in Iraq to date. These are facts.

I meant to give j-n a five rather than a 4,... as he seems to be the only one (other than me obvoisly) posting actual content

Like this you mean?

.

??

Hey, I gave him a 5 for that.

Just a guess, but, substituting a "." for whatever you posted that you would like to withdraw is pretty much the closest you can get to a delete during the 3 minute post-is-still-editable period...given that this board doesn't let you delete posts once you've hit "Submit".

The current deficit is several times higher than Bush's highest year,... and he did not even represent conservative ideals to well. Obama's stimulus plan is higher than all military spending in Iraq to date. These are facts.

Meh. Selective facts. The fact facts are more like this: the *economic* deficit occured under Bush, the fiscal deficit under Obama. But in essence Obama's fiscal deficit is merely putting numbers to Bushes. It's become an American cultural sickness called the Republicrat dance. And now, come August it threatens to engulf us all again, just like three years ago. Wow, has it been that long already? Seems like just yesterday...oh wait...

Reagan inherited a worse economy,

but by this time in his presidency he accepted responsibility and turned it around.

Reagan inherited a worse economy, but by this time in his presidency he accepted responsibility and turned it around. The bottom line is that you can only "blame Bush" for so long,... and that time is long over. Even if "it's Bushes fault", Obama's policies have been proven a failure.

Also by today's standards, I'm not even sure conservatives would consider Reagan conservative.

The current debate is that the government must stop spending our we will end up like Greece.

Greece isn't in deep doodoo just because it *spends*. It's in deep doodoo because is spends more than it takes in. So it can tackle the problem in TWO ways: cut spending or increase tax revenue, or a combination of both.

Greece isn't in deep doodoo just because it *spends*. It's in deep doodoo because is spends more than it takes in.

The Obama people actually want to spend more in a recession!

The republicans I think understand that taxes are needed (not income),

but NOT before a balance budget law is in place

Socialism does not work because the lower classes WILL just use the government

(i.e. as mentioned, fraud)

they are perfectly capable of earning a living

Like wise the upper class WILL use tax loop holes, so they need to be closed.

behavior can be predicted, in all classes.

This is why capitalism imo works so well*,

through social engineering

conservatives like me view certain societal imperfections to be unavoidable costs to freedom.

That the unemployment rate in normal economic circumstances runs around 5%,

shows remarkable success of the USA system.

Madoff went to jail, and many of the executives of Enron went to jail,.. they could only have went to jail if there was laws which were broken....

So neither of those examples are representative of capitalism

...one of a total of nine projects in the Innovative Approaches to Fusion programme of the USA Department of Energy

Why don't they publicize stuff like this? Afraid the luddites would see it as a waste of money instead of a good investment? I didn't think they had sense enough to look for alternative ways of achieving fusion power.

Bankers, and brokers are individuals acting on their clients behalf. They are doing what they have to do to make the greatest return on investment.

This was known in advance by the social engineers as it was predicable.

You can't give loans out to people who don't prove they can save.

Yes, some on the far left characterize Bush tax cuts as a COST.

If the gov spends too much the people expect tax cuts and or spending cuts, and vote accordingly

The current debate is that the government must stop spending our we will end up like Greece.

The Obama people actually want to spend more in a recession! The republicans I think understand that taxes are needed (not income),... but NOT before a balance budget law is in place and serious cuts are made.

Socialism does not work because the lower classes WILL just use the government (i.e. as mentioned, fraud) when they are perfectly capable of earning a living;

Like wise the upper class WILL use tax loop holes, so they need to be closed.

That the unemployment rate in normal economic circumstances runs around 5%, and in bad times around 9% shows remarkable success of the USA system.

I think the point is that if the laws weren't there and there was pure capitalism that they would not have gone to jail and would not have been punished for what our current society deems criminal. In a purely capitalist society they would have carried on without consequence.

The degenerate side of human nature is the reason pure capitalism (and most other pure -isms) can't work.

We will only end up like Greece if we don't raise the debt ceiling, and we arent doing that just so the republicans can LOOK impressive among the less informed of their constitiuents, while in fact not raising the debt ceiling is doing more harm than anything.

When rupert murdoch pays less in taxes than his management staff, or when branson complains his taxes are too low, you know something is WRONG with the tax system.

Socialism does not work because the lower classes WILL just use the government (i.e. as mentioned, fraud) when they are perfectly capable of earning a living;

I definetly agree that fraud can be a problem { }. I do disagree though that the whole system does not work because of this small problem. { } there are things that can be done to prevent fraud.

You also asume here that the lower classes don't want to move up, which is in direct contrast to what your (capatilasim) model says that everyone wants. Either this proves that capatilasim might not tell the full story "wrt egoisim and individualism in a free contry" or that the assumption that those in the lower income classes just want to use the system is wrong. You can't have both be right.

Like wise the upper class WILL use tax loop holes, so they need to be closed.

Why not close them up now? Why focus on punishing those who can't find work, while letting those who are suppoused to be "Creating Jobs" (the reason they got the big tax cuts) get away with tax fraud

I Personally think engaging in Fusion research should be a national priority that is well funded, along with other areas of green tech, this is CERTAINLY a way we could grow our economy.

I Personally think engaging in Fusion research should be a national priority that is well funded, along with other areas of green tech, this is CERTAINLY a way we could grow our economy.

I would even go so far as to say i'm all for a 'Manhattan' project for fusion.

The US debt problem has very little to do with our social programs and everything to do with our War and Tax programs.

If we would not {} give HUGE unneeded tax breaks to the most wealthly in our country we would be in a MUCH better economic position.

The real problem is that our current economic problems were created by the Republicans, inorder to dismantle social programs.

I already showed that Obama's stimulous spending (which didn't work) was several times all money spent in Iraq.

Ethelred, go find something shiny to play with. I mean Madoff and Enron represent capitalism to you?

The same human nature that exists in a Madoff exists in lower class fraudulently using the government,

neither are representative of a political philosophy as such.

We're speaking of principals

and you USE every circumstantial perversion of those principals

examples of failure of capitalism.

You invoke extremism (unregulated laissez-fate)

which I never mentioned.

You maintain a caricature of capitalists so you are at least as bias as I am.

Madoff went to jail, and many of the executives of Enron went to jail,

could only have went to jail if there was laws which were broken

an existent law means a regulation

So neither of those examples are representative of capitalism

except in much larger numbers

gov hand-outs can bankrupt nations

They represent capitalism unbound by law. Which is what Ann Rand was pushing. I got that from you as well as others. YOU said the Gulch had no government. Hard to have a legal system without one.

I already showed that Obama's stimulous spending (which didn't work) was several times all money spent in Iraq.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Stupid ideological thinking is what allowed Madoff and Goldman-Sacks the to get away fraud. Funny how you ignored Goldman-Sachs.

Philosophy is what some people do when there is no evidence or they are unaware that is is possible to find evidence. Or they don't give a damn about evidence.

Rand was not anti-government

unregulated capitalism

The feds REFUSED to even look at Enron. {} Regulation is NOT sending people to jail when its too late. It is making sure things don't get out of hand. They got of hand because the regulators didn't regulate.....They represented unregulated capitalism as espoused by the Radical Right AND Ann Rand.

I think the point is that if the laws weren't there and there was pure capitalism that they would not have gone to jail {} In a purely capitalist society they would have carried on without consequence.

The degenerate side of human nature is the reason pure capitalism (and most other pure -isms) can't work.

Why is this so hard for free market worshipers to understand?

Are that incapable of understanding? They represent capitalism unbound by law. Which is what Ann Rand was pushing. I got that from you as well as others. YOU said the Gulch had no government. Hard to have a legal system without one.

Laws are always defensive in nature.

Under your ideal, there would be no ears to appeal to, nearly deaf or otherwise.

There would be all sorts of free market ways for an independent analysis of Madoff.

Absurd ignorant illogical smelly non-sense to hold Madoff up as a poster boy of capitalism, when clearly the man didn't operate on capitalistic principals,... he neither was able to compete (thus the fraud) nor did he survive.

eventually breach some nearly deaf ears.

-->IN THE LONG RUN<--, a corporation which rips people off, or invest poorly will not last. People who obtain mortgages beyond their means, or refinance on speculation will fail as well. IN THE LONG RUN, more and more gov regulations and social engineering will only serve to dampen capitalism and so the economy.

Corporations existence is based on demand of their product. If there is no demand (because say people don't trust it or learned of rip-offs, or poor product, poor investment returns) the corporation collapses. It is self-regulating natural process of supply AND demand.

Finally you get it.

Further only in america can one have Internet service, computer, cell phone, flat panel, and still claim to be poor.

Some 40,000 people die every year in car crashes. Why isn't anyone doing anything to stop this!

Gawad, seat belts were in cars before the govt mandated them.
Govt always lags behind the market.

Gawad, seat belts were in cars before the govt mandated them.
Govt always lags behind the market.
The privately funded IIHS conducts more rigorous car safety tests than the govt and companies respond to the results. Why? Profit.

Madoff was not a capitalist and the Regulatory State failed spectacularly, again.

Some 40,000 people die every year in car crashes. Why isn't anyone doing anything to stop this!

If the fact that the USA is $14 trillion in debt

Gawad, seat belts were in cars before the govt mandated them.

that without govt coercion to force compliance, seat belts would not have existed.

The free market, if capable of correcting by it's self, WOULD

seatbelts would NOT have been standard equipment, [/q
Why not?

Okay so the Regulations failed on the count of Madoff. How would he have been stopped if the regulators and regulations did not exist?

Without the govt seal of approval that Madoff had, Madoff would have had to prove to investors he was trustworthy.

Why not?

J-n, your Regulatory State fails miserably to force ethical behavior.

Without the govt seal of approval that Madoff had, Madoff would have had to prove to investors he was trustworthy.

After all, there are thousands of regulations in the industry so how can anyone be a crook?

Just like people still drive drunk. The free market won't be able to correct these things, unfortunately, only regulations will.

what would stop companies from doing ANYTHING they wanted?

What seal of approval did he have? What governmental body approved of his actions?

Similarly the market forces that would prevent companies from lying, cheating, stealing from their customers are already in place, yet.. they still do it. Hence the regulations.

Customers, competition and courts.

Free markets ARE self regulating NOW.

You seem to confuse negative laws with positive regulations.

SEC by failing to act.

How do regulation stop lying?

Most people lie, intentionally or unintentionally when they fill out their tax forms.

That's what a Regulatory State wants, leverage.

Laws don't stop people from breaking the law. Enforcing the law many help. But if you have thousands of laws and regulations, how do you prioritize?

Show me where the US government profits from this "leverage".

. It does not matter weather a rule is positive or negative,

Ever hear of plea bargins?

Yes, it does.
'Progressives' use 'positive' law to engineer their utopian society. If you don't DO what the state wants, you break the 'positive' law.
Negative laws are designed to protect the individual's right to life, liberty and property. If you don't violate the rights of others, the state leaves you alone. See the difference?
I support the removal of 'positive' laws.

All you supporters of the Regulatory State seem to believe that without govt coercion to force compliance, seat belts would not have existed.

Either way they are rules that people are suppoused to abide by,

J-n, try to understand the difference between 'positive' laws and negative laws.

Why are they supposed to?

What is the motivation behind the law?

To enable legal plunder?

Additionally weather a law is followed or not does not determine if it should be in place or not.

People who make billions on the backs of semi-slave labor should have to pay quite a bit in taxes

Further only in america can one have Internet service, computer, cell phone, flat panel, and still claim to be poor.

None of those has to cost a lot of money, so you'll have to find better examples. CRTs can't even be found on the market any more fur Xist's sake.

If the fact that the USA is $14 trillion in debt

Is a DIRECT result of our military actions that we have preformed without regard to cost, most of them by Republicans.

To force behavior the state wants?

In J-n world, ALL laws are good and must be enthusiastically obeyed?

And when it fails, how many will spend the hundreds of dollars to repair?

Just because there is a law you disagree with does not mean you have the exclusive right to not follow it.

You control the democracy much more than you have control over capitalism, and businesses.

You vote every time you patronize a business and if you don't like the product or service, you can choose not to give them your money.

However, because of 'progressivism' govts grant special favors to some businesses which deprive you of your freedom to choose because competition is prohibited or limited.

You vote every time you patronize a business and if you don't like the product or service, you can choose not to give them your money.

If your trillion dollar business stops selling products, stops trying to earn your vote, how long will they be in business?

Factually vacuous non-sense. Military spending (which obviously is a necessity), is a small fraction of that sum. The interest alone to service that debt is half the military budget. As already mentioned Obama's nonmilitary spending is several times historic record. Try facts rather than liberal blather,

Still wondering why you don't actually respond to any of the questions i've raised.

so can be set aside to make the budget look like we're not spending the MAJORITY of our money on the Military.

You don't really pay attention to the computer industry do you?

They probally won't change their business practice because it does not matter, they've got your money. They'll still get business.

You might be able to argue they have a monopoly on the tablet pc and mp3 player markets, but I'm not certain this is true.

They have neither a monopoly on the operating system market nor the hardware market.

They have neither a monopoly on the operating system market nor the hardware market.

Niether did MS in the 90s but they were attacked by the govt.

Further only in america can one have Internet service, computer, cell phone, flat panel, and still claim to be poor.

None of those has to cost a lot of money, so you'll have to find better examples. CRTs can't even be found on the market any more fur Xist's sake.

http://www.nation...mcintyre

this doesn't make Apple immune from the same treatment. They just haven't yet behaved in so egregious a manner.

You might be able to argue they have a monopoly on the tablet pc and mp3 player markets, but I'm not certain this is true.

No, it's not true as not only are there many other tablet and mp3 player makers in the market, but Apple's products command a premium over the competition, which goes against the definition of a monopoly.

They simply have more appealing products (in certain market segments) and customers are willing to pay more for their products. They're no more a monopoly than say BMW is.

Apple's products command a premium over the competition, which goes against the definition of a monopoly.

Where is your data to support your fantasies?
I have asked many times for data to support your claims. Nothing has been provided.

There are many choices in the computer industry and new competition every day.

Ever hear of Angies List? Or the BBB? A bad reputation lasts quite a long time. So how will they be just fine?

Apple's OS is proprietary.

The real story of MS is they were attacked because they didn't lobby DC like the other computer companies.
"For many years before the lawsuit, Microsoft had virtually no Washington "presence."

I have asked many times for data to support your claims. Nothing has been provided.

In actual fact this is the FIRST time you've asked for clarification on this.

Don't sweat it J-n,

Complain all you want about cable companies, but they all have a monopoly granted by the local govts.

So J-n want to trust a govt agency, like the SEC to approve businesses?

If you are spending your money, YOU CHOOSE where to spend it.
Fools and their money are soon parted

Socalisim is one of co-operation, discussion, and free exchange if ideas, and searching for the truth.

Personally i don't want to have to do resarch to find out if the McDonalds i'm going to for lunch is a REAL McDonalds franchise, or just a knock-off.

"Rampant copying also has hampered Beijing's efforts to attract technology industries because businesspeople say companies are reluctant to do high-level research in China or bring in advanced designs for fear of theft."

I'd be MORE than happy to come find you and demonstrate this to you personally.

a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize common force to provide regularly for this defense."

If individuals can't steal, why can govts?

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Taxes...state theft...men with guns. Yadda, yadda. Heard it all before.

Why are you satisfied with legal plunder, aka socialism?

Why are you satisfied with legal plunder, aka socialism?

According to IPS, American CEOs make 263 times the average compensation for American workers, up from the 30 to 1 ratio in the 1970s.

I've always thought the plunder perputuated by most corporations on their workers and customers to be more of an issue than taxes.

you're the one who *works as a bureaucrat for the state government*, hypocrite.

CEO's are just figureheads, they do not generally produce product, increase sales,

CEO's are just figureheads, they do not generally produce product, increase sales,

It is required by LAW that emergency rooms MUST take ALL regardless of ability to pay.

These crimes of the states making are sending 83,000 people a year to federal prison.