Intel are not in powerand cannot coerce us into doing anything. They can only bribe us.
You know I'm in proper argument mode when I start using 'cannot' instead of 'can't'
I approve of laws that prevent coercion. I presume you admit the possibility of other laws being stupid. Are you in favour of copyright laws?
I think the distance between voting to be governed by some body (which, in the case of the EU, or indeed government in general, we were never offered an option on), and the resulting laws that body imposes, is very large. And if you and everybody else join together, you can walk all over me: such is the nature of voting. (Voting for a government, I mean. If we're voting on something where participation in the thing is optional, e.g. what sandwiches to take a picnic, you can still walk all over me, but that's fine, because I can always say 'I don't like your stupid picnic anyway, I'm staying at home'. This is not the case in an election.)
(,
Thu 14 May 2009, 15:44,
archived)
You know I'm in proper argument mode when I start using 'cannot' instead of 'can't'
I approve of laws that prevent coercion. I presume you admit the possibility of other laws being stupid. Are you in favour of copyright laws?
I think the distance between voting to be governed by some body (which, in the case of the EU, or indeed government in general, we were never offered an option on), and the resulting laws that body imposes, is very large. And if you and everybody else join together, you can walk all over me: such is the nature of voting. (Voting for a government, I mean. If we're voting on something where participation in the thing is optional, e.g. what sandwiches to take a picnic, you can still walk all over me, but that's fine, because I can always say 'I don't like your stupid picnic anyway, I'm staying at home'. This is not the case in an election.)
I wrote "it is bad for YOU if a company in a dominant position abuses that position".Whereas you (I think) don't think those actions are bad for you, and don't think they should (if you were to write the law) be categorised as "abuses".
If that's right, let's leave it there.
I, too, approve of laws that prevent coercion. I also approve of some other laws that prevent other things. Yes, some laws are stupid. I have no opinion I wish to express here about copyright laws. I agree that voting for a government is highly imperfect, and it's frankly amazing that it works as well as it does.
(If that's right, let's leave it there.
I, too, approve of laws that prevent coercion. I also approve of some other laws that prevent other things. Yes, some laws are stupid. I have no opinion I wish to express here about copyright laws. I agree that voting for a government is highly imperfect, and it's frankly amazing that it works as well as it does.
Bee Nice |-|,
Thu 14 May 2009, 16:09,
archived)
Well, yesthe important points being that trade is entirely based on consent, and that diverse practices create knowledge [something about Hayek and information flow goes here].
I was going to mention something about early American railroad monopolies collapsing naturally, but I can't find where I read that now, and only get pages which give the impression that competition laws were responsible.
Anyway, that was an enjoyable internet argument, argument buddy. I am a bit fatigued now and want a cup of tea.
(,
Thu 14 May 2009, 16:19,
archived)
I was going to mention something about early American railroad monopolies collapsing naturally, but I can't find where I read that now, and only get pages which give the impression that competition laws were responsible.
Anyway, that was an enjoyable internet argument, argument buddy. I am a bit fatigued now and want a cup of tea.