[quote]lixy wrote:
A business corporation is inherently evil. It exists for the sole purpose of making money, often at the expense of human life or dignity, the environment, society, etc. As a juristic person, it enjoys the rights of a human being without the responsibilities, biological aging, etc.
So yes, when the little guy is up against a corporation, I will side with the underdog. If nothing else, to protect the working stiff from the sharks, investors and other speculators who have their money working for them.[/quote]
There is more ignorance in this little post than I know what to do with.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
A business corporation is inherently evil. It exists for the sole purpose of making money, often at the expense of human life or dignity, the environment, society, etc. As a juristic person, it enjoys the rights of a human being without the responsibilities, biological aging, etc.
So yes, when the little guy is up against a corporation, I will side with the underdog. If nothing else, to protect the working stiff from the sharks, investors and other speculators who have their money working for them.
There is more ignorance in this little post than I know what to do with.[/quote]
Lixy is a pretty well-educated Muslim. Imagine the views of those that DIDN’T have his opportunities. No wonder they attack their liberators in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It may be that Islam is some sort of solipsism, which traps the participant in a thought-web.
Although we moved a lot in Germany and I visited quite a few schools, I never saw that drivel in any schoolbook.
If you actually travel to other countries, you’ll see that most people find similar aspects of globalization irritating and unfair. Maybe demagogues do exploit this here more often in Germany, but there is still some merit as to the question how to distribute the riches in a fair manner. And even if it’s only to keep them all still…
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Maybe demagogues do exploit this here more often in Germany, but there is still some merit as to the question how to distribute the riches in a fair manner.
[/quote]
Who’s ‘riches’ are being ‘distributed’? Someone had to produce the riches before a government can steal them and distribute to the ‘more deserving’?
Why are they more deserving? Because they vote for the Socialist (aka thieving) state? Because those who produce nothing have a moral claim on those who DO produce?
If you’re thinking is mainstream, you’re setting yourself up for National Socialism. Will you never learn??
Spare your exclamation marks, you don’t seem to understand.
I’m not a fan of socialism, never been, you should know that by now.
But think over this: Do you believe it will end well if the middle class gets thinner and thinner while more and more guys are getting a salary thousand times bigger then average joe?
I did’t say it’s definitely gonna happen that way or that I have a particular opinion how to divide or steal their money.
It’s more like: prepare yourself that your grandchildren will talk like lixy and later march like lixy.
And once again @original post:
I side here with free economy, fixed book pricing is a mistake and will hurt the smaller bookstores in the end (like it already does in Germany, where we have got that nonsense)
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Spare your exclamation marks, you don’t seem to understand.
I’m not a fan of socialism, never been, you should know that by now.
But think over this: Do you believe it will end well if the middle class gets thinner and thinner while more and more guys are getting a salary thousand times bigger then average joe?
I did’t say it’s definitely gonna happen that way or that I have a particular opinion how to divide or steal their money.
It’s more like: prepare yourself that your grandchildren will talk like lixy and later march like lixy.
And once again @original post:
I side here with free economy, fixed book pricing is a mistake and will hurt the smaller bookstores in the end (like it already does in Germany, where we have got that nonsense)[/quote]
In America, we call this ‘Having your cake and wanting to eat it too.’ In other words, you want the results without the men who made results possible.
In a free economy, it is nearly impossible to hold a monopoly. Look what Toyota did to the US auto industry. Look at Bill Gates getting filthy rich from a middle class existence. The middle class disappears BECAUSE of government. Government ruins the middle classes, as one historical example after another shows.
You can’t be in favor of a government spreading the wealth (which was not theirs to spread) and have the bookstores you desire. The government must eventually confiscate the store owner’s wealth, to distribute his wealth to the ‘poor and deserving’. They deserve it because they didn’t want to be bothered to work or produce.
Why would an American company have to listen to these guys? If they want to try and bully an American company they should just say fuck them. Cut them off and see how long it is before they come begging you to come back.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Why would an American company have to listen to these guys? If they want to try and bully an American company they should just say fuck them. Cut them off and see how long it is before they come begging you to come back.
[quote]krayon wrote:
John S. wrote:
Why would an American company have to listen to these guys? If they want to try and bully an American company they should just say fuck them. Cut them off and see how long it is before they come begging you to come back.
I don’t think they’ll beg for books.[/quote]
The french love there books.
Amazon does do more then books, if Amazon said fuck you to them and didn’t allow a damn thing on there site to go there, there would be begging.
[quote]lixy wrote:
How’s what the French Booksellers’ Union did (or rather, are trying to do) to Amazor any different than what Washington did to Antigua?
[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
How’s what the French Booksellers’ Union did (or rather, are trying to do) to Amazor any different than what Washington did to Antigua?
Wait, the union isn’t the government…
Bloody hypocrites!
Who know what Washington did to Antigua. [/quote]
Washington is yet to abide by the ruling…
Not quite. The French Booksellers’ Union is not the French government.
But let’s hear from BB on the Carribeans and US sovereignty before going any further. If he doesn’t condemn Washington’s actions in that case, he can hardly criticize a union for trying to protect its turf.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Lixy is a pretty well-educated Muslim. Imagine the views of those that DIDN’T have his opportunities. No wonder they attack their liberators in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It may be that Islam is some sort of solipsism, which traps the participant in a thought-web. [/quote]
Since when is Islam opposed to corporations or social inequalities? And where do you come off comparing solipsism to a monotheistic religion?
To the rest of you who consider corporations inherently good, and who do not default to the side of the underdog, please motivate what in my post is “ignorant”, “stupid”, “bullshit” or “idiotic” (did I miss any?).
Meanwhile, I’ll let you ponder Robert Reich’s words: “Corporations are not engaged in a diabolical plot, […] Companies are not interested in the public good. It is not their responsibility to be good.”
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Lixy is a pretty well-educated Muslim. Imagine the views of those that DIDN’T have his opportunities. No wonder they attack their liberators in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It may be that Islam is some sort of solipsism, which traps the participant in a thought-web.
Since when is Islam opposed to corporations or social inequalities? And where do you come off comparing solipsism to a monotheistic religion?
To the rest of you who consider corporations inherently good, and who do not default to the side of the underdog, please motivate what in my post is “ignorant”, “stupid”, “bullshit” or “idiotic” (did I miss any?).
Meanwhile, I’ll let you ponder Robert Reich’s words: “Corporations are not engaged in a diabolical plot, […] Companies are not interested in the public good. It is not their responsibility to be good.”[/quote]
You’re making our point: corporations exist to make money, not to do public works. We have found that letting people pursue their own selfish interests actually benefits everyone the most.
We enact laws so that people/corporations must pursue their own RATIONAL selfishness and may not harm others, such as polluting neighboring property and such, or polluting public lands, and so forth.
Until Muslim countries have policies in place to allow each person to pursue their own good, they ask for their own backwardness and ignorance. There is no ‘collective’ good, only the good of individuals.
lixy wrote:
How’s what the French Booksellers’ Union did (or rather, are trying to do) to Amazor any different than what Washington did to Antigua?
Wait, the union isn’t the government…
Bloody hypocrites!
orion wrote:
Who know what Washington did to Antigua.
lixy wrote:
Washington is yet to abide by the ruling…
orion wrote:
If its the same it is also wrong, so what?
lixy wrote:
Not quite. The French Booksellers’ Union is not the French government.
But let’s hear from BB on the Carribeans and US sovereignty before going any further. If he doesn’t condemn Washington’s actions in that case, he can hardly criticize a union for trying to protect its turf.[/quote]
You’re trying to compare apples to oranges lixy.
On the one hand, you have economic protectionism - the French law is essentially a price-support law. We have those too - see our ridiculous sugar laws.
On the other hand, you have the banning of a certain type of activity all together - internet gambling.
The U.S. law banning internet gambling isn’t protectionism, because U.S. companies are also banned from offering internet gambling in this manner.
Now, one can argue that the U.S. is wrong jurisdictionally to try to enforce its criminal law against internet sites not hosted in the U.S. - though in this case I believe they arrested the guy when he came to the U.S. for his ongoing violations for offering the gambling “in the U.S.” But that’s not the same thing as a simple price support law - and it’s arguable that the WTO even has jurisdiction over this type of issue.
So, you can argue the merits of the internet-gambling case on its own, but it’s hardly hypocritical to draw a distinction between the two.
Meanwhile, I’ll let you ponder Robert Reich’s words: “Corporations are not engaged in a diabolical plot, […] Companies are not interested in the public good. It is not their responsibility to be good.”[/quote]
Great quote. This should be copied and given to all the CEOs who waste shareholder money - without shareholder consent - on various causes to make the CEOs feel good or to get their names in the media.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
How’s what the French Booksellers’ Union did (or rather, are trying to do) to Amazor any different than what Washington did to Antigua?
Wait, the union isn’t the government…
Bloody hypocrites!
orion wrote:
Who know what Washington did to Antigua.
lixy wrote:
Washington is yet to abide by the ruling…
orion wrote:
If its the same it is also wrong, so what?
lixy wrote:
Not quite. The French Booksellers’ Union is not the French government.
But let’s hear from BB on the Carribeans and US sovereignty before going any further. If he doesn’t condemn Washington’s actions in that case, he can hardly criticize a union for trying to protect its turf.
You’re trying to compare apples to oranges lixy.
On the one hand, you have economic protectionism - the French law is essentially a price-support law. We have those too - see our ridiculous sugar laws.
On the other hand, you have the banning of a certain type of activity all together - internet gambling.
The U.S. law banning internet gambling isn’t protectionism, because U.S. companies are also banned from offering internet gambling in this manner.
Now, one can argue that the U.S. is wrong jurisdictionally to try to enforce its criminal law against internet sites not hosted in the U.S. - though in this case I believe they arrested the guy when he came to the U.S. for his ongoing violations for offering the gambling “in the U.S.” But that’s not the same thing as a simple price support law - and it’s arguable that the WTO even has jurisdiction over this type of issue.
So, you can argue the merits of the internet-gambling case on its own, but it’s hardly hypocritical to draw a distinction between the two.[/quote]
I beg to differ. To me, they’re related issues. A law is a law. Be it an interdiction to slash prices below a certain level, or a ban on certain harmless activities.
This is kinda similar to oil companies bitching about Chavez’s reforms. They wave their hands, curse and moan, but come back begging for a piece of the cake no matter what. The case of Amazon raising hell over the ruling is no different. At the end of the day, they’ll still be there to pocket French Euros.
This is kinda similar to oil companies bitching about Chavez’s reforms. They wave their hands, curse and moan, but come back begging for a piece of the cake no matter what. The case of Amazon raising hell over the ruling is no different. At the end of the day, they’ll still be there to pocket French Euros.[/quote]
…
Uh, I don’t understand your position here. In the end Amazon will still be raking in the dough. It’s Amazon’s French customers that are punished. Why do you hate French bibliophiles? Why do you want to force them to pay more, when someone offers them a break?