And children in many parts of the world are subsistence farmers. You should definitely go and tell them they can't work in the fields anymore. (Of course, they'll probably just starve to death, but you can sleep soundly knowing that they didn't live to continue working in such conditions).
Sending children to school instead of having them help support the family is a not a result of regulation, but of the fact that we've become rich enough as a society that we can do better by our children than previous generations. You'll notice that the laws didn't come into effect until a huge boost in productivity took place (the industrial revolution).
That's also why well-meaning efforts by people such as yourself to interfere with child labor in many third-world countries often has such devastating results. It isn't a choice between factory work and happy-fun playtime at school for those children; it's a choice between factory work and other, less desirable forms of making money, like child prostitution.
The absolute worst conclusion you could have possibly drawn from the article.
Who says I came to my opinion from this one article?
in sectors with tbtf-companies
"Too Big To Fail" companies are the result of regulation, not a justification for them. The irony is that people who scream "more regulation!!" are getting exactly what they wanted.
After all, the only corporations who can afford to hire the legion of lawyers and accountants necessary to implement the thousands of new pages of government requirements are going to be corporations like JPM Chase and Bank of America.
And trust me, that's a feature to Chase and BoA, and not a bug. Sure, they pay a bit to generate all that useless paper work, but they make a lot more in the long run by removing competition.
Correct! What we're seeing now is the end result of everything the regulators have been working towards for decades: brittle banks with no accountability to anyone.
"But if you ranted on reddit about what a dumbass your boss is, and someone doxxed you for it to get you fired, is that okay?"
Define "okay". It's not wrong or immoral, if that's what you mean. I might not like it, but that's not the same thing as it being wrong.
The argument that we can't allow free speech ("doxxing") because it might impair free speech is a non-starter of an argument, unless you also believe in "banging for virginity" and "going to war to keep the peace".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Dont See Anything Wrong Here
For me, I guess your question boils down to: "Would you ever stop being friends with a person or stop doing business with a company that exposed the real identity of an anonymous writer?"
Sure, I can think of a few examples that might make me say "C'ya!" Exposing the identity of an anonymous poster of anti-government material, for example.
I think it's possible to believe something is a bad idea or to refuse to associate with people who do certain things, without thinking those things are immoral.
For example, I think all drugs should be legal, and I don't believe it's "immoral" to use drugs, but that doesn't mean I want to try any myself, or hang around with meth-heads all day.
Just because I find something offensive (wasabi-flavored ice cream, I'm looking at you) does not mean I also find it immoral. And yes, I'm aware that I'm definitely in the minority here. I'm okay with that.
We censor ourselves all the time so that we don't offend people in our lives. Just because you might think your boss is a dumbass doesn't mean you march into his office and call him out, for example.
That's not "prior restraint" or somesuch; it's simply the knowledge that people will judge you by how you act, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I define immorality as violence or threats of violence against people or their property, so from my perspective, the actions of everyone involved are both legal and not immoral. YMMV, of course. :)
The only thing going on here is free speech and voluntary association.
Creepy guy posting offensive pictures: Free speech.
People denouncing those pictures: Free speech.
Reporter outing the creepy guy: Free speech.
Denouncing the reporter: Free speech.
Deciding to remove links to the reporter: Voluntary association.
Denouncing the decision to remove the links: Free speech.
Deciding to fire the guy for being creepy: Voluntary association.
Denouncing the company for firing the guy: Free speech.
On and on it goes, and that's okay. This is how it's supposed to work. No violence, no government involvement. Just people talking and choosing who they want to associate with depending on their own personal values.
On the post: Why DC And Silicon Valley Don't Mix Well
Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Sending children to school instead of having them help support the family is a not a result of regulation, but of the fact that we've become rich enough as a society that we can do better by our children than previous generations. You'll notice that the laws didn't come into effect until a huge boost in productivity took place (the industrial revolution).
That's also why well-meaning efforts by people such as yourself to interfere with child labor in many third-world countries often has such devastating results. It isn't a choice between factory work and happy-fun playtime at school for those children; it's a choice between factory work and other, less desirable forms of making money, like child prostitution.
On the post: Why DC And Silicon Valley Don't Mix Well
Re: Re: FTFY
"Too Big To Fail" companies are the result of regulation, not a justification for them. The irony is that people who scream "more regulation!!" are getting exactly what they wanted.
After all, the only corporations who can afford to hire the legion of lawyers and accountants necessary to implement the thousands of new pages of government requirements are going to be corporations like JPM Chase and Bank of America.
And trust me, that's a feature to Chase and BoA, and not a bug. Sure, they pay a bit to generate all that useless paper work, but they make a lot more in the long run by removing competition.
On the post: Why DC And Silicon Valley Don't Mix Well
Re: Re: FTFY
On the post: Why DC And Silicon Valley Don't Mix Well
Re: Re: FTFY
Try again!
On the post: Why DC And Silicon Valley Don't Mix Well
FTFY
On the post: Australian Consumer Advocate CHOICE Encourages IP Spoofing To Get Better Prices
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Accounting: How A $19 Million Movie Makes $150 Million... And Still Isn't Profitable
Remember
I'm sure AJ will be here at any moment to explain the "but . . . but . . . PIRACY!" position in all of this.
On the post: Old Regulations Strike Again: Minnesota Says It's Against The Law To Offer Open Courseware Class Without Approval
Their Primary Function
On the post: Twitter Cuts Off Illegal Neo Nazi Group Account In Germany
Re:
If the German government doesn't censor unpopular opinions, they run the risk of slipping into a fascist dictatorship!
/sarc
On the post: Twitter Cuts Off Illegal Neo Nazi Group Account In Germany
Re: Yet you rail for years over taking down a baby dance video!
On the post: Nutella Nastygrams Restaurant Promoting Its Product, Opens The Door For Competitors
Re: You make the case every day against capitalist monopolies, Mike,
On the post: Nutella Nastygrams Restaurant Promoting Its Product, Opens The Door For Competitors
Re:
On the post: Nutella Nastygrams Restaurant Promoting Its Product, Opens The Door For Competitors
Fantastic Business Acumen There
On the post: Studio To Amazon Instant Video Customer: Thanks For The $$$. Enjoy Your Blank Screen.
Obvious Solution
(If for some reason you ever lose your copy, see Step #1.)
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: I Dont See Anything Wrong Here
Right.
"But if you ranted on reddit about what a dumbass your boss is, and someone doxxed you for it to get you fired, is that okay?"
Define "okay". It's not wrong or immoral, if that's what you mean. I might not like it, but that's not the same thing as it being wrong.
The argument that we can't allow free speech ("doxxing") because it might impair free speech is a non-starter of an argument, unless you also believe in "banging for virginity" and "going to war to keep the peace".
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Dont See Anything Wrong Here
Sure, I can think of a few examples that might make me say "C'ya!" Exposing the identity of an anonymous poster of anti-government material, for example.
Still not immoral, though.
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: I Dont See Anything Wrong Here
For example, I think all drugs should be legal, and I don't believe it's "immoral" to use drugs, but that doesn't mean I want to try any myself, or hang around with meth-heads all day.
Just because I find something offensive (wasabi-flavored ice cream, I'm looking at you) does not mean I also find it immoral. And yes, I'm aware that I'm definitely in the minority here. I'm okay with that.
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Re: I Dont See Anything Wrong Here
That's not "prior restraint" or somesuch; it's simply the knowledge that people will judge you by how you act, and there's nothing wrong with that.
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Re: I Dont See Anything Wrong Here
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
I Dont See Anything Wrong Here
Creepy guy posting offensive pictures: Free speech.
People denouncing those pictures: Free speech.
Reporter outing the creepy guy: Free speech.
Denouncing the reporter: Free speech.
Deciding to remove links to the reporter: Voluntary association.
Denouncing the decision to remove the links: Free speech.
Deciding to fire the guy for being creepy: Voluntary association.
Denouncing the company for firing the guy: Free speech.
On and on it goes, and that's okay. This is how it's supposed to work. No violence, no government involvement. Just people talking and choosing who they want to associate with depending on their own personal values.
Next >>