31–35 of 35 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a moot compliant. You can always buy a rootable android phone, or a Firefox phone. This is like complaining that your newspaper already has ink on it stating someone else's opinion. If you want it to be blank, buy a pad from an art store.
...and sell the applications you write to whom? And how?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly! I've read a lot of posts recently claiming the 'free-market' is the problem. Well, I can't think of many countries in the world who have a currency not owned by the state, a banking system entirely independent of the state, a country with a real, none-fiat currency, a country with minimum to no forms of tax etc. It just isn't the case, and it's not heading that way by and means either. I'm not sure where peo…
Exactly! I've read a lot of posts recently claiming the 'free-market' is the problem. Yeah, it's a symptom of the kind of elitism that modern day "leftish wing" / "liberal" types (as opposed to classical liberals) are infected with, where they believe that if only we'd let them micro-manage every little detail of society, the economy, culture, etc., then we could live in a "perfect" world where everyone is uniformly…
What baffles me the most if when they refer to what we have now, in the west as a 'free-market'. What we have is the end product of the social-democrat era of conflating big business and big government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can always buy a rootable android phone, or a Firefox phone. The relevant party is not "you," it's the typical consumer. They can't just buy a rootable phone and root it because they don't know what it would gain them. The opportunity to exploit this (very understandable and reasonable) gap in their knowledge falls, as it always seems to, with the people who own the means of production. > This is like complaini…
Ah, so this has nothing to do with owning your own phone, and everything to do with being given access to an audience. It seems to me that I'm not the one who's being disingenuous.
Should I expect everyone to be handed an audience on a silver platter? No, that's silly. What I do wish for is that competition is siloed so that leverage in one industry can't be used to arbitrarily dominate another. An actual implementation of such anti-trust policy might be a ban on discriminating against alternative app-stores. This is a very pro-market, pro-competition stance. It's not, as you seem to believe, some form of audience-communism (how would that even work)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, so this has nothing to do with owning your own phone, and everything to do with being given access to an audience. It seems to me that I'm not the one who's being disingenuous.
That's exactly what I meant to say -- I don't understand what you think is disingenuous about my post. Should I expect everyone to be handed an audience on a silver platter? No, that's silly. What I do wish for is that competition is siloed so that leverage in one industry can't be used to arbitrarily dominate another. An actual implementation of such anti-trust policy might be a ban on discriminating against alterna…
What you are proposing is government intervention to take that right away from people - to limit their choices.
We currently have multiple different options with different levels of corporate control, and the most popular operating system currently allows alternative app stores to be installed.
Your position is to limit the allowable contracts between both consumers and device makers and is strictly anti-market. Since the proposed remedy is already enjoyed by the majority of consumers, there is absolutely no justification for such a position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because we aren't near a given unprecedented extreme doesn't mean that we can't talk about the effects of movement in that direction.
But we aren't moving in the direction of less regulation. Take a step back and look at the big picture and it's obvious. The size and scope of the State, and the amount of red-tape and regulation, is pretty much always growing in general. What all these anti free-market people are missing (intentionally or not) is that it makes no sense to watch the State create 20000 pages of regulations, and then yell "de-regulatio…
If you think that it's obvious, you clearly don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
> it makes no sense to watch the State create 20000 pages of regulations, and then yell "de-regulation" when they remove 7 of those pages.
It makes no sense to use number of pages as a proxy for regulation (either for or against). You measure regulation by watching the big players exploit loopholes. The market allows all sorts of well-known varieties of cheating by default. Are the well-known traditional types of cheating still being used effectively?
http://chartingfinancials.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/us-bank-m...
Yep. Therefore they lack appropriate regulations. That's what we mean when we say "deregulation." We don't mean "the number of pages on the law books is decreasing, clearly we must increase it because more pages are better." That's a straw man, and you do everyone (yourself included) a disservice by invoking it.