Wow, you're so elite. I'm so impressed....*yawn* I thought people gave up that crap years ago. Nice to see people still clinging to habits that were annoying before they started.

Why wouldn't I. I've been certified since 1996 in all the Operating systems from Microsoft. Microsoft is a great company and makes some great products. In my opinion, Bill Gates is as good a human being as Mother Theresa or Ghandi. That's how much he's done for charity. And he intents to do more. Microsoft gets a bad rap from ignorant people who claim they're a monopoly when they clearly aren't. In fact Microsoft has only done one seriously wrong thing in my book and that's how they violated their license agreement with Sun Microsystems and Java.

Everything else was fair game. It's called business and it's tough out there in the competitive world.

It's your "arse" then because it's true. Free market capitalism results in more competition, better products at lower prices, more efficient services handled by more qualified people, etc. The only time government should get involved is when there is a clear monopoly, when a company has committed fraud (including to their investors) or theft, polluted public lands, made faulty products that harm people, etc.

I'm all for accountability and responsibility for everyone including the government, but the government should never get between two parties doing business.


<BZZZT> Try again. There's no free lunch, no free healthcare, and no free anything else. Socialized medicine costs more than regular insurance. Especially in countries like Sweden that embrace socialism even more. The more socialist or communist a country is, the more the people pay. Private industry is more efficient than government programs 100% of the time.

The libertarian position on these things is by its very nature, a selfish one, thankyou for pointing that out. Healthcare is not cheaper if you cannot afford it. Frankly i find it a sign of a civilized society that we are willing to pay for the healthcare of those that cannot afford it, rather than going for the most cost effective option. I also don't think you read what i posed. Here most of the healthcare is provided by the govt, the exception being public hospitals, it's just the govt picks up the bill. Yet somehow that is less efficient?

I think you need to clean your nose dude, must absolutely stink. On the other hand if i made my money by supporting the faults of substandard operating systems i'm say something to that effect too.

Mother Theresa - Selfllessly helped the poor for the vast majority of her life
Ghandi - Freed a nation of colonialism and pioneered non-violent protest
Bill Gates - made billions by developing other peoples software and ripping off their ideas, then gave a fraction of it away to charity.
Yea. very even.

Microsoft are not a monopoly? That explains why they can bully OEMs and everyone else without fear of a backlash, that explains why they can use their overwhelming market share to quash any competition.

Ohh sorry, I forgot, a free market could never let that happen, right? A massive domineering supplier, or cartel of suppliers could never squash competition to maintain the profitable status quo, right?

Companies would never, ever crush innovation with thier sheer size, of course not.

Sorry, try again.

Even if it's going to create monopoly?

Look i agree free market capitalism can produce the benefits you claim, but it is oh so easily exploited by companies that in the end, only care about their bottom line.

Oh, dear, the mating cry of the cooercive collectivist: "It's so selfish of you to not give us what we want!".

Originally posted by Radar
In my opinion, Bill Gates is as good a human being as Mother Theresa or Ghandi.

I know jaguar already addressed this, but what the hell are you thinking man. I've her some cracked up opinions in the cellar before but this, this is one is incredible.
Bill Gates spends some of his money on the poor, while living his life in his mansions flying on private jets, crushing smaller companies, and refusing to give consumers the best products, all so he can squeeze a few more billions out of the public. You really think he donates his money because he really cares, he does it to increase his public images, something that obviously has worked in your case.

Mother teresa on the other hand lived among the poor, helped them first hand, not just handing off a half percent of her income to a charity. She willingly lived a life of near poverty for the sake of helping those less fortunate. Yep sounds a lot like Bill Gates. I'm sure the pope had a conversation over breakfast today about whether or not Bill Gates will be declared a saint when he dies.

Ghandi, don't know a lot about him but I'm sure he was a better person then money hungry Gates.

This sounds exactly like what the government does, only on a scale that's 1000 times what Gates could ever dream of.

how so?

<h4>Cam</h4>

That's a fair question. It seems pretty clear to me, but not everyone sees the world as I do.

Unfortunately, I only have the capacity to be annoyingly vague, or annoyingly specific.

I'll put something together, give me some time.

That's the <b>only</b> thing they've done that's "seriously wrong", eh? Don't you have trouble getting those blinders on over your rose-colored glasses?

Or does your definition of "seriously wrong" not include "dishonest" or "unethical" and embrace only "blatantly actionable"?

I guess it's only "wrong" if you get caught, convicted and suitably punished. They've managed to avoid that so far.

You're missing the point. It is selfish to not do what you can to help your fellow man. I'm selfish, you're probably selfish; we all are. But jaguar's right when he says that a civilized society does what it can to stop people from falling through the cracks. We, as Americans, do not do enough in this regard.

And Radar, the absolute devotion to any ideology is myopia. The free market is not the answer to everything. I think it should generally be used for most industries, but there should be a close watch put on it. And certain things, like the health of the population, should not be left to the free market.

While I am greatly respectful of the assistance Bill Gates has given to charity, that does not change his predatory practices in the business world.

The difference between the music industry, the computer industry, and the healthcare/medical industies is an amazing array of evergrowing ethical concerns wrapped up in the products and services that may determine life/death/disability/ability. There will always be vulnerable populations in need of care. There so many issues beyond economic capitalism. There has been talk on other threads describing some cultures as being more "advanced". How does life expectancy and quality of health figure into that?

Thinking about the housing and food industries, yes, two essentials of life - their markets have contributed undeniably to some more long term glitches with more issues to come - Housing:sprawl, shoddy but quick construction, resource waste, environmental impact and Food: GMO's, monoculture, also environmental impact.

Its such a balancing act.

That's the same empty platitude twice in a row. "It is selfish not to do what you can...a civiized society does what it can". So if there is anything that you *could* do that you *haven't* done, then you have failed to "do what you can"...the ultimate blank check drawn on "somebody else". "Civilized society" takes a vow of poverty until everyone is happy, and no one has "fallen though the cracks". Socialism always gives it's proponents a delightful warm fuzzy self-righteous feel-good...but it's still ethically bankrupt at the core.

Maggie- Its interesting to me that you are so shocked by Gate's sense of ethics. He's hardly a bankrupt socialist.:) What is the individual's responsibility to others? What is your idea of an un-ethically bankrupt philosophy of society?

Oh shit.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jaguar on something.

Please watch this space for the fall of civilization. ;)

OK, dammit.. it's time to split this into five different threads now... I can handle tangents but this is ridiculous!

And absolute adherance to capitalism gives its proponents a delightful warm fuzzy self-righteous feel-good sense because they don't have to care about anyone else. Capitalism works because it plays off of greed and rewards whoever is the greediest. It fails in a humanitarian sense for the same reason.

Neither should be strictly adhered to, but a blending of the two seems to be the best option available. That's the problem with ideology - people get stuck in the particulars of a specific mindset and can't understand that the proper road might be somewhere down the middle. I decry complete socialism as much as I do complete capitalism.