madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
About OP (Google):
Google has a technological advantage and also an advantage of most people trusting or preferring it over other SE. The moment competition manages to develop something better or become preferred, people will use competition not Google. Google as it is now is functionally a monopoly. It is however operating within a free market system, in other words it is a monopoly for the sole reason users use it. A monopoly in itself is not good nor bad. Is just a state of something. As long as you have the FREEDOM to use or not use something, there is no problem with it being a monopoly.
Another aspect is that while in an enforced system (non free market), a monopoly is unhealthy, in a free system/market a monopoly is simply the natural result of somebody being significantly better. Hence, if you forcefully try to apply rules/regulations upon it, you're harming evolution. The only healthy way for this Google situation to be resolved in a constructive manner is if/when a competitor develops something better or more popular (popular not being same thing as better).
Yes Google does shit like get the lion's share of the traffic and all that. However it is not a government's task to solve this non-problem. Google is a business, hence it's main goal is profitability. NOT user satisfaction. User satisfaction is a requirement in order to achieve the desired profitability, hence not an end goal but an intermediary causality-induced goal. Just like taking a shower, shaving, wearing nice clothes and driving a BMW is not most men goal, but having sex with hot women is, and all that s just a requirement you need to meet to get more pussy.
Also, Google offers a certain service for example. The moment some other site offers a better service (e.g. an alternative to Google Places or Google Maps), that site becomes a brand and people will not search Google for that information but go straight to that site. Yes, Google still will get a good deal of traffic just because it's a giant, but that's how things are. Asking a lion to eat grass and not hunt gazelles and become nice and playful and not byte your ass is just unnatural and stupid. Evolution does not occur by allowing weaker entities to take a swing at a tied up giant on sleeping pills. Evolution occurs when another giant is born and grows.
Of course this entire thing might not be in the user's best interest 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean the opposite alternative (enforced regulations and limitations) is better.
The bottom line with Google is this:
1. No user is forced to use Google as a service provider.
2. No business is forced to use Google as a traffic source or marketing channel.
3. There is no forced limitation for somebody else to developing a better product than Google.
Does this mean there is no possibility to use Google (or any other system or company for that matter) for direct or indirect actions against society or certain individuals? No. Of course it can be used like this. But that is not because Google, free market, monopoly or any of that. Is important not to trick yourself into making causal assumptions about things. That's how you end up throwing the baby with the bath water or voting to "get chained" for "your own safety".
About jazzc & Trepanated discussion (consider the 1st part in my post as an intro to yours):
Meet Jane. She is a beautiful woman in her 20's. She has a boyfriend she loves, his name is John. They fuck like rabbits, hang out together and essentially love being with each other. Unfortunately for them they live in a forced democracy. What this means is the vote of the many, forcefully gets enforced over those who vote something else. It just happens that since in this "democracy" 20 other men who want to fuck Jane, all voted that they should take turns and rape Jane, things are not looking very bright for her. A vote is a vote, it is a legal process and once the will of the many has been established, they have the legal right - in other words they are entitled - to fuck her taking turns. She does not want this, but she is in minority. Of course, John also voted against this and now he wants to oppose the 20 men who are now legally entitled to rape his girlfriend. So he does his best to talk them out of it but fails. So then he fights them to defend her but they are more and stronger so they kill him. And then they fuck Jane in every hole, while she remains blanked out mentally with her teared-up eyes fixated on an imaginary point on the ceiling.
I made this story so outrageous on purpose. I feel that an extreme case was in order to disconnect most people from what they have "evolved" into thinking is the norm and how things should be. You see, the 22 people community described there was a perfect democracy. They didn't just went on and killed John and raped Jane like some ancient savages. No, no! They did this entire legislative process through which they developed laws (will of the many prevails) and then, being entitled by the laws that "the people" voted, they applied them.
While the details and complexity of the current social and legal systems might be very different, the core concept remains the same - they use force against Jane to obtain what they want. The fact they are a majority is unimportant and in practice it is just an excuse to reach their goal. The fact they have a legal basis and the fact they went through a democratic process of voting, also are unimportant. Same shit happens in today's world and same shit happened in this world for thousands of years. The only difference is the details and the fact people now cloak the entire "i want your toy, so I will steal it from you and kill you if I have to" process into this theatrical thing whose purpose is to disguise the unfairness of the principle and inhumanity of the implementation. The fact people will agree en-mass to start a war against others or limit the freedom of others stands as proof for this.
What happens is people ignore or forget that:
1. A law has nothing to do with fairness, a constructive principle or good and illegal is not synonym with unfair, destructive or evil. A law simply means an agreement of how to do something. Hence a law can be fair or unfair, good or evil, depending on other factors.
2. The fact a person has no choice other than obey a law (agreement of others) does not mean he support it or agrees with it. Jane had the "choice" to go in a psychological collapse when raped or enjoy it. And John had the choice to die for Jane or sit back and allow her to get raped. Same way, a regular citizen of today's society has the "choice" to obey the laws, pay the taxes, be part of the system or go against them and suffer the consequences.
3. The fact most people agree with an idea does not make the idea true, just like the fact only 1 in 1mil thinks something does not make that thing untrue. Most people agreed the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe. Most christians agreed that non-christians are evil and must be conquered, killed and managed - in the name of God. Here God being the absolute excuse/entitlement to do something and the tool to disconnect yourself from the attrocities you are commiting because they're not for you - you're just a humble servant - it's for God and God is perfect, hence your atrocities are the perfect thing to do.
@Trepanated:
Definition of theft: A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
Hence, as we have a definition of the word theft (something we both agree upon in order to communicate), it is not a matter of opinion what it means. Also, regardless of the agent, if the agent takes property belonging to the subject without the subject's consent, it is theft. The only opinion here is whether you consider that in your particular case you give the taxes with consent or not. You can not factually state anything about how I see taxation and you can not generalize. If I personally do not give consent to something (to witch you do give consent) it does not mean it is not stealing in my case just because it is not stealing in your case. Hence consensus on the idea that taxation is theft - as you imply - is not required to establish that it is theft in the case of a person who does not give his consent freely to be taxed.
The fact some states don't have income tax, doesn't mean they have no taxes at all or that there are no nation wide taxes.
There is no agreement. The situation is identical to that of slavery - if you're born from slave parents, you are a slave too, owned by same master. Same with us. Unless you as an individual, freely choose to sign such an agreement, there is no agreement. Just the enforcement part. Also, all this wouldn't even matter. Nobody would care we're born into this and don't freely sign an agreement. Problem is the situation is unhealthy for the beneficiary (regular people). Normally in an agreement/transaction, I give you something and in exchange you give me something. The agreement is not one-sided. In practice what happens is I give the government something and the government doesn't give me much in exchange. Or it gives me in theory not in practice. I am forced to pay health insurance for example but if I end up in the hospital in theory the hospital takes care of me but in practice I must give bribes to doctors (extra cost, also i'm not from USA that's why I mention bribes) and be ok with under-average service. Is like you go to the restaurant and order a soup and they bring you water with 2 carrots and a shit floating atop and say "hey, but is soup because it has water and veggies in it" and then you are forced to keep paying them for same type of soup every day, while at the same time making it impossible for a good restaurant to ever take off because of your money going to this restaurant which becomes a forced monopoly.
See my story with Jane, John and the 20 other men.
No there isn't. The gov. comes with law ideas, of which most important ones they pass without most people even hearing about them or understanding their implications, and it builds these laws on the already flawed core foundation. Also, citizens do not actually vote on the laws, the politicians do. And yes, politicians do get elected/nominated by citizens but let's be honest here, that's just theatrics because not even 1% of people actually know shit about who they vote, they just go through the brainwashin process and end up picking one. And even if somehow magically all politicians were honest people working from the bottom of their hearth for the well being of the masses, how exactly do you enforce against their corruption once they get there? You can't. Hence you have a "contract" based on trust/faith which any business person will tell you exactly which part of your body you can wipe with it.
Just like Jane would be able to change the mind of the 20 rapists. In theory I guess we could envision such a scenario, just because we have rich imaginations here.
Right... or you could invent a teleportation device all by yourself, which would be a more realistical thing to achieve. But not to be an ass here, let me explain (numbers apply to numbers in your quote):
1. To form a political party and sustain it you need money. Money comes from sponsors. Nobody just hands out money without wanting something. Hence you get payed to pas certain laws if/when you get to have a say. Yet, nobody will pay you shit because they know you're crazy if you want to just give away free money from the masses and control.
2. And then everybody else working for the system will start a nice brainwashing/propaganda campaign getting people to believe that no taxes equates to Armageddon. And they succeed because of (1) - they have shitloads more money than you do and because they're working within an already established/accepted/"normal" system while you don't.
3. Again... no money... not much campaign... tiny exposure. Most people won't even know who you are when they hear your name.
4. If... huge "if" considering points 1,2,3 above.
5. And then through some fancy magic you get removed by those who actually have power - you can take your pick on the reasons and why they say they are entitled to remove you - from terrorist, anti-patriotic all the way to some sex scandal with an underage. Just take your pick. Oh, and this in case their threats against your person, image or family somehow didn't passed through your awesome Superman armor.
Teleportation device... you are free to do so.
But, the important thing to get from all this long post of mine is that is not about masses agreeing on a thing but about masses voting against individuals just because it favors them (see Jane, John and the 20 horny dudes). There is one single thing you need - allow people to do anything they want to do as long as they don't negatively affect others. Which in theory current social system does. But just in theory. They simply use propaganda to make people believe that the laws they pass are for their protection against crazy people that would otherwise hurt them. Just as an example out of 1million - let us make drugs illegal because they can affect you somehow magically even though you don't want to consume them, because your kids will end up drug addicts even though you, th perfect parent dedicated all your time and focus to them and been kind to them and loved them (sarcasm - there's significant statistical corelation between drug abuse and child traumas - physical or psychological).
Anyway, was a long post. Hope mods won't delete it saying it is politically related because it is not. While there might be references related to politics the entire post is really philosophical in nature.
Google has a technological advantage and also an advantage of most people trusting or preferring it over other SE. The moment competition manages to develop something better or become preferred, people will use competition not Google. Google as it is now is functionally a monopoly. It is however operating within a free market system, in other words it is a monopoly for the sole reason users use it. A monopoly in itself is not good nor bad. Is just a state of something. As long as you have the FREEDOM to use or not use something, there is no problem with it being a monopoly.
Another aspect is that while in an enforced system (non free market), a monopoly is unhealthy, in a free system/market a monopoly is simply the natural result of somebody being significantly better. Hence, if you forcefully try to apply rules/regulations upon it, you're harming evolution. The only healthy way for this Google situation to be resolved in a constructive manner is if/when a competitor develops something better or more popular (popular not being same thing as better).
Yes Google does shit like get the lion's share of the traffic and all that. However it is not a government's task to solve this non-problem. Google is a business, hence it's main goal is profitability. NOT user satisfaction. User satisfaction is a requirement in order to achieve the desired profitability, hence not an end goal but an intermediary causality-induced goal. Just like taking a shower, shaving, wearing nice clothes and driving a BMW is not most men goal, but having sex with hot women is, and all that s just a requirement you need to meet to get more pussy.
Also, Google offers a certain service for example. The moment some other site offers a better service (e.g. an alternative to Google Places or Google Maps), that site becomes a brand and people will not search Google for that information but go straight to that site. Yes, Google still will get a good deal of traffic just because it's a giant, but that's how things are. Asking a lion to eat grass and not hunt gazelles and become nice and playful and not byte your ass is just unnatural and stupid. Evolution does not occur by allowing weaker entities to take a swing at a tied up giant on sleeping pills. Evolution occurs when another giant is born and grows.
Of course this entire thing might not be in the user's best interest 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean the opposite alternative (enforced regulations and limitations) is better.
The bottom line with Google is this:
1. No user is forced to use Google as a service provider.
2. No business is forced to use Google as a traffic source or marketing channel.
3. There is no forced limitation for somebody else to developing a better product than Google.
Does this mean there is no possibility to use Google (or any other system or company for that matter) for direct or indirect actions against society or certain individuals? No. Of course it can be used like this. But that is not because Google, free market, monopoly or any of that. Is important not to trick yourself into making causal assumptions about things. That's how you end up throwing the baby with the bath water or voting to "get chained" for "your own safety".
About jazzc & Trepanated discussion (consider the 1st part in my post as an intro to yours):
Meet Jane. She is a beautiful woman in her 20's. She has a boyfriend she loves, his name is John. They fuck like rabbits, hang out together and essentially love being with each other. Unfortunately for them they live in a forced democracy. What this means is the vote of the many, forcefully gets enforced over those who vote something else. It just happens that since in this "democracy" 20 other men who want to fuck Jane, all voted that they should take turns and rape Jane, things are not looking very bright for her. A vote is a vote, it is a legal process and once the will of the many has been established, they have the legal right - in other words they are entitled - to fuck her taking turns. She does not want this, but she is in minority. Of course, John also voted against this and now he wants to oppose the 20 men who are now legally entitled to rape his girlfriend. So he does his best to talk them out of it but fails. So then he fights them to defend her but they are more and stronger so they kill him. And then they fuck Jane in every hole, while she remains blanked out mentally with her teared-up eyes fixated on an imaginary point on the ceiling.
I made this story so outrageous on purpose. I feel that an extreme case was in order to disconnect most people from what they have "evolved" into thinking is the norm and how things should be. You see, the 22 people community described there was a perfect democracy. They didn't just went on and killed John and raped Jane like some ancient savages. No, no! They did this entire legislative process through which they developed laws (will of the many prevails) and then, being entitled by the laws that "the people" voted, they applied them.
While the details and complexity of the current social and legal systems might be very different, the core concept remains the same - they use force against Jane to obtain what they want. The fact they are a majority is unimportant and in practice it is just an excuse to reach their goal. The fact they have a legal basis and the fact they went through a democratic process of voting, also are unimportant. Same shit happens in today's world and same shit happened in this world for thousands of years. The only difference is the details and the fact people now cloak the entire "i want your toy, so I will steal it from you and kill you if I have to" process into this theatrical thing whose purpose is to disguise the unfairness of the principle and inhumanity of the implementation. The fact people will agree en-mass to start a war against others or limit the freedom of others stands as proof for this.
What happens is people ignore or forget that:
1. A law has nothing to do with fairness, a constructive principle or good and illegal is not synonym with unfair, destructive or evil. A law simply means an agreement of how to do something. Hence a law can be fair or unfair, good or evil, depending on other factors.
2. The fact a person has no choice other than obey a law (agreement of others) does not mean he support it or agrees with it. Jane had the "choice" to go in a psychological collapse when raped or enjoy it. And John had the choice to die for Jane or sit back and allow her to get raped. Same way, a regular citizen of today's society has the "choice" to obey the laws, pay the taxes, be part of the system or go against them and suffer the consequences.
3. The fact most people agree with an idea does not make the idea true, just like the fact only 1 in 1mil thinks something does not make that thing untrue. Most people agreed the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe. Most christians agreed that non-christians are evil and must be conquered, killed and managed - in the name of God. Here God being the absolute excuse/entitlement to do something and the tool to disconnect yourself from the attrocities you are commiting because they're not for you - you're just a humble servant - it's for God and God is perfect, hence your atrocities are the perfect thing to do.
@Trepanated:
Definition of theft: A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
Hence, as we have a definition of the word theft (something we both agree upon in order to communicate), it is not a matter of opinion what it means. Also, regardless of the agent, if the agent takes property belonging to the subject without the subject's consent, it is theft. The only opinion here is whether you consider that in your particular case you give the taxes with consent or not. You can not factually state anything about how I see taxation and you can not generalize. If I personally do not give consent to something (to witch you do give consent) it does not mean it is not stealing in my case just because it is not stealing in your case. Hence consensus on the idea that taxation is theft - as you imply - is not required to establish that it is theft in the case of a person who does not give his consent freely to be taxed.
The fact some states don't have income tax, doesn't mean they have no taxes at all or that there are no nation wide taxes.
There is no agreement. The situation is identical to that of slavery - if you're born from slave parents, you are a slave too, owned by same master. Same with us. Unless you as an individual, freely choose to sign such an agreement, there is no agreement. Just the enforcement part. Also, all this wouldn't even matter. Nobody would care we're born into this and don't freely sign an agreement. Problem is the situation is unhealthy for the beneficiary (regular people). Normally in an agreement/transaction, I give you something and in exchange you give me something. The agreement is not one-sided. In practice what happens is I give the government something and the government doesn't give me much in exchange. Or it gives me in theory not in practice. I am forced to pay health insurance for example but if I end up in the hospital in theory the hospital takes care of me but in practice I must give bribes to doctors (extra cost, also i'm not from USA that's why I mention bribes) and be ok with under-average service. Is like you go to the restaurant and order a soup and they bring you water with 2 carrots and a shit floating atop and say "hey, but is soup because it has water and veggies in it" and then you are forced to keep paying them for same type of soup every day, while at the same time making it impossible for a good restaurant to ever take off because of your money going to this restaurant which becomes a forced monopoly.
See my story with Jane, John and the 20 other men.
No there isn't. The gov. comes with law ideas, of which most important ones they pass without most people even hearing about them or understanding their implications, and it builds these laws on the already flawed core foundation. Also, citizens do not actually vote on the laws, the politicians do. And yes, politicians do get elected/nominated by citizens but let's be honest here, that's just theatrics because not even 1% of people actually know shit about who they vote, they just go through the brainwashin process and end up picking one. And even if somehow magically all politicians were honest people working from the bottom of their hearth for the well being of the masses, how exactly do you enforce against their corruption once they get there? You can't. Hence you have a "contract" based on trust/faith which any business person will tell you exactly which part of your body you can wipe with it.
Just like Jane would be able to change the mind of the 20 rapists. In theory I guess we could envision such a scenario, just because we have rich imaginations here.
Right... or you could invent a teleportation device all by yourself, which would be a more realistical thing to achieve. But not to be an ass here, let me explain (numbers apply to numbers in your quote):
1. To form a political party and sustain it you need money. Money comes from sponsors. Nobody just hands out money without wanting something. Hence you get payed to pas certain laws if/when you get to have a say. Yet, nobody will pay you shit because they know you're crazy if you want to just give away free money from the masses and control.
2. And then everybody else working for the system will start a nice brainwashing/propaganda campaign getting people to believe that no taxes equates to Armageddon. And they succeed because of (1) - they have shitloads more money than you do and because they're working within an already established/accepted/"normal" system while you don't.
3. Again... no money... not much campaign... tiny exposure. Most people won't even know who you are when they hear your name.
4. If... huge "if" considering points 1,2,3 above.
5. And then through some fancy magic you get removed by those who actually have power - you can take your pick on the reasons and why they say they are entitled to remove you - from terrorist, anti-patriotic all the way to some sex scandal with an underage. Just take your pick. Oh, and this in case their threats against your person, image or family somehow didn't passed through your awesome Superman armor.
Teleportation device... you are free to do so.
But, the important thing to get from all this long post of mine is that is not about masses agreeing on a thing but about masses voting against individuals just because it favors them (see Jane, John and the 20 horny dudes). There is one single thing you need - allow people to do anything they want to do as long as they don't negatively affect others. Which in theory current social system does. But just in theory. They simply use propaganda to make people believe that the laws they pass are for their protection against crazy people that would otherwise hurt them. Just as an example out of 1million - let us make drugs illegal because they can affect you somehow magically even though you don't want to consume them, because your kids will end up drug addicts even though you, th perfect parent dedicated all your time and focus to them and been kind to them and loved them (sarcasm - there's significant statistical corelation between drug abuse and child traumas - physical or psychological).
Anyway, was a long post. Hope mods won't delete it saying it is politically related because it is not. While there might be references related to politics the entire post is really philosophical in nature.
