Here are several links I’ve been meaning to talk about:
Net ‘Neutrality’ is Government Theft
So why the push for “Net Neutrality”? Most of the support from the private sector is from large internet content companies which used to be truly capitalist and essentially libertarian in behavior, companies like Amazon, eBay, and particularly Google. As they add more high-bandwidth content, such as movies and music, they want to prevent ISPs from being able to charge them for using such a high percentage of available bandwidth. Instead, under the guise of “neutrality”, they’re trying to use government to prevent the owners of Internet infrastructure from being able to rationally set prices for the use of that infrastructure. In other words, they are trying to steal the ISPs property rights. Is it any wonder that almost all of Google’s political contributions go to Democrats?
Let’s remember in the future when Google says “You can make money without doing evil“, they can’t be taken seriously.
Michael Moore: ‘Capitalism is anti-Jesus’
Hey – what do you know, Michael Moore finally got something right! Too bad he has no idea what capitalism really is.
Capitalism is not only an economic system that legalizes greed, it also has at its foundation a political system of capitalism that is, “We have to buy the political system because we don’t have enough votes. We’re only 1% of the votes. We have to buy the people, and we have to buy the people by convincing them if they work hard, they too can be rich one day.” [Americans] have gone along with it for the last 30 years.
Please excuse me while I go take a shower to wash any lingering “Michael Moore Filth” off. Let’s just say that anyone who thinks Hank Paulson (whom he discusses in the article) is anything close to resembling a capitalist needs their head examined. As I pointed out a while ago here, there’s a term for what Paulson and the rest of those thugs in Washington were and are, and it’s not “capitalist” – it’s “fascist”.
Intel’s “ridiculous antitrust defense”
Apparently, Intel is daring to defend the anti-trust charges leveled at them by the EU in ways that have the editorial staff at the New York Times, among others, seeing red. What is their supposedly egregious defense? As Tom Bowden of the Ayn Rand Center writes:
It is the assertion that Intel, a corporation, has a right to the same due process of law that individuals have. Intel’s argument, as summarized by the Times, is that corporations “are entitled to the due process rights that European human rights law grants in criminal cases to ensure that the accused—usually powerless individuals—are not steamrollered by the overwhelming power of the state.” Those due process rights were violated, Intel alleges, by the European Commission, which “unfairly plays the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury.”
…
In the Intel case, consider the Times’s statement that due process laws are designed to protect “powerless” individuals from being “steamrollered by the overwhelming power of the state.” What’s the implication? That businesses are not powerless and are not therefore subject to being steamrollered by the state. Thus, the Times casually refers to Intel’s “annual sales of $38 billion” and its “squadron of lawyers,” as if any rich corporation is by definition shielded from the governmental oppression that can befall a lone individual.
But this ignores the crucial difference between economic power and political power. Intel’s economic power is the power to produce desirable products for voluntary trade to mutual benefit. The EU’s political power is the power of physical force: guns, jails, and fines. Intel cannot force anyone to buy its computer chips—customers are always free to accept or reject the terms on which Intel offers its products on the market. But the EU can force Intel to hand over its profits.
Finally – Paul Hsieh has an excellent OpEd in the Denver Post today on “The Real Stakes” of the current healthcare debate.
Advocates of universal health care (like President Obama) typically claim that health care is a “right” which should be guaranteed to all Americans. But this is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of rights. Rights are freedoms of action (such as the right to free speech), not automatic claims on goods or services that must be produced by another. There is no such thing as a right to a car — or a tonsillectomy.
Individuals are legitimately entitled to any health care that they purchase with their own money, is promised by prior contract (e.g., insurance), or given to them as voluntary charity. Any attempt to otherwise guarantee an alleged “right” to health care must necessarily violate the actual rights of those compelled to provide such care and those compelled to pay for it.
Go read the entire piece. It’s fantastic.
Filed under: Objectivism |
