On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:34:21 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> Tax is theft.
>
> Tax pays for law enforcement. Tax pays for the roads leading to your
> house. Tax pays for keeping your water clean and your air breatheable,
> against the depredations of corporations who would happily pass on such
> costs as an “externality”.
>
> Imagine if you had to pay a toll just to take your car out of your
> driveway. Or pop a coin in the meter every time you turned on your water
> tap, or took a breath.
>

Still does not refute what I said. It is property taken against peoples
will (well, not in your case, but I know many where that description
fits).

Toll roads exist, I have no problem and prefer that system over taxation.
Private hospitals, security, volunteer or charity institutions exist,
neighbourhood watches.

The amount of organizations, for-profit or non profit that exist are too
numerous to list.

Ergo, tax is just a myth that politicians have inculcated into you,
arguing that it is the only system that works, despite being deeply
unethical.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:36:20 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
>>>> be used as an example.
>>>
>>> The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
>>> reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US
>>> continued to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used
>>> the Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just “let the market
>>> decide”.
>>>
>>> Coincidence? You be the judge.
>>>
>> That is incorrect.
>
> That’s what really happened. This is all a matter of public record, that
> no amount of ranting polemic, no matter how loudly shouted, can erase.
>

See original message. There you have your answer.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:37:07 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> Ahh... so you did not read?
>
> Appealing to such a questionable authority who has done such a good job of
> telling you what to think is convincing others only of how gullible you
> are.
>

Thank you for the admission of defeat. =)

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Anonymous wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:34:21 +0200, D wrote:
>>
>>> Tax is theft.
>>
>> Tax pays for law enforcement.
>
> "Law enforcement" prevents us white people from organizing collective
> defense of our neighborhoods against blacks. They also enforce the
> current anarcho-tyranny we're forced to live under here in America.
>
>> Tax pays for the roads leading to your
>> house. Tax pays for keeping your water clean and your air breatheable,
>> against the depredations of corporations who would happily pass on such
>> costs as an “externality”.
>
> A small amount compared to just Medicare and Medicaid. Oh wait, tax
> doesn't pay for the majority of those, as they are currently some 80
> percent unfunded by tax receipts, and account for the vast majority,
> if not ALL of the deficit.
>
> Stop with your bait-and-switch.
>

That's Lawrence standard topic. When he is refuted, he just switches
topic, or reframes the question, without addressing the original argument.

It also seems he has never travelled outside the socialist paradise he
currently lives in, and has no concept of for-profit, non-profit,
volunteer, neighbourshood watches, etc. organizations which work better
than the government and are funded without taxes (theft).

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> <7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
>
>> As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
>> oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of companies.
>> One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as big
>> governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
>> inefficient organization.
>>
>> The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is the
>> natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
>> behemoths we have today.
>
> We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the games
> will self organize.

You have never played football without a judge? I've played plento of
self-organized football games. Some games self-organize with a judge some
without.

> Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
>
> 1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and
> 2) "free markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.

See the article I sent, that shows why 1 and 2 are wrong.

> You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the rub.
> _Some_ regulation is necessary.

Incorrect. I've made 100s of thousands if not more without judges and
referees. Let me guess... you are not running your own company, right?

> For example: Microsoft was adjudicated to be a monopoly at one point,
> the question was if they were using that status unfairly in the market.
>
> How does that look today?

Microsoft reached its position due to deep links with and favours from the
government. Without the government, Microsoft would be a shadow of itself.
Just have a look at its income and then you subtract all the government
contracts, that's only the first indication.

with <c221af53-c952-60e8-d1b8-12539a759688@example.net> D wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
>> D wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>>> D wrote:

*SKIP* [ 17 lines 5 levels deep]
>>> One thing to note though, is that I say more ethical, and not
>>> _ethical. No government is ethical. And all governments can become
>>> more and more ethical as they strive to abolish themselves. So no,
>>> arabia is not "ethical" but since they engage in less theft than for
>>> instance, sweden, then yes, they are more ethical than sweden.
>> Why do you pay taxes if you consider it unethical? There's country's
>> you could move to with little government and no taxes such as Haiti,
>> or simply stop paying taxes by not taking the fruits of those taxes.
> Sadly I have family commitment which are leveraged against me. If I
> could just stop paying taxes without jeopardising those family
> commitments and without risking violence I definitely would.

News flash! You've bee *brainwashed* into "family commintments". Move
to Haiti while you can!

> So what do I do instead?
> I fight with lawyers and aggressive tax planning. I'm down to about 9%
> to 14% in taxes, which is much better than the 60+% or so I used to
> pay, but the journey towards 0% continues! =) Once my family
> commitments are not holding me back, I think, as you say, that it
> should be quite possible to shave off some additional couple of % from
> that figure! =)

And that lawyering isn't taxation how?

Also, you forgot to add "Contact me to learn more". Your lawyer is
already disappointed.

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

with <adfeb857-31b4-142b-03f5-9d38aeb803f7@example.net> D wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>> with <335ed481-557d-7d19-949a-fadba2016d2f@example.net> D wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>>>> On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:

>>> This is for instance the situation between Lawrence and myself, so
>>> every time he writes about his socialist theories, I just laugh and
>>> write some nonsense back, since I cannot even take him seriously.
>> Do you realize that you both are not distinguishable from chatgpt?
> I did not realize that. Thank you very much Eric for pointing that
> out. ;)

Unability to withhold comments. This is so chatgpt thing to do.

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:

> with <c221af53-c952-60e8-d1b8-12539a759688@example.net> D wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>> D wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>>>> D wrote:
>
> *SKIP* [ 17 lines 5 levels deep]
>>>> One thing to note though, is that I say more ethical, and not
>>>> _ethical. No government is ethical. And all governments can become
>>>> more and more ethical as they strive to abolish themselves. So no,
>>>> arabia is not "ethical" but since they engage in less theft than for
>>>> instance, sweden, then yes, they are more ethical than sweden.
>>> Why do you pay taxes if you consider it unethical? There's country's
>>> you could move to with little government and no taxes such as Haiti,
>>> or simply stop paying taxes by not taking the fruits of those taxes.
>> Sadly I have family commitment which are leveraged against me. If I
>> could just stop paying taxes without jeopardising those family
>> commitments and without risking violence I definitely would.
>
> News flash! You've bee *brainwashed* into "family commintments". Move
> to Haiti while you can!
>
>> So what do I do instead?
>> I fight with lawyers and aggressive tax planning. I'm down to about 9%
>> to 14% in taxes, which is much better than the 60+% or so I used to
>> pay, but the journey towards 0% continues! =) Once my family
>> commitments are not holding me back, I think, as you say, that it
>> should be quite possible to shave off some additional couple of % from
>> that figure! =)
>
> And that lawyering isn't taxation how?
>
> Also, you forgot to add "Contact me to learn more". Your lawyer is
> already disappointed.

Lawyering is not taxation, correct.

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:

> with <adfeb857-31b4-142b-03f5-9d38aeb803f7@example.net> D wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>>> with <335ed481-557d-7d19-949a-fadba2016d2f@example.net> D wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>>>>> On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
>
>>>> This is for instance the situation between Lawrence and myself, so
>>>> every time he writes about his socialist theories, I just laugh and
>>>> write some nonsense back, since I cannot even take him seriously.
>>> Do you realize that you both are not distinguishable from chatgpt?
>> I did not realize that. Thank you very much Eric for pointing that
>> out. ;)
>
> Unability to withhold comments. This is so chatgpt thing to do.
>

Yes.

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:22:16 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<1da9000c-47f2-06ff-3bab-9ebad5d2e6ba@example.net>:

> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
>> <7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
>>
>>> As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
>>> oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of companies.
>>> One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as big
>>> governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
>>> inefficient organization.
>>>
>>> The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is the
>>> natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
>>> behemoths we have today.
>>
>> We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the
games
>> will self organize.
>
> You have never played football without a judge? I've played plento of
> self-organized football games. Some games self-organize with a judge
some
> without.
>
>> Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
>>
>> 1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and
>> 2) "free markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.
>
> See the article I sent, that shows why 1 and 2 are wrong.

So you condone the bigotry. Ad hominem fallacy #1.

>
>> You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the
rub.
>> _Some_ regulation is necessary.
>
> Incorrect. I've made 100s of thousands if not more without judges and
> referees. Let me guess... you are not running your own company, right?

So you refer to my personal circumstances as if it had any bearing on
my arguments. Ad hominem fallacy #2.

Now, it's true that my business partner and I started a company in 1994
that is still going strong after 30 years, one with over 750 employees
last time I checked. And it's true that I speak from experience,
because we are an ISP fighting two "elephants" in the market that
continue their regulatory capture -- where we have fought for a
fairer market.

But again, referring to my personal circumstances only means you
have a loose grasp of logic, and are prone to logical fallacies.

I'll let you try again to make an argument without your disgusting
bigotry or logical fallacies -- if you dare.

And I'm not even going to approach a discussion of natural monopolies
with respect to last-mile Internet or operating system
standards -- at least, not with you, until you recognize
your logical lapses.

--
-v ASUS TUF Dash F15 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3060 Mobile
OS: Linux 5.15.0-113-lowlatency Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 15.9G

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
>> be used as an example.
>
>The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
>reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US continued
>to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used the
>Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just “let the market
>decide”.

It's true that the cellphone companies in the US lobbied congress for a
number of regulations that stifled competition and stifled the growth
of the industry, such as the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986
which remains a stumbling block for all kinds of things.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

with <92b78f54-c980-13f9-8eb6-37385e3349a3@example.net> D wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>> with <c221af53-c952-60e8-d1b8-12539a759688@example.net> D wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>>> D wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>>>>> D wrote:

*SKIP* [ 30 lines 5 levels deep] # connectivity is lost
> Lawyering is not taxation, correct.

Are you talking to yourself that early?

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:22:16 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> <1da9000c-47f2-06ff-3bab-9ebad5d2e6ba@example.net>:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
>>> <7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
>>>
>>>> As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
>>>> oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of companies.
>>>> One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as big
>>>> governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
>>>> inefficient organization.
>>>>
>>>> The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is the
>>>> natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
>>>> behemoths we have today.
>>>
>>> We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the
> games
>>> will self organize.
>>
>> You have never played football without a judge? I've played plento of
>> self-organized football games. Some games self-organize with a judge
> some
>> without.
>>
>>> Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
>>>
>>> 1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and
>>> 2) "free markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.
>>
>> See the article I sent, that shows why 1 and 2 are wrong.
>
> So you condone the bigotry. Ad hominem fallacy #1.
>
>>
>>> You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the
> rub.
>>> _Some_ regulation is necessary.
>>
>> Incorrect. I've made 100s of thousands if not more without judges and
>> referees. Let me guess... you are not running your own company, right?
>
> So you refer to my personal circumstances as if it had any bearing on
> my arguments. Ad hominem fallacy #2.
>
> Now, it's true that my business partner and I started a company in 1994
> that is still going strong after 30 years, one with over 750 employees
> last time I checked. And it's true that I speak from experience,
> because we are an ISP fighting two "elephants" in the market that
> continue their regulatory capture -- where we have fought for a
> fairer market.
>
> But again, referring to my personal circumstances only means you
> have a loose grasp of logic, and are prone to logical fallacies.
>
> I'll let you try again to make an argument without your disgusting
> bigotry or logical fallacies -- if you dare.
>
> And I'm not even going to approach a discussion of natural monopolies
> with respect to last-mile Internet or operating system
> standards -- at least, not with you, until you recognize
> your logical lapses.

Sorry, you are incorrect. Not much we can do here.

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
>>
>>> Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
>>> be used as an example.
>>
>> The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
>> reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US continued
>> to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used the
>> Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just ???let the market
>> decide???.
>
> It's true that the cellphone companies in the US lobbied congress for a
> number of regulations that stifled competition and stifled the growth
> of the industry, such as the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986
> which remains a stumbling block for all kinds of things.
> --scott

Thank you for a good example Scott.

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:

> with <92b78f54-c980-13f9-8eb6-37385e3349a3@example.net> D wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>>> with <c221af53-c952-60e8-d1b8-12539a759688@example.net> D wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>>>> D wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>>>>>> D wrote:
>
> *SKIP* [ 30 lines 5 levels deep] # connectivity is lost
>> Lawyering is not taxation, correct.
>
> Are you talking to yourself that early?

Yes.

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 12:09:35 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<a53335e6-987e-c786-9ad4-2ac963f2f340@example.net>:

> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:22:16 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
>> <1da9000c-47f2-06ff-3bab-9ebad5d2e6ba@example.net>:
>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
>>>> <7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
>>>>> oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of
>>>>> companies.
>>>>> One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as
>>>>> big governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
>>>>> inefficient organization.
>>>>>
>>>>> The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is
>>>>> the natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
>>>>> behemoths we have today.
>>>>
>>>> We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the
>> games
>>>> will self organize.
>>>
>>> You have never played football without a judge? I've played plento of
>>> self-organized football games. Some games self-organize with a judge
>> some
>>> without.
>>>
>>>> Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
>>>>
>>>> 1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and 2) "free
>>>> markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.
>>>
>>> See the article I sent, that shows why 1 and 2 are wrong.
>>
>> So you condone the bigotry. Ad hominem fallacy #1.
>>
>>
>>>> You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the
>> rub.
>>>> _Some_ regulation is necessary.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. I've made 100s of thousands if not more without judges and
>>> referees. Let me guess... you are not running your own company, right?
>>
>> So you refer to my personal circumstances as if it had any bearing on
>> my arguments. Ad hominem fallacy #2.
>>
>> Now, it's true that my business partner and I started a company in 1994
>> that is still going strong after 30 years, one with over 750 employees
>> last time I checked. And it's true that I speak from experience,
>> because we are an ISP fighting two "elephants" in the market that
>> continue their regulatory capture -- where we have fought for a fairer
>> market.
>>
>> But again, referring to my personal circumstances only means you have a
>> loose grasp of logic, and are prone to logical fallacies.
>>
>> I'll let you try again to make an argument without your disgusting
>> bigotry or logical fallacies -- if you dare.
>>
>> And I'm not even going to approach a discussion of natural monopolies
>> with respect to last-mile Internet or operating system standards -- at
>> least, not with you, until you recognize your logical lapses.
>
> Sorry, you are incorrect.

That is not an argument.

> Not much we can do here.

This much is true. You run into an actual 1%-er -- one who
thinks you're full of crap -- and you run for the hills.

You were wrong on rasw, and you're wrong here, too.

But for someone who likes to say "we have nothing to talk about"
so much, you sure do like to shoot your mouth off, Bigot.

p.s. The article in the OP was excellent, and relatable by
anyone with a conscience.

--
-v ASUS TUF Dash F15 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3060 Mobile
OS: Linux 5.15.0-113-lowlatency Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 15.9G
"Ok, I pulled the pin. Now what? Where are you going?"

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 12:09:35 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> <a53335e6-987e-c786-9ad4-2ac963f2f340@example.net>:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:22:16 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
>>> <1da9000c-47f2-06ff-3bab-9ebad5d2e6ba@example.net>:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
>>>>> <7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
>>>>>> oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of
>>>>>> companies.
>>>>>> One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as
>>>>>> big governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
>>>>>> inefficient organization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is
>>>>>> the natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
>>>>>> behemoths we have today.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the
>>> games
>>>>> will self organize.
>>>>
>>>> You have never played football without a judge? I've played plento of
>>>> self-organized football games. Some games self-organize with a judge
>>> some
>>>> without.
>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and 2) "free
>>>>> markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.
>>>>
>>>> See the article I sent, that shows why 1 and 2 are wrong.
>>>
>>> So you condone the bigotry. Ad hominem fallacy #1.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the
>>> rub.
>>>>> _Some_ regulation is necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect. I've made 100s of thousands if not more without judges and
>>>> referees. Let me guess... you are not running your own company, right?
>>>
>>> So you refer to my personal circumstances as if it had any bearing on
>>> my arguments. Ad hominem fallacy #2.
>>>
>>> Now, it's true that my business partner and I started a company in 1994
>>> that is still going strong after 30 years, one with over 750 employees
>>> last time I checked. And it's true that I speak from experience,
>>> because we are an ISP fighting two "elephants" in the market that
>>> continue their regulatory capture -- where we have fought for a fairer
>>> market.
>>>
>>> But again, referring to my personal circumstances only means you have a
>>> loose grasp of logic, and are prone to logical fallacies.
>>>
>>> I'll let you try again to make an argument without your disgusting
>>> bigotry or logical fallacies -- if you dare.
>>>
>>> And I'm not even going to approach a discussion of natural monopolies
>>> with respect to last-mile Internet or operating system standards -- at
>>> least, not with you, until you recognize your logical lapses.
>>
>> Sorry, you are incorrect.
>
> That is not an argument.
>
>> Not much we can do here.
>
> This much is true. You run into an actual 1%-er -- one who
> thinks you're full of crap -- and you run for the hills.

So? I know 1%-er who agree with me.

> You were wrong on rasw, and you're wrong here, too.

No.

> But for someone who likes to say "we have nothing to talk about"
> so much, you sure do like to shoot your mouth off, Bigot.
>
> p.s. The article in the OP was excellent, and relatable by
> anyone with a conscience.

The fee article was excellent.

D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
>>>> be used as an example.
>>>
>>> The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
>>> reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US
>>> continued
>>> to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used the
>>> Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just ???let the market
>>> decide???.
>>
>> It's true that the cellphone companies in the US lobbied congress for a
>> number of regulations that stifled competition and stifled the growth
>> of the industry, such as the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986
>> which remains a stumbling block for all kinds of things.
>> --scott
>
> Thank you for a good example Scott.

It is a good example of capitalism in action, using capital to acquire
more capital, in this case by buying government.
Why do you hate capitalism?
Dave

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:57:24 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
>>> reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US
>>> continued to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries
>>> used the Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just ???let
>>> the market decide???.
>>
>> It's true that the cellphone companies in the US lobbied congress for
>> a number of regulations that stifled competition and stifled the
>> growth of the industry, such as the Electronic Communication Privacy
>> Act of 1986 which remains a stumbling block for all kinds of things.
>
> It is a good example of capitalism in action, using capital to acquire
> more capital, in this case by buying government.

Which they did very well, to their own benefit, but not to that of their
customers who were supposed to be paying for all of this.

The Europeans managed to create a much more competitive free market.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:

> D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
>>>>> be used as an example.
>>>>
>>>> The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
>>>> reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US
>>>> continued
>>>> to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used the
>>>> Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just ???let the market
>>>> decide???.
>>>
>>> It's true that the cellphone companies in the US lobbied congress for a
>>> number of regulations that stifled competition and stifled the growth
>>> of the industry, such as the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986
>>> which remains a stumbling block for all kinds of things.
>>> --scott
>>
>> Thank you for a good example Scott.
>
> It is a good example of capitalism in action, using capital to acquire more
> capital, in this case by buying government.
> Why do you hate capitalism?
> Dave
>

In situations like these, I always recommend the calm and collected
reading of Johan Norbergs The Capitalist Manifesto
(https://www.amazon.com/Capitalist-Manifesto-Global-Market-World/dp/1838957928/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=).

Enjoy! =)