You are not logged in.
but just because a system has been around forever doesn't make it ?right,?
I think you were the one who tried to make that point with socialism. But if you care to try to point fingers, go ahead.
It has everything to do with property and the acquisition of property. It's not my fault the process irrevocably denys competition. What? I can't extend the offer to buy someone out because I'm more productive? I'm more productive, if they don't sell out, then I'm going to set up shop anyway and they'll just have to deal. Like you say later on, it's Darwinism.
The system intrinsically supports competition. Bill Gates is an abberation, this is why laws must be in place-to account for the occurrences in which the system doesn't perform the way it is supposed to, and the unexpected happens.
Capitalism intrinsically promotes competition. Monopolies also violate the Constitution, because if they become to powerful, they might be a threat to the "Right to the free Pursuit of Happiness," in other words, a monopoly can destroy any other companies. Thus, the case may be, the so-called hypocrisy may be a result more of society than capitalism.
But Intraspecifically they're more socialistic; they work together, etc.
Er, this isn't necessarily socialistic (I can work together with say, Staples to provide both with a competitive advantage, this isn't socialism, this is capitalism), but I really would care to discuss the actual issue.
It has everything to do with property and the acquisition of property. It's not my fault the process irrevocably denys competition. What? I can't extend the offer to buy someone out because I'm more productive? I'm more productive, if they don't sell out, then I'm going to set up shop anyway and they'll just have to deal. Like you say later on, it's Darwinism.
What? I can't own a bomb because I might kill somebody?
You can acquire property without being monopolistic. Being monopolistic isn't a crime in itself, it is the stifling of any and all competition that got Msoft into trouble.
This is what I like about NTRs, dingo.
NTRs are reactors that heat propellant and shoot it out. The exhaust could be made perfectly clean, and the reactor could be designed to be much, much less vulnerable to a catastrophic failure.
Before you were talking about how patents shouldn't cover research. Well, that's not how it is. These days one can patent a mere idea. For example, Apple recently patened the idea that devices could change color and patterns via user input.
You mean, kind of, sort of, like Windows Plus themes?
And we have these things called think tanks, where the research is public, but the applications are liscensed. Kind of like OSes.
It certainly reaffirms Iraqi sovereignty.
Ok, but that has nothing to do with it. If we violate a treaty we sign, say, the nuclear non-proliferation, are we invulnerable to punishment because we are a sovereign nation?
Are treaties meaningless?
Russia, China, France, Germany, Belgium, and a whole slew of Security Council members (a majority of them, in fact) extrapolate otherwise.
Which is hypocritical, because they intepreted it as being tantamount to war in '91-'92. It's the same resolution. Maybe the 30% of Iraq's oil going to France has something to do with it. And Russia's own oil sales.
Socialism exists in every living multi-celluar organism.
So does capitalism. The best organism wins. The idea of competition and wealth exists in nature. It's Darwinism.
Um, we're not arguing about different varieties of capitalism, we're lamenting the fact that there simply isn't a consistant definition for property.
You have this mantra that you should be able to ?get ahead? but then you contridict yourself and say that people can't get ahead when they reach a certain level. I find this stupid, at the very least, since you're advocating ?getting ahead sometimes.?
Nothing to do with property, it has to do with competition. You can have as much wealth as you want, as long as you don't deprive this privilege to your competitors.
Is it stupid that we have freedom of speech, but we can't yell "fire" in a movie theater?
Capitalism has existed and survived without socialism, the opposite isnt true.
NERVA, designed in the 60s, had a thrust of 250,000 lbs. If that's what they could get without designing it as a launch vehicle, I wonder what they could get to design it as a launch vehicle.
It would only take three of those to get 200 tonnes of cargo/mass to orbit.
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council?s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq?s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC?s or the IAEA?s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
? All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq?s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
? Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Yes, I have read it. Nowhere does it say war is prohibited, and serious consequences is very easily extrapolated to mean war.
The resolution is still valid.
Anarchism can.
Yeah, ok.
Only according to you and Proudhon, a long dead, unschooled quasi-economist.
This isn't about ?can be? this is completely about ?must be.? That simple. I just find monopoly laws to be contridictary on the moral side of things. I should, if I'm good enough, be able to own everything.
So you would rather have Microsoft take over the world?
There's nothing contradictory about it. If you can't get past this whole pure vs. applied capitalism, then think of it this way:
Real Capitalism is a separate system from Smith Capitalism. They are not the same.
Of course, that's assuming by ?pure form,? we're talking about basic core concepts; there are many forms of anarchism, but they all adhere to the basic core concepts.
Adam Smith never said government regulation was bad-in fact, he said government regulation might be a good thing.
Muwha, you're talking like a socialist...
Socialism can augment capitalism, but it could not stand on its own. Capitalism in its theoretical form has weaknesses, but so what? A modified version works in practice.
But I don't see Orion offering us all that much more than a NTR for the buck, which has been built, tested, and much easier to make clean, without the infrastructure. You also aren't exploding anything, and have a reactor for powering your ship.
Josh, technically, the war started after the 8 PM deadline. So, we were well within our boundaries.
The stuff you saw last night was a puff. Fighters and a few missiles. The action starts when we start seeing B-2s.
But what if I have a more productive greenhouse and I want to buy all the other greenhouses and make them more productive too? Are you suggesting anti-monopoly laws!? How dare you! I should be able to take my productivity as far as I wish!
Yes, I am. How many times do I have to say capitalism can be regulated before you get off of laissez faire capitalism?
Care for another round of how Marxism in its purest form will never work? It would bore me, because nothing can be applied in its purest form.
So, yes, there is nothing wrong with regulations on monopolies. The economy should benefit the society, and regulations on capitalism assuage an otherwise fault of the system.
I guess we could have specialized labor forces running the gardening equipment, especially if it was complex to run, but, what happens when they decide they want to rule the colony?
Which is exactly why I think capitalism is in order. If the greenhouses were separate, competing entities, one greenhouse's ploy to take over would be the others' opportunity to take their business.
Do farmers try to take over here on Earth?
It's started, but it's nothing big. Night strikes will be the heavy action.
This isn't going to be a long war.
i saw the chirac interview when it aired on TV--on some points, I agreed, on some points, he was throwing on some serious BS.
and I'm not saying one greenhouse-there's no reason you can't have 5 or 6 in competition.
Clearly, when you think about it, decentralization does scale better and more efficiently. The best way to do this is to have each person have their own plot of greenhouse. With a little imagination, it wouldn't take much for these people to cultivate their own food, and I would imagine that it could be quite trivial. I think the resturant analogy still continues to be the best analogy over these concepts.
But there's a reason we don't. Specialization allows people to perform other tasks. If everybody had to take care of their own greenhouse plot, they'd have less time for everything else. Now, if dedicated labor was applied to a few centralized greenhouse plots, you'd allow others to specialize more, and be more efficient.
That's why agricultural improvements allowed people to move off of farms and into cities---it's more efficient to have people specialized in labor.
E-mail bugs that use different codes can get through, hackers can break any firewall if they are skilled enough (I believe even Cisco, who makes many of the best firewalls had their files hacked).
If someone is skilled enough, and wants to take over your computer, they can. It's just doing the best to protect yourself and fix it when they're done.
Either firewall is permeable. I'm not talking about using a firewall. But any LAN has a firewall (router), and a software backup is built into some OSs (I believe win 2k pro-which i run, and win xp, have built in firewalls). A double layer is never a bad idea.
My opinion on those anti-virus programs is a little mixed. They are pretty much obsolete by the time they reach the stores. I like Spectors because it scans for file types, not specific viruses. I don't know of anything that it doesn't catch.
If it is a hacker or virus, the router-based firewall is pretty weak. There's a program called Spector's (or something like it) that can scan your computer for any viruses and delete them. This works on even those nasty bugs that you supposedely have to reformat your PC for.
Bill: I have no problem with socialist augmentation of capitalism (in fact, I have said before, why have laissez faire capitalism, when socialist/government regulated capitalism work better-with both factors kept to a reasonable amount-you understand what I mean here?).
clark: government employment of people for unemployed could replace welfare, as I said before. That way everyone remains productive and employed in a capitalist system!
I know what conservation of mass is, but how does this create the perfect economy?
You always lose resources in an economy->the conservation of mass doesn't apply, because you have transformed your products to a waste form (your body doesn't have much use for urine). On an economic level, unless you have an agrarian society, conservation of mass really means nothing!
Oh, but I think my replies are much better than, "I've proven this, because I commented on it in another thread." Maybe you should actually read what I write rather than picking out catch phrases.
Why do I even bother debating the point? Anarchy, socialism, and communism had their glory day in the 1850s as a reaction to laissez faire capitalism, but that time has passed, and capitalism has evolved and endured, whereas the other systems have not.
So I'll continue to rely on real economics, while you can go ahead and preach anarchy.
Getting back to the actual thread, I still think an incentive is needed for workers to motivate themselves, which is where flexible wages, and capitalism come into play.
NTRs, as I have said, are a better application for nuclear power.
They can be made safe, clean, and efficient.
You can't even take a simple metaphor without going off in these endless tangents.
Maybe because it was a major point in the thread (which is called "money"?) Aren't debit cards and credit cards both forms of payment?
Nah, and if you insist on keeping the argument alive, I can quite easily go back and quote your absurdities. This is, after all, the same person who thinks that ?spend[ing] what you put onto [a debit card]? isn't prepayment.
Whatever you say, Josh. A credit card and a debit card are completely different things. You can insist otherwise however much you want, there's a reason they don't call it a "prepaid credit card" at banks. Because it's not.