Its not "being competitive" he copyrighted systems that had been in place and used by various people for years then sued anyone who attempted to use them, there was hundreds of menu based dos operating systems before windows and he crushed them all after ripping off everything he needed from them.
People were basically sharing and working together back in those days mostly open source and he took advantage and ruined lives for his own benefit.

The absence of the state cambo is supporting will have militias paid for by whoever has the money..
The rich have the money..


This post was edited by Plaguefear on Apr 18 2018 04:27pm

Australia is 97% white

Ps its called grandchildren

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Apr 18 2018 04:30pm

No it isn't.

lmao

you've gone off on a tangent. when i mentioned Gates i was simply pointing out that in some places like China philanthropy literally doesnt exist. like they dont have a word for it, any more than Hawaiians have a word for snow. And that our elite are incredibly generous and care a great deal about the less fortunate. your statement was not only an overgeneralization, but we're middling at worst compared to many places. And i tend to lean towards american philanthropy being fairly good compared to all places, though i'd have to look into some studies to confirm.

the rich have money? what's money without a state. how long does that protection last, and what do you do when 99% of the population is trying to seize what you have. The reality is that devoid of a government the rich would run things, but to predict what they'd do based only on what they do now is silly. To say they'd get worse seems silly as well as not advantageous to them.

i think overall you're just incredibly biased to any elites and quite frankly i wont be responding any more.

If you think less protections in place would make the elites more moral actors i have a bridge to sell you.
Even coca cola has had activists murdered in south america because they were slowing up progress there..
The corporations are non moral entities only beholden to shareholders, they already break any laws they can get away with now if the risk is less than the reward.
How is having no strong system in place to reign them in going to suddenly stop their greed?
Simple answer is human history has taught us that they will pillage anything and everything they can, enslave anyone they can and deliver the best possible share price.
Ask african blood diamond miners about the absence of a state, they love it.

He agreed gates can be a great philanthropist... He isn't being biased towards the elite when he points out exactly how gates got so rich to begin with.

either you are moving the goalposts, or i misunderstood " the people with the power and the wealth are already the most unscrupulous people " to be literal, when you actually meant corporations. a fine line i suppose.

but you're also comparing how corporations act in the developing world to how, hypothetically, they would act in the industrialized world if the government disappeared. thats apples and oranges. also apparent by your point, u say they want to deliver for share holders. ok fair enough, but things like the stock market and currency generally require a strict system of controls to work, usually done by a government. Your assumption that they would pillage the places and people that they are trying to help with stock prices seems to contradict yourself. without the government to hold up society economically corporations needs to fill the gap. By raping the population they destroy their customer base, employees, and themselves. it just doesnt make sense. you can claim corporations, if they ran the government, would still fuck people over all the time. newsflash, so does the government, all the time. so what you're really saying is "the new corporation govt would do bad things, like the old govt". to a libertarian. i mean, dont you have paint to watch dry?



i didnt say that's what makes him biased, im basing it off of years of posts on the subject. my overall point was that American philanthropy is actually quite good, which was a secondary point to counter the idea that financial elite are immoral. either way we can't really know unless we do it what corporations would do, but stability is unarguably better for business than chaos.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 18 2018 05:00pm

you should be thankful for having such an evil "right wing" government

if the last few years have taught us anything.....be like australia and not like germany/sweden/france

Our left wing government were the ones who started the island concentration camps and refused to process people who arrived illegally.