Corporations Fined for Sharing Information

[David Floyd]

PS Where do you get this stayed isolationist line from?

From my bag of "What we should have done if we were acting morally".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then what are you saying?

Most people tend to frown on people taking thier sensetive technology without permission.

[David Floyd]

True, but the federal government should not be in the business of telling corporations what they can and cannot do. Nor should the federal government be in the business of giving money (especially money w/ strings attached) to any corporation, for any reason, because that's not a proper function of government.

[Japher]

Nor should the federal government be in the business of giving money (especially money w/ strings attached) to any corporation, for any reason, because that's not a proper function of government.

I concur with this.

A better place?

But not with this.

Anyway, I am staying out of this one.

Toodles.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Nor should the federal government be in the business of giving money (especially money w/ strings attached) to any corporation,

Isn't that called a contract?

[David Floyd]

Isn't that called a contract?

Sure, but funding a contract with my money without my consent is called stealing

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
A better place?

You think we'd be in a better place if Hitler, Stalin and crew had developed nukes and we hadn't? Ohhhhhh David...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sure, but funding a contract with my money without my consent is called stealing

You did consent, by being part of a democracy in which elected representatives made the contract.

And please don't drive on Federally-funded roads then, since you obviously are morally opposed to them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Nor should the federal government be in the business of giving money (especially money w/ strings attached) to any corporation, for any reason, because that's not a proper function of government.

One of the stupidest things you've ever said.

Basically, you're saying the government can't pay for anything.

[monolith94]

when the government gives corporations welfare, that is wrong.

[Asher]

Originally posted by monolith94
when the government gives corporations welfare, that is wrong.

But that's not what he said. He specifically said "for any reason", whether it be corporate welfare (which I do not support) or paying for corporate products...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually, in a way, I am. Boeing and Hughes should probably not sell some sorts of technology to morally bankrupt regimes such as that of the PRC. But the US government, in my opinion, shouldn't stop them, either.

Morally bankrupt?

/me looks at GWB

[Felch]

Originally posted by David Floyd
True, but the federal government should not be in the business of telling corporations what they can and cannot do.

A good libertarian knows that corporations are creations of the government. They don't exist in nature. The government sanctions them, the government provides them with corporate welfare (especially defense related firms like these) and the government has every reason and justification in telling them what to do.

I'm quite frankly not a big fan of corporations. I think they are formed by the state to guarantee certain priviledges to some people and deny them to others.

[David Floyd]

You think we'd be in a better place if Hitler, Stalin and crew had developed nukes and we hadn't? Ohhhhhh David...

Stalin couldn't have developed atomic weapons without espionage from the Manhatten Project.

The Nazis were nowhere close to a bomb, and the British had destroyed the last of their heavy water supplies, so they were screwed.

Almost all of the credible physicists and scientists needed for this project were in the US.

UR,

Morally bankrupt?

* Urban Ranger looks at GWB

Hey, I don't defend Bush, either. But there's no denying the fact that the PRC government is also morally bankrupt.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Stalin couldn't have developed atomic weapons without espionage from the Manhatten Project.

The Nazis were nowhere close to a bomb, and the British had destroyed the last of their heavy water supplies, so they were screwed.

Almost all of the credible physicists and scientists needed for this project were in the US.

If the U.S. had remained isolationist, as you desire so much, Hitler or Stalin would have been able to develop atomic weapons unimpeded. Maybe not by August 1945, but they would have done so. I fail to see why we would benefit from not having nukes while the Nazis would...