7 ms·

"Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times." That senator, is where you ar

by Dilpil 18y ago

"Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times." That senator, is where you are wrong. America is not a fraternity. Microsoft is not a public works program. Microsoft is a private corporation. Once upon a time, republicans understood the difference. Conservatism is dead, long live conservatism.

axiom 18y ago
Long live libertarianism. Conservatism was only ever about small government by accident - they were just for mindlessly preserving the status quo. Which is why they lost.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  They lost? They may have recently lost a battle, but overall have been winning the war since 1980.
  - jerf 18y ago
    Step One: Define "conservatism". No, seriously, stop for a moment and define it to yourself. I want you to come up with a serious definition, too, not "those assholes who hate darkies" or something like that. Come up with what they stand for, what they stand against, a serious definition of some kind. Step Two: Determine if we've actually had a conservative government for any period of time since 1980 that have actually acted on the definition of conservatism. I've posted this as a meta-message because you can get different answers depending on what perfectly legitimate definition of conservatism you adopt. If you define it solely in terms of reactionary defense of the status quo, conservatism is politically dead, since the status quo has been, is, and will continue to never apply in our world. It moves too fast for that. If you define it as isomorphic to the Republican party, then it has been in charge and is discredited... but I don't find this a very good definition, as we already have a perfectly good word for "Republican". If you define it as involving cutting taxes, it has had some success, although only some. If you define it in terms of libertarianism, i.e., "smaller government", then it has not been in charge since 1980. We've actually not tried "smaller government" in a long time. It's hard to even identify a year since 1980 where it was winning the war, let alone claim it has been winning since then. "Conservative" and "liberal" are really such ill-defined constructs that using them seriously without defining them almost always indicates weak thinking. For example (and I'm not saying mattmaroon said this, it's just an example) claiming that "conservatives have been in charge since 1980, conservatives stand for small government, conservatives have been a failure therefore small government is a failure" is very bad logic because the meaning of "conservative" keeps shifting throughout the argument. Social conservatism has had a much better run than fiscal conservatism or small government, which has had almost no traction since the New Deal or even earlier. A couple of years of exception, but even those years it was mostly lip service followed by expanded government.
    - arockwell 18y ago
      A conservative is someone you don't like (if you're a liberal). Other than that, I have no idea what the hell it means (vice versa for the term liberal). Political discussions are tough to have because the terminology has become so meaningless. Far too often, I see people slap a political label on a person or policy and the label is intended to be derogatory rather than informative.
    - Retric 18y ago
      "conservative" is about far more than just taxes. If you want to compare government spending and fiscal responsibility then Democrats are by far the more "conservative" party. The modern use of the term has far more to do with preserving the status quo from 100 years ago than it does about any specific ideology. EX: The ban on abortion, the free market pre great depression, "small government", banning stem cell research, anti environmentalism, which really started around the great depression. I expect the "conservative" movement in 100 years will look back at the good old days of the hippie movement with longing.
      - jerf 18y ago
        '"conservative" is about far more than just taxes.' I explain why there's a lot of definitions of the term, and your response is to... explain why one of my lines was wrong? 'If you want to compare government spending and fiscal responsibility then Democrats are by far the more "conservative" party.' Do you live the in the same world I do? Now, you might think I'm going to take exception to the idea that (D) spends less than (R). In fact, my incredulity is prompted by your "by far the more". From where I sit, neither party seems to have met a spending bill they didn't like, except briefly by the (R)s in the 90s which they quickly seem to have gotten over. (And whatever credibility the (D)s may have had on this issue just got squandered these last couple of weeks, with this "stimulus" bill that, even if you accept Keynesian economic theory, won't do a damn thing to help.) That's actually my point, there's significant things called "conservative" that haven't been tried lately, small government merely being at the top of the list. (Oh, and part of the reason I said "make a real definition" is to head off things like saying conservatives are "anti-environment". Nobody of any importance is "pro-pollution". (I don't know of anybody, but it's best to be careful with absolute statements.) They just disagree about priorities or effects. That sort of thinking leads to letting demagogues make up your mind for you.)
  - byrneseyeview 18y ago
    How much smaller and less intrusive has the government gotten since 1980?
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Well, it's lowered the tax rate. Social conservatives have had their way with us though. They're one Republican president away from repealing Roe.
      - byrneseyeview 18y ago
        I think it's changed the way it collects taxes, but as far as I know, government spending is still up, even adjusted for inflation. So it's hard for me to see that conservatives are so successful that they have continued to lose, just not as fast as they used to.
- dantheman 18y ago
  Conservatism, was originally about allowing each state to continue as they were when forming a federal government -- it's about what the states meant the constitution to mean when they designed the government. So it should be a small federal government/states rights perspective; and these states can do anything that they want as long as their state constitution allows it.
  - Retric 18y ago
    It's older than that.
- jmatt 18y ago
  I think this Rush Limbaugh quote does a good job summarizing modern day conservatism: We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.^ I think ideally that is what conservatives want to stand for, though in practice it may be quite different. ^ http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007417 http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007417
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    In practice it's very different to the tune of big government and using faith as a license to ignore reason.
    - jmatt 18y ago
      I'm a libertarian. I'm with you. I'm just saying it's what most conservatives believe in.
    - jmatt 18y ago
      Just read what I wrote. I think ideally that is what conservatives want to stand for, though in practice it may be quite different.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        There's no "may" just an "is".
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  As a libertarian, I think you've misread conservatives. Conservatives believe in induction: that things that work the same way over time have a tendency to continue working the same way. That humans are basically good people but flawed. Liberals believe in experimentation: that the human spirit is basically flawed but can be perfected through the right combination of experimentation. Burke is usually claimed as the first conservative. He was mostly a shill for the ruling class in Great Britain, but, to the dismay of his adversaries, turned out to be right in a large number of his predictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke) Both terms have varied so much over the last 30 years as to almost be meaningless, however. JFK? He was for big tax cuts to spur the economy. Nixon? Froze prices. Politicians (and parties) that were "supposed" to be either conservative or liberal basically abandoned their principles whenever they thought they could get votes. People emotionally attach to the party, and then bandy about "liberal" and "conservative" as labels to shut conversation down. It has little to do with the actual philosophies of conservatism or liberalism (either classic liberalism or modern liberalism) (Sorry. Political junkie here. Couldn't resist providing the information) And long live libertarianism!
falsestprophet 18y ago
"That senator, is where you are wrong." (Okay, calm down Keith Olberman.) No, the United States is not a fraternity; I think a better metaphor is that it is the biggest baddest street gang there is. It should be no surprise that we are inclined to look after our own first. I agree that Microsoft has no obligation other than following the rules and paying its protection money. But America has an obligation to protect American workers ("by the people and for the people" remember?) "by putting them first during these difficult economic times". So, they should change immigration law. And populist talk like this is often the first step towards that end. In the end, I don't think it is meaningful to label this idea conservatism or liberalism. It is simply political pragmatism.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- newt0311 18y ago
  "But America has an obligation to protect American workers" Classic make-work fallacy. American interests are best served when corporations (Microsoft in this case) are as efficient as possible. If that means immigrant workers, then so be it. If MS (and other corps) are forced to hire less-qualified or more expensive American workers then the cost of these measures is paid by their customers who are ... Americans and in lost market share which results in a cost to MS' investors who are ... Americans. The difference is that the plight of the unemployed programmers is obvious and easy to see while the plight of the customer and investors is obscured but that does not change the loss that they experience.
  - timr 18y ago
    Small problem with your theory: over the past 20 years of H1B hiring at Microsoft, the price of their software hasn't gone down, but their market share has. So tell me again how corporate "efficiency" means a good customer experience. Make sure to include some details.
    - lbrandy 18y ago
      Somewhere along the lines you got really confused about what the unit of selection in free market economics is. In a theoretically free market, the market doesn't make individual companies better. It makes the bad ones die and get replaced by good ones. The fact that their market share has tracked with their customer experience is proof of the theory.
tptacek 18y ago
Way to ignore the slippery slope. Microsoft isn't a public works program. Also, all the Stratocasters should be manufactured in Mexico. And hey, why shouldn't our garments by manufactured in the Marianas Islands by women living in caged compounds?
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  I don't see how "people of other nationalities should be allowed to freely compete with Americans" in any way leads to "slavery should be permitted". (I'm assuming you mean to imply that the caged compounds keep women in rather than keep pirates out.)
  - tptacek 18y ago
    We tacitly approve of inhumane working conditions when we allow countries with no human rights or workplace safety standards to compete on a level playing field with us.
    - potatolicious 18y ago
      No, we don't. When American companies were caught using near-slave labor consumers revolted, causing widespread changes in manufacturing policies for a great number of corporations. In fact, nowadays many manufacturers go out of their way to advertise their workers' working conditions and wages in an effort to demonstrate their social responsibility. Why? Because consumers demand it. And then there are the Wal-Marts of the world, who do not do as above, because there are also consumers who do tacitly approve of inhumane working conditions. The free market seems to be taking care of this problem - I don't see regulation needed here. Not to mention the fact that many of these "inhumane" conditions are actually pretty par for the course as far as those regions go. My own mother worked as a child laborer in a textiles mill when she was still in primary school. The extra income allowed her desperately poor family to move into the city, find jobs, and get educations. I doubt I would be typing on this computer if it were not for the opportunities presented by what the Western world would have, at the time, seen as atrocious workplace safety standards and an abuse of labor. Modernization is a long and arduous process that can be sped up with the right pressure, but preventing these countries from competing is simply condemning them to continual and perpetual poverty.
coryrc 18y ago
Microsoft is a chartered corporation under the United States of America. If they are not serving the interests of the people of the USA, then I see no reason why they should not be punished in some way.
- Dilpil 18y ago
  Serving the interests of the people is not a binary phenomenon. Microsoft still employs 1000s and produces popular consumer products. Just how much do they need to do to serve the interests of the USA? Shouldn't their taxes take care of that?
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
I wish to restart the conservative party. no religious crazies allowed. I just need the backing of a few billionaires and Ron Paul's help.
weegee 18y ago
yeah, fire the workers making more money, and keep the cheap foreign labor, it's the American Way!!!

by Dilpil 18y ago

axiom 18y ago

Long live libertarianism. Conservatism was only ever about small government by accident - they were just for mindlessly preserving the status quo. Which is why they lost.

mattmaroon 18y ago
They lost? They may have recently lost a battle, but overall have been winning the war since 1980.
- jerf 18y ago
  Step One: Define "conservatism". No, seriously, stop for a moment and define it to yourself. I want you to come up with a serious definition, too, not "those assholes who hate darkies" or something like that. Come up with what they stand for, what they stand against, a serious definition of some kind. Step Two: Determine if we've actually had a conservative government for any period of time since 1980 that have actually acted on the definition of conservatism. I've posted this as a meta-message because you can get different answers depending on what perfectly legitimate definition of conservatism you adopt. If you define it solely in terms of reactionary defense of the status quo, conservatism is politically dead, since the status quo has been, is, and will continue to never apply in our world. It moves too fast for that. If you define it as isomorphic to the Republican party, then it has been in charge and is discredited... but I don't find this a very good definition, as we already have a perfectly good word for "Republican". If you define it as involving cutting taxes, it has had some success, although only some. If you define it in terms of libertarianism, i.e., "smaller government", then it has not been in charge since 1980. We've actually not tried "smaller government" in a long time. It's hard to even identify a year since 1980 where it was winning the war, let alone claim it has been winning since then. "Conservative" and "liberal" are really such ill-defined constructs that using them seriously without defining them almost always indicates weak thinking. For example (and I'm not saying mattmaroon said this, it's just an example) claiming that "conservatives have been in charge since 1980, conservatives stand for small government, conservatives have been a failure therefore small government is a failure" is very bad logic because the meaning of "conservative" keeps shifting throughout the argument. Social conservatism has had a much better run than fiscal conservatism or small government, which has had almost no traction since the New Deal or even earlier. A couple of years of exception, but even those years it was mostly lip service followed by expanded government.
  - arockwell 18y ago
    A conservative is someone you don't like (if you're a liberal). Other than that, I have no idea what the hell it means (vice versa for the term liberal). Political discussions are tough to have because the terminology has become so meaningless. Far too often, I see people slap a political label on a person or policy and the label is intended to be derogatory rather than informative.
  - Retric 18y ago
    "conservative" is about far more than just taxes. If you want to compare government spending and fiscal responsibility then Democrats are by far the more "conservative" party. The modern use of the term has far more to do with preserving the status quo from 100 years ago than it does about any specific ideology. EX: The ban on abortion, the free market pre great depression, "small government", banning stem cell research, anti environmentalism, which really started around the great depression. I expect the "conservative" movement in 100 years will look back at the good old days of the hippie movement with longing.
    - jerf 18y ago
      '"conservative" is about far more than just taxes.' I explain why there's a lot of definitions of the term, and your response is to... explain why one of my lines was wrong? 'If you want to compare government spending and fiscal responsibility then Democrats are by far the more "conservative" party.' Do you live the in the same world I do? Now, you might think I'm going to take exception to the idea that (D) spends less than (R). In fact, my incredulity is prompted by your "by far the more". From where I sit, neither party seems to have met a spending bill they didn't like, except briefly by the (R)s in the 90s which they quickly seem to have gotten over. (And whatever credibility the (D)s may have had on this issue just got squandered these last couple of weeks, with this "stimulus" bill that, even if you accept Keynesian economic theory, won't do a damn thing to help.) That's actually my point, there's significant things called "conservative" that haven't been tried lately, small government merely being at the top of the list. (Oh, and part of the reason I said "make a real definition" is to head off things like saying conservatives are "anti-environment". Nobody of any importance is "pro-pollution". (I don't know of anybody, but it's best to be careful with absolute statements.) They just disagree about priorities or effects. That sort of thinking leads to letting demagogues make up your mind for you.)
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  How much smaller and less intrusive has the government gotten since 1980?
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Well, it's lowered the tax rate. Social conservatives have had their way with us though. They're one Republican president away from repealing Roe.
    - byrneseyeview 18y ago
      I think it's changed the way it collects taxes, but as far as I know, government spending is still up, even adjusted for inflation. So it's hard for me to see that conservatives are so successful that they have continued to lose, just not as fast as they used to.
dantheman 18y ago
Conservatism, was originally about allowing each state to continue as they were when forming a federal government -- it's about what the states meant the constitution to mean when they designed the government. So it should be a small federal government/states rights perspective; and these states can do anything that they want as long as their state constitution allows it.
- Retric 18y ago
  It's older than that.
jmatt 18y ago
I think this Rush Limbaugh quote does a good job summarizing modern day conservatism: We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.^ I think ideally that is what conservatives want to stand for, though in practice it may be quite different. ^ http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007417 http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007417
- fallentimes 18y ago
  In practice it's very different to the tune of big government and using faith as a license to ignore reason.
  - jmatt 18y ago
    I'm a libertarian. I'm with you. I'm just saying it's what most conservatives believe in.
  - jmatt 18y ago
    Just read what I wrote. I think ideally that is what conservatives want to stand for, though in practice it may be quite different.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      There's no "may" just an "is".
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
As a libertarian, I think you've misread conservatives. Conservatives believe in induction: that things that work the same way over time have a tendency to continue working the same way. That humans are basically good people but flawed. Liberals believe in experimentation: that the human spirit is basically flawed but can be perfected through the right combination of experimentation. Burke is usually claimed as the first conservative. He was mostly a shill for the ruling class in Great Britain, but, to the dismay of his adversaries, turned out to be right in a large number of his predictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke) Both terms have varied so much over the last 30 years as to almost be meaningless, however. JFK? He was for big tax cuts to spur the economy. Nixon? Froze prices. Politicians (and parties) that were "supposed" to be either conservative or liberal basically abandoned their principles whenever they thought they could get votes. People emotionally attach to the party, and then bandy about "liberal" and "conservative" as labels to shut conversation down. It has little to do with the actual philosophies of conservatism or liberalism (either classic liberalism or modern liberalism) (Sorry. Political junkie here. Couldn't resist providing the information) And long live libertarianism!

falsestprophet 18y ago

"That senator, is where you are wrong." (Okay, calm down Keith Olberman.) No, the United States is not a fraternity; I think a better metaphor is that it is the biggest baddest street gang there is. It should be no surprise that we are inclined to look after our own first. I agree that Microsoft has no obligation other than following the rules and paying its protection money. But America has an obligation to protect American workers ("by the people and for the people" remember?) "by putting them first during these difficult economic times". So, they should change immigration law. And populist talk like this is often the first step towards that end. In the end, I don't think it is meaningful to label this idea conservatism or liberalism. It is simply political pragmatism.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
newt0311 18y ago
"But America has an obligation to protect American workers" Classic make-work fallacy. American interests are best served when corporations (Microsoft in this case) are as efficient as possible. If that means immigrant workers, then so be it. If MS (and other corps) are forced to hire less-qualified or more expensive American workers then the cost of these measures is paid by their customers who are ... Americans and in lost market share which results in a cost to MS' investors who are ... Americans. The difference is that the plight of the unemployed programmers is obvious and easy to see while the plight of the customer and investors is obscured but that does not change the loss that they experience.
- timr 18y ago
  Small problem with your theory: over the past 20 years of H1B hiring at Microsoft, the price of their software hasn't gone down, but their market share has. So tell me again how corporate "efficiency" means a good customer experience. Make sure to include some details.
  - lbrandy 18y ago
    Somewhere along the lines you got really confused about what the unit of selection in free market economics is. In a theoretically free market, the market doesn't make individual companies better. It makes the bad ones die and get replaced by good ones. The fact that their market share has tracked with their customer experience is proof of the theory.

tptacek 18y ago

Way to ignore the slippery slope. Microsoft isn't a public works program. Also, all the Stratocasters should be manufactured in Mexico. And hey, why shouldn't our garments by manufactured in the Marianas Islands by women living in caged compounds?

yummyfajitas 18y ago
I don't see how "people of other nationalities should be allowed to freely compete with Americans" in any way leads to "slavery should be permitted". (I'm assuming you mean to imply that the caged compounds keep women in rather than keep pirates out.)
- tptacek 18y ago
  We tacitly approve of inhumane working conditions when we allow countries with no human rights or workplace safety standards to compete on a level playing field with us.
  - potatolicious 18y ago
    No, we don't. When American companies were caught using near-slave labor consumers revolted, causing widespread changes in manufacturing policies for a great number of corporations. In fact, nowadays many manufacturers go out of their way to advertise their workers' working conditions and wages in an effort to demonstrate their social responsibility. Why? Because consumers demand it. And then there are the Wal-Marts of the world, who do not do as above, because there are also consumers who do tacitly approve of inhumane working conditions. The free market seems to be taking care of this problem - I don't see regulation needed here. Not to mention the fact that many of these "inhumane" conditions are actually pretty par for the course as far as those regions go. My own mother worked as a child laborer in a textiles mill when she was still in primary school. The extra income allowed her desperately poor family to move into the city, find jobs, and get educations. I doubt I would be typing on this computer if it were not for the opportunities presented by what the Western world would have, at the time, seen as atrocious workplace safety standards and an abuse of labor. Modernization is a long and arduous process that can be sped up with the right pressure, but preventing these countries from competing is simply condemning them to continual and perpetual poverty.

coryrc 18y ago

Microsoft is a chartered corporation under the United States of America. If they are not serving the interests of the people of the USA, then I see no reason why they should not be punished in some way.

Dilpil 18y ago
Serving the interests of the people is not a binary phenomenon. Microsoft still employs 1000s and produces popular consumer products. Just how much do they need to do to serve the interests of the USA? Shouldn't their taxes take care of that?

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

I wish to restart the conservative party. no religious crazies allowed. I just need the backing of a few billionaires and Ron Paul's help.

weegee 18y ago

yeah, fire the workers making more money, and keep the cheap foreign labor, it's the American Way!!!