Which is more Evil: Wal-Mart of Microsoft?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Sasha
Originally posted by: crystal
The amount of people choose to use their services tell me they are not evil. To those people, these companies are doing a good thing.
What? WM markets directly to the lowest income household. The poor people are attempting, maybe--just maybe--to make their dollar go farther.
Of course, what they don't say, is that it is highly likely that the low wages paid by Wal-Mart in any one area, tend to depress the overall average working wage in the same area. Thus completing the vicious cycle.

You know, I just realized what Wal-Mart really is, and what it is about. It's about re-creating the old ideas of the "company store", alongside those ideas of violently putting down and preventing the formation of labor unions. Only in this case, instead of the people being forced to live at the company store, the company store comes to them, their own neighborhoods that they've already lived in, and effectively sets up this cycle for the working-class folks that live there, that lock them into Wal-Mart's self-propagating economic cycle.

Some interesting recent info here, here, and here
I especially liked this bit from the first link:
I almost blew a gasket when I read this paragraph. Can you imagine the CEO of Wal-Mart, of all companies in the United States, claiming they are trying to create a decent society? This is the same firm that pays substandard wages, that tells its workers to ask for state-funded health care, that has an office in China designed to facilitate the export of American jobs overseas, that is the object of the largest class action suit in American history because of its culture of discrimination against women, that just got cited for child labor violations in three states; and its CEO is talking about creating a decent society?

Googling for "Wal Mart state health care" brings us to this link
Critics say Wal-Mart's miserly approach to employee health care is forcing many of its workers and their families into state insurance programs or making them rely on charity care by hospitals; survey by Georgia officials finds more than 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees are in state's health program for children at annual cost of nearly $10 million to taxpayers; efforts are under way in California, Washington State and elsewhere to adopt measures that would force big employers like Wal-Mart to either provide affordable health insurance to workers or pay into state insurance pool; Wal-Mart claims it offers health coverage to 58 percen of employees who are eligible; this compares with insured rate of 96 percent of eligible employees of Costco Wholesale, Wal-Mart's closest competitor nationwide; critics say many Wal-Mart workers are unable to meet eligibility requirements or cannot afford monthly premiums as high as $264 a month for family of $8-per-hour cashier; Wal-Mart benefits executive Susan Chambers says larger issue of whether companies can and should absorb soaring cost of health care is national issue;

That's truely, truely sad. Not only is Wal-Mart cutting into the economic health of their laborers, but the physical well-being and health as well, by shirking the responsibility of health-care in order to "cut costs". Wal-Mart is injuring Americans, here, in order to send more $$$ over to China. That's pretty despicable.

 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Sasha
Originally posted by: crystal
The amount of people choose to use their services tell me they are not evil. To those people, these companies are doing a good thing.

What? WM markets directly to the lowest income household. The poor people are attempting, maybe--just maybe--to make their dollar go farther. This doesn't mean they agree with the operating decisions to change the DOT regs for 16-hour PTR driving, but rather they are simply trying to make what little money they have go farther.

I am not aware of any effort to poll any WM customer at the door to get their view on the OTR element this thread was created upon.


I read an interesting article the other day on how the middle class and above are more worried about their dollar than other classes. Wish I could find it.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: CPA
I read an interesting article the other day on how the middle class and above are more worried about their dollar than other classes. Wish I could find it.
Likely because the truely "poor" aren't even living on their own dollar these days, but on someone else's, that's why.


 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: CPA
I read an interesting article the other day on how the middle class and above are more worried about their dollar than other classes. Wish I could find it.
Likely because the truely "poor" aren't even living on their own dollar these days, but on someone else's, that's why.

alright, now we're getting somewhere ;)
 

skull

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2000
2,209
327
126
My friend's dad works for the post office drving an 18 wheeler from the hubs to post offices around the city. The hours your allowed to drive don't apply to the post office. He works 70-80 hours a week. Around holidays he works 6-7 days a week 16 hour days. Its never bothered him but it doesn't seem very safe. Although if the post office can do it why not wal-mart.
 

imported_Sasha

Senior member
Aug 29, 2004
286
0
0
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Sasha
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: toekramp
neither i hate these threads
how much has microsoft donated over the last few years?
Not nearly enough to offset how much of their profits they have funneled through out-of-state shell corporations, to avoid paying taxes in their "home" state, and supporting the services that they depend on themselves, instead demanding a handout from gov't at the taxpayers expense, rather than MS paying their fair share of the burden.
The hypocracy in this regard is utterly, utterly, staggering.
Most of the "donations" haven't been from MS corporate anyways, they've been from BillG himself, IIRC, or the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation", rather.

Walmart paid $5B in federal taxes last year.

Microsoft paid $4B last year.

Please people, if you're going to throw around allegations do your homework first.

And what was the average income earner of the two companies?

What does that have to do with the income tax argument.

Should a cashier make as much as a programmer? Should a stock clerk make as much as the software engineers? Should assistant managers make as much as finance, HR, software development management? the market pays what those jobs are worth.

What cashier? I get off of work at Midnight and when I walk into WM there are no cashiers. Those jobs have been out-sourced to an inanimate object affectionately coins as 'self-checkout'.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: Amused
Neither.
What is evil are those people who mindlessly target whatever company or person who is on top or the most popular.
You believe that a person that acts in self-defense and self-preservation, is "evil"? How curious. Remember to turn and run away if anyone ever threatens you, lest you be accused of being similarly "evil".
What are you "defending" yourself against? :confused:
Are you implying that Walmart and/or MS are somehow threatening you physically?
Physically? No. Where did I ever suggest that? There are a lot more ways to get threatened and hurt than just physically. Having your legal rights taken away or weakened, can be a lot more serious and more dangerous than any singular physical threat can be, and it also affects far more victims.

How has Walmart and/or MS taken away your "legal rights?"
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Amused
How has Walmart and/or MS taken away your "legal rights?"
Wow, you must be blind. State-level UCTIA legislation, struct down in many but passed by some, much more worrysome is the fact that there was one court decision so far upholding a coercive adhesion contract known colloquially as a "EULA", although several others have not.

The day that I can be held accountable to a contract that I have neither read nor agreed to, is the day that America starts to die, as the rights of all Americans die with it. (And Slavery is re-enacted.) Apparently, you must already be "dead" (speaking politically here, in terms of your awareness and utilization of your rights), or you are not an American, or you are associated with the Slave-Masters and actually look forward to this sort of thing happening.

I was originally speaking primarily of MS in that comment, although a similar argument could be made against Wal-Mart for depressing the effective working wage of the local community, thus harming people economically that aren't even directly employed by them. Not to mention the offloading of a good portion of their employee's health-care costs onto the backs of the state taxpayers, in that sense Wal-Mart is economically harming each and every one of those taxpayers by doing so.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: Amused
How has Walmart and/or MS taken away your "legal rights?"
Wow, you must be blind. State-level UCTIA legislation, struct down in many but passed by some, much more worrysome is the fact that there was one court decision so far upholding a coercive adhesion contract known colloquially as a "EULA", although several others have not.

The day that I can be held accountable to a contract that I have neither read nor agreed to, is the day that America starts to die, as the rights of all Americans die with it. (And Slavery is re-enacted.) Apparently, you must already be "dead" (speaking politically here, in terms of your awareness and utilization of your rights), or you are not an American, or you are associated with the Slave-Masters and actually look forward to this sort of thing happening.

I was originally speaking primarily of MS in that comment, although a similar argument could be made against Wal-Mart for depressing the effective working wage of the local community, thus harming people economically that aren't even directly employed by them. Not to mention the offloading of a good portion of their employee's health-care costs onto the backs of the state taxpayers, in that sense Wal-Mart is economically harming each and every one of those taxpayers by doing so.

How pathetic. Your rights are this: Don't use the product if you don't agree with the terms and don't work for Walmart if you don't like them.

There, how fscking hard was that?

The only slave masters I see are the anti-corporate types like yourself who wish to punish success and make up rights out of thin air while robbing others of their rights simply because they are successful.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Amused
How pathetic. Your rights are this: Don't use the product if you don't agree with the terms and don't work for Walmart if you don't like them.

There, how fscking hard was that?

The only slave masters I see are the anti-corporate types like yourself who wish to punish success and make up rights out of thin air while robbing others of their rights simply because they are successful.
Wow. Blind. That's all I can say to that. I guess you're one of those types that feels that gov't is an unnecessary entity, because the "free market rules all", and it should just be a direct match-up between consumer and corporation, right? Winner-take-all, might-makes-right. Screw laws, rights, the fabric of society itself, etc.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
How pathetic. Your rights are this: Don't use the product if you don't agree with the terms and don't work for Walmart if you don't like them.

I think if you look a little bit deeper into this, you could see a trend forming, with big business arranging laws that favor them, and in the process shifting legal power from the citizens to big money.

Although common citizens make up the vast majority of this country and should hold the majority of power in a democracy, they often aren't aware of or just don't care about their rights. The elite, on the other hand, are very proactive and make sure that laws are structured to suit them. Over time, you have a situation where the minority (the rich and powerful) gains more political power than the majority (the everyday citizen), and the common man is indentured to the rich.

I think a conscious person would forsee this and prevent it from happening. If the truckers (the many) want to work more hours, then that's a legit reason to change the current law. But if a big corporation like Wal-Mart (the few) want to throw money around to get this law changed, even against the will of the people, well that's just a failure of our political system.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Topic Title: Which is more Evil: Wal-Mart of Microsoft?

They are both equally as evil as far as destroying the spirit of the U.S. and the Consitution by literally taking over the U.S. Government along with other large Corporations.

But this is what the American sheeple like and want so I digress.
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
i at least have a job because of M$,

Walmart just sucks for the sake of sucking.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Hmm... one is part of an oligopoly that is driving prices down, and one is a monopoly that is keeping prices high.

Then again, lower prices mean more bang for each buck that you earn, and monopolies tend to cut out the overhead of competition and let the market benefit from a consistent product throughout the industry.

I say neigher is evil. They're both good.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: Amused
How pathetic. Your rights are this: Don't use the product if you don't agree with the terms and don't work for Walmart if you don't like them.

There, how fscking hard was that?

The only slave masters I see are the anti-corporate types like yourself who wish to punish success and make up rights out of thin air while robbing others of their rights simply because they are successful.
Wow. Blind. That's all I can say to that. I guess you're one of those types that feels that gov't is an unnecessary entity, because the "free market rules all", and it should just be a direct match-up between consumer and corporation, right? Winner-take-all, might-makes-right. Screw laws, rights, the fabric of society itself, etc.

It is government regulation of business that makes them so powerful in the first place.

Just as the separation of church and state guarantees both the freedom of religion AND a government free from religious tyranny, a separation of business and state would do the same thing.

But because government is in the business of tightly controlling business, it is in the business' best interest to do everything possible to make sure that the tight regulation favors them. A private company has no power to make laws, and therefore cannot take away my rights. But give a comapny incentive to control the government, and you'll have the SAME trouble you had when religion and state mixed.

Government is necessary only to protect individual rights. Not to nanny us. Busniess regulations do not protect individual rights... they protect individuals from making stupid choices. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'm not blind. I'm just not an authoritarian socialist like you.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Topic Title: Which is more Evil: Wal-Mart of Microsoft?

They are both equally as evil as far as destroying the spirit of the U.S. and the Consitution by literally taking over the U.S. Government along with other large Corporations.

But this is what the American sheeple like and want so I digress.

The spirit of the US and Constitution was freedom and limited government. This includes the freedom to trade at will.

Those who would punish MS and Walmart for their success are the ones who seek to destroy the original intent of our country.

Dave, you need to go find an authoritarian nanny-state and live in it. You obviously fear the idea of other people having freedom.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Amused
The spirit of the US and Constitution was freedom and limited government. This includes the freedom to trade at will.
Indeed. Including the right to freely contract. Which also includes the right to not be bound to any contracts that you are not a party to. Such as an unlawful one, in which the terms are not disclosed, and you did not agree to, at the time that the contract was entered into.
Originally posted by: Amused
Those who would punish MS and Walmart for their success are the ones who seek to destroy the original intent of our country.
The intent of our country was to make China rich, and manipute the stock market?? Sorry, I just don't get that at all.
Originally posted by: Amused
Dave, you need to go find an authoritarian nanny-state and live in it. You obviously fear freedom.
LOL. And you argued against it, ironically enough, regarding EULAs and adhesion contracts. Either that, or you are arguing in favor of fraud for profit by large corporations and their sales agents, one of the two. (And that's why gov't is legitimately needed - who will fight the powerful corporations, on behalf of the people, when they commit fraud against a citizen? An individual citizen alone isn't strong enough to "fight back".)
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: Amused
The spirit of the US and Constitution was freedom and limited government. This includes the freedom to trade at will.
Indeed. Including the right to freely contract. Which also includes the right to not be bound to any contracts that you are not a party to. Such as an unlawful one, in which the terms are not disclosed, and you did not agree to, at the time that the contract was entered into.
Originally posted by: Amused
Those who would punish MS and Walmart for their success are the ones who seek to destroy the original intent of our country.
The intent of our country was to make China rich, and manipute the stock market?? Sorry, I just don't get that at all.
Originally posted by: Amused
Dave, you need to go find an authoritarian nanny-state and live in it. You obviously fear freedom.
LOL. And you argued against it, ironically enough, regarding EULAs and adhesion contracts. Either that, or you are arguing in favor of fraud for profit by large corporations and their sales agents, one of the two. (And that's why gov't is legitimately needed - who will fight the powerful corporations, on behalf of the people, when they commit fraud against a citizen? An individual citizen alone isn't strong enough to "fight back".)

Again, with EULAs your rights are this: You have a right to not buy and use the product if the terms are not agreeable to you. You do NOT have the right to force MS to make the terms agreeable to you.

Why does freedom scare you? If US citizens want to trade with China, why is that a problem for you? That's what FREEDOM is about. Free trade is a FREEDOM.

EULAs are civil contracts. They must be agreed upon by both parties. If you CHOOSE to use MS's product, you agree to the EULA. If you do not agree, you simply do not use the product.

Corporations are only powerful because of regulation, not in spite of it or because there is not enough. Take away their incentive to control government, and you take away their power.

Again, government's purpose is to protect individual rights. ALL individuals. This includes business owners and workers alike. Government is not your savior, your nanny, or your big brother.

You can be free, or "fair." But you cannot be both.

I'll take freedom.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Amused
It is government regulation of business that makes them so powerful in the first place.
Uhh, I don't know if you've been watching or keeping score lately, but both MS and Wal-Mart seem to be "regulating" gov't, not the other way around. Or did you sleep through the whole DOJ-MS trial thing?
Originally posted by: Amused
Just as the separation of church and state guarantees both the freedom of religion AND a government free from religious tyranny, a separation of business and state would do the same thing.
Which is why there used to be laws on the books, against gov't investing in corporations. But those laws were eventually removed, in order to further facilitate the infiltrating and manipulation of gov't entities by corporations. To say nothing about "corporate welfare", lobbiests, PACs/"soft money", etc. ALL of which should be thrown out. That's one reason why I feel they DOJ/gov't has been using the kid-gloves on MS, because a large portion of the gov't civil-servant pension funds, are institutionally-invested, and much of them are invested in MS! Corporate incest at its finest.
Originally posted by: Amused
A private company has no power to make laws, and therefore cannot take away my rights. But give a comapny incentive to control the government, and you'll have the SAME trouble you had when religion and state mixed.
You speak of theory, but at the same time, you deny the practice of reality. Thus, you speak with a forked tongue. MS and Wal-Mart should not be allowed to "bend the rules", and re-craft the rule of law as they see fit, to benefit themselves, and harm we, the people. I was arguing against such a thing; yet you disagreed, arguing that MS and Wal-Mart's "success" was proof-positive that they were doing no wrong, apparently. I would disagree with that theory vehemently.
Originally posted by: Amused
Government is necessary only to protect individual rights. Not to nanny us.
And especially not to act as the slaves' task-masters, at the behest of the large, corporate, plantation-owners. (Witness the transformation of the FBI into a global copyright police force for a small collection of media companies with powerful lobbiests in Washington.)
Originally posted by: Amused
Busniess regulations do not protect individual rights...
They most certainly do protect individual rights - take anti-discrimination laws, for example. Or do you believe that it should be allowed, for corporations to hire completely racially-homogenous sales staff based on their target customer market, because they believe that it will increase profits? So that any minority that happens to be living in the area can't get a job, because they are effectively blacklisted. But you would say that was acceptable under your "pure capitalist" model, right? You would say that the real problem there, was simply that the citizen was located in the wrong part of the country, and that it would better serve their personal economic interests to move to an area of the country in which they would be part of the racial majority, right? I strongly disagree with that one.
Originally posted by: Amused
I'm not blind. I'm just not an authoritarian socialist like you.
Ironically, you (indirectly) advocate socialism, when you (apparently) don't seem to have a problem with Wal-Mart's "success", due to their extreme cost-cutting, which is in part due to their highly sub-standard support for health-care for their employees, forcing them to subscribe to taxpayer-funded state health-care services (socialism here), if they want to have healthcare at all.

So is it acceptable to you, for corporations to effectively be able to tax citizens? Shouldn't that be the exclusive province of gov't? But when "corporate welfare" is allowed, that amounts to gov't enforced forced wealth-redistribution into the hands of those corporations. Isn't that socialism at its finest? It doesn't bother you at all that such things are going on, as long as "Wal-Mart is successsful"?

I also don't see at all where you get the "authoritarian" from, when I believe that I should not be able to be forced into a contract that I did not agree to, simply because the gov't refuses to uphold basic, long-held legal precidents, because of undue corporate interest upon the gov't. (See "corp-gov't incest", above.)
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: Amused
It is government regulation of business that makes them so powerful in the first place.
Uhh, I don't know if you've been watching or keeping score lately, but both MS and Wal-Mart seem to be "regulating" gov't, not the other way around. Or did you sleep through the whole DOJ-MS trial thing?
Originally posted by: Amused
Just as the separation of church and state guarantees both the freedom of religion AND a government free from religious tyranny, a separation of business and state would do the same thing.
Which is why there used to be laws on the books, against gov't investing in corporations. But those laws were eventually removed, in order to further facilitate the infiltrating and manipulation of gov't entities by corporations. To say nothing about "corporate welfare", lobbiests, PACs/"soft money", etc. ALL of which should be thrown out. That's one reason why I feel they DOJ/gov't has been using the kid-gloves on MS, because a large portion of the gov't civil-servant pension funds, are institutionally-invested, and much of them are invested in MS! Corporate incest at its finest.
Originally posted by: Amused
A private company has no power to make laws, and therefore cannot take away my rights. But give a comapny incentive to control the government, and you'll have the SAME trouble you had when religion and state mixed.
You speak of theory, but at the same time, you deny the practice of reality. Thus, you speak with a forked tongue. MS and Wal-Mart should not be allowed to "bend the rules", and re-craft the rule of law as they see fit, to benefit themselves, and harm we, the people. I was arguing against such a thing; yet you disagreed, arguing that MS and Wal-Mart's "success" was proof-positive that they were doing no wrong, apparently. I would disagree with that theory vehemently.
Originally posted by: Amused
Government is necessary only to protect individual rights. Not to nanny us.
And especially not to act as the slaves' task-masters, at the behest of the large, corporate, plantation-owners. (Witness the transformation of the FBI into a global copyright police force for a small collection of media companies with powerful lobbiests in Washington.)
Originally posted by: Amused
Busniess regulations do not protect individual rights...
They most certainly do protect individual rights - take anti-discrimination laws, for example. Or do you believe that it should be allowed, for corporations to hire completely racially-homogenous sales staff based on their target customer market, because they believe that it will increase profits? So that any minority that happens to be living in the area can't get a job, because they are effectively blacklisted. But you would say that was acceptable under your "pure capitalist" model, right? You would say that the real problem there, was simply that the citizen was located in the wrong part of the country, and that it would better serve their personal economic interests to move to an area of the country in which they would be part of the racial majority, right? I strongly disagree with that one.
Originally posted by: Amused
I'm not blind. I'm just not an authoritarian socialist like you.
Ironically, you (indirectly) advocate socialism, when you (apparently) don't seem to have a problem with Wal-Mart's "success", due to their extreme cost-cutting, which is in part due to their highly sub-standard support for health-care for their employees, forcing them to subscribe to taxpayer-funded state health-care services (socialism here), if they want to have healthcare at all.

So is it acceptable to you, for corporations to effectively be able to tax citizens? Shouldn't that be the exclusive province of gov't? But when "corporate welfare" is allowed, that amounts to gov't enforced forced wealth-redistribution into the hands of those corporations. Isn't that socialism at its finest? It doesn't bother you at all that such things are going on, as long as "Wal-Mart is successsful"?

I also don't see at all where you get the "authoritarian" from, when I believe that I should not be able to be forced into a contract that I did not agree to, simply because the gov't refuses to uphold basic, long-held legal precidents, because of undue corporate interest upon the gov't. (See "corp-gov't incest", above.)

Larry, there would be no "corporate welfare" if regulations and taxes of corporations were ended. Corporate taxes are merely indirect taxes on the consumer and make our businesses less competitive on the world market. They should be abolished.

Everything you have ranted about is directly connected to the regulation of business. Separate business and state just as we have religion and state and business loses all power.

ALL your arguments are weak. What's more, you implying that I am indirectly advocating socialism because Walmart doesn't offer benefits to your liking is so laughable, I only respond to point out it's absurdity.

Health care and all other "benefits" are the sole responsibility of the individual. Not the state, or any business. If you don't like the "benefits" offered at your place of employment, find another employer.

Finally, anti-discrimination laws are an unenforceable joke. You cannot change hearts and minds with laws. People discriminate every day. The only way to stop it is not forcing them to do things they do not want to do, but by ending bias itself through education and the changing of hearts and minds.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Amused
Again, with EULAs your rights are this: You have a right to not buy and use the product if the terms are not agreeable to you. You do NOT have the right to force MS to make the terms agreeable to you.
Wow. You are an incredible corporate apologist, aren't you?

So, you DO believe that MS has the right to force terms that are agreeable to them, but disagreeable to me, onto me, though? You find that completely acceptable?
Originally posted by: Amused
Why does freedom scare you? If US citizens want to trade with China, why is that a problem for you? That's what FREEDOM is about. Free trade is a FREEDOM.
I was commenting that I doubt the founding-fathers created this country to make China rich, which you seemingly implied.
Originally posted by: Amused
EULAs are civil contracts. They must be agreed upon by both parties. If you CHOOSE to use MS's product, you agree to the EULA. If you do not agree, you simply do not use the product.
No, they ARE NOT. They purport to be, but they are not. The actual "implied purchase contract" takes place, when the store offers to sell me something ("offer"), I pay for it ("consideration"), and I recieve the goods ("acceptance"). The goods are now MINE. According to copyright law, I now own a legal license to that copyrighted work, and am free to make use of it for private use - however I like.

MS decides that they want to impose additional terms and conditions upon me, restricting my rights under the law to use the software, by requiring a "mechanical action" during the process of installation. However, the actual contract occurred prior. Those terms and conditions were not part of the actual purchase contract that was executed. Thus, those terms do not form a valid legal contract, and have no legal force behind them.

If MS wanted to LEGALLY, enforce those terms, then they must make them AVAILABLE to me, and require my CONSENSUAL LEGAL AGREEMENT to THOSE terms, PRIOR to the conclusion of the purchase transaction.

The fact that they do not force their sales agents (retail store CSRs) to force customers to agree prior to the sale, IS MS's FAULT. Guess what, because they didn't do things the proper legal way, they have no right of civil action against me. As long as I obey copyright law itself, I'm fine. I have no problems with MS attempting to enforce those T&Cs, lawfully. But they attempt to do so un-lawfully, and then enforce that by manipulations of the gov't bodies charged with the responsibility to enforce those things.

But for some reason, you don't seem to feel that corporations need obey the law? They can dictate what it is "supposed" to be, on a whim, in order to serve the corporation? Shouldn't all be equal under the law? Why are you (apparently) in favor of the pro-corporation bias here?
Originally posted by: Amused
Corporations are only powerful because of regulation, not in spite of it or because there is not enough. Take away their incentive to control government, and you take away their power.
You're quite mad. Corporations exist for the sole purpose of the (purportedly) "public good", the collective enconomic benefit towards society. But when they start to infringe on the individual rights of soviergn citizens, it is time for them to be reined back in, or shut down.
Originally posted by: Amused
Again, government's purpose is to protect individual rights. ALL individuals. This includes business owners and workers alike. Government is not your savior, your nanny, or your big brother.
You can be free, or "fair." But you cannot be both.
I'll take freedom.
Again - the "blind" comment - can't you see that I am arguing in favor of freedom - according to the law? And because you are arguing against that, that you likewise seem to be arguing against freedom, but rather in favor of corporate socialism/fascism? Are you even reading what I'm writing at all??? You feel that MS shouldn't be bound to the well-established practices of civil contract law?

(Unless you would prefer a true "outlaw" state, in which economics and the application of force determined everything? That's not a republic governed by public written law, that's something else entirely. I guess you could call it the corporate-run state, because that is what it would eventually become, absent any form of opposition power.)
 

iversonyin

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2004
3,303
0
76
I do not see how Walmart nor MS is evil in anyway.

If you don't like the way they treat their worker, don't work for them.

If you don't like their product, don't buy them?


What is so evil about them?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: Amused
Again, with EULAs your rights are this: You have a right to not buy and use the product if the terms are not agreeable to you. You do NOT have the right to force MS to make the terms agreeable to you.
Wow. You are an incredible corporate apologist, aren't you?

So, you DO believe that MS has the right to force terms that are agreeable to them, but disagreeable to me, onto me, though? You find that completely acceptable?
Originally posted by: Amused
Why does freedom scare you? If US citizens want to trade with China, why is that a problem for you? That's what FREEDOM is about. Free trade is a FREEDOM.
I was commenting that I doubt the founding-fathers created this country to make China rich, which you seemingly implied.
Originally posted by: Amused
EULAs are civil contracts. They must be agreed upon by both parties. If you CHOOSE to use MS's product, you agree to the EULA. If you do not agree, you simply do not use the product.
No, they ARE NOT. They purport to be, but they are not. The actual "implied purchase contract" takes place, when the store offers to sell me something ("offer"), I pay for it ("consideration"), and I recieve the goods ("acceptance"). The goods are now MINE. According to copyright law, I now own a legal license to that copyrighted work, and am free to make use of it for private use - however I like.

MS decides that they want to impose additional terms and conditions upon me, restricting my rights under the law to use the software, by requiring a "mechanical action" during the process of installation. However, the actual contract occurred prior. Those terms and conditions were not part of the actual purchase contract that was executed. Thus, those terms do not form a valid legal contract, and have no legal force behind them.

If MS wanted to LEGALLY, enforce those terms, then they must make them AVAILABLE to me, and require my CONSENSUAL LEGAL AGREEMENT to THOSE terms, PRIOR to the conclusion of the purchase transaction.

The fact that they do not force their sales agents (retail store CSRs) to force customers to agree prior to the sale, IS MS's FAULT. Guess what, because they didn't do things the proper legal way, they have no right of civil action against me. As long as I obey copyright law itself, I'm fine. I have no problems with MS attempting to enforce those T&Cs, lawfully. But they attempt to do so un-lawfully, and then enforce that by manipulations of the gov't bodies charged with the responsibility to enforce those things.

But for some reason, you don't seem to feel that corporations need obey the law? They can dictate what it is "supposed" to be, on a whim, in order to serve the corporation? Shouldn't all be equal under the law? Why are you (apparently) in favor of the pro-corporation bias here?
Originally posted by: Amused
Corporations are only powerful because of regulation, not in spite of it or because there is not enough. Take away their incentive to control government, and you take away their power.
You're quite mad. Corporations exist for the sole purpose of the (purportedly) "public good", the collective enconomic benefit towards society. But when they start to infringe on the individual rights of soviergn citizens, it is time for them to be reined back in, or shut down.
Originally posted by: Amused
Again, government's purpose is to protect individual rights. ALL individuals. This includes business owners and workers alike. Government is not your savior, your nanny, or your big brother.
You can be free, or "fair." But you cannot be both.
I'll take freedom.
Again - the "blind" comment - can't you see that I am arguing in favor of freedom - according to the law? And because you are arguing against that, that you likewise seem to be arguing against freedom, but rather in favor of corporate socialism/fascism? Are you even reading what I'm writing at all??? You feel that MS shouldn't be bound to the well-established practices of civil contract law?

(Unless you would prefer a true "outlaw" state, in which economics and the application of force determined everything? That's not a republic governed by public written law, that's something else entirely. I guess you could call it the corporate-run state, because that is what it would eventually become, absent any form of opposition power.)

All I am reading is a lot of paranoid hysteria.

Again, your right is to not use MS's product. It's that simple. No one is forcing you to buy it or use it.

And no, corporations do NOT exist for the sole purpose of the "public good." They exist to make money, just as any business does. They have not infringed on your rights one bit. You want to make up rights by taking away their rights to set the terms at which they do business.

I'm not blind. I see just fine. Just because I don't see your paranoid delusions does not mean I can't see reality.

Your paranoid dribble is the same sad hysteria that has led to every communist uprising

Again, I'll take freedom.