▲ 479 ▼ Intel CPU Temperature Monitoring Driver For Linux Now Unmaintained After Layoffs (www.phoronix.com) submitted 1 year ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world 84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) Competition. Without force, how can they stop a small player from offering a competitive option? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) Without force Whoah, whoah. Why'd you rule that out? Your business plan: quality goods at reasonable prices. My business plan: hire some goons to kill you and take your stuff. Historically, this has a lot of precedence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Because I'm not an anarchist. There is a role for government in maintaining its monopoly on the use of force. But nothing else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) OK, cool. That definitely helps things. I think where we're disagreeing is that I think in a capitalist society the promise of money will inevitably corrupt the government (because it's made of people). Maybe it can be avoided if the government performs additional regulatory action to stop anyone from getting too wealthy, but that sounds like beyond the limits that you want to set for government. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago There's no need for the government to prevent people from becoming wealthy. The only ways to become that wealthy all involve monopolies. But every single monopoly that has ever existed, has only managed to become a monopoly due to help from allies in government. AKA Regulatory Capture. When governments are large, and filled with bureaucrats that aren't answerable to the public, monopolies are far more likely to emerge, as those same bureaucrats enact more and more regulations that make entering the market more and more difficult for those of modest to little means. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) Without force Whoah, whoah. Why'd you rule that out? Your business plan: quality goods at reasonable prices. My business plan: hire some goons to kill you and take your stuff. Historically, this has a lot of precedence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Because I'm not an anarchist. There is a role for government in maintaining its monopoly on the use of force. But nothing else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) OK, cool. That definitely helps things. I think where we're disagreeing is that I think in a capitalist society the promise of money will inevitably corrupt the government (because it's made of people). Maybe it can be avoided if the government performs additional regulatory action to stop anyone from getting too wealthy, but that sounds like beyond the limits that you want to set for government. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago There's no need for the government to prevent people from becoming wealthy. The only ways to become that wealthy all involve monopolies. But every single monopoly that has ever existed, has only managed to become a monopoly due to help from allies in government. AKA Regulatory Capture. When governments are large, and filled with bureaucrats that aren't answerable to the public, monopolies are far more likely to emerge, as those same bureaucrats enact more and more regulations that make entering the market more and more difficult for those of modest to little means. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Because I'm not an anarchist. There is a role for government in maintaining its monopoly on the use of force. But nothing else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) OK, cool. That definitely helps things. I think where we're disagreeing is that I think in a capitalist society the promise of money will inevitably corrupt the government (because it's made of people). Maybe it can be avoided if the government performs additional regulatory action to stop anyone from getting too wealthy, but that sounds like beyond the limits that you want to set for government. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago There's no need for the government to prevent people from becoming wealthy. The only ways to become that wealthy all involve monopolies. But every single monopoly that has ever existed, has only managed to become a monopoly due to help from allies in government. AKA Regulatory Capture. When governments are large, and filled with bureaucrats that aren't answerable to the public, monopolies are far more likely to emerge, as those same bureaucrats enact more and more regulations that make entering the market more and more difficult for those of modest to little means. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) OK, cool. That definitely helps things. I think where we're disagreeing is that I think in a capitalist society the promise of money will inevitably corrupt the government (because it's made of people). Maybe it can be avoided if the government performs additional regulatory action to stop anyone from getting too wealthy, but that sounds like beyond the limits that you want to set for government. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago There's no need for the government to prevent people from becoming wealthy. The only ways to become that wealthy all involve monopolies. But every single monopoly that has ever existed, has only managed to become a monopoly due to help from allies in government. AKA Regulatory Capture. When governments are large, and filled with bureaucrats that aren't answerable to the public, monopolies are far more likely to emerge, as those same bureaucrats enact more and more regulations that make entering the market more and more difficult for those of modest to little means. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago There's no need for the government to prevent people from becoming wealthy. The only ways to become that wealthy all involve monopolies. But every single monopoly that has ever existed, has only managed to become a monopoly due to help from allies in government. AKA Regulatory Capture. When governments are large, and filled with bureaucrats that aren't answerable to the public, monopolies are far more likely to emerge, as those same bureaucrats enact more and more regulations that make entering the market more and more difficult for those of modest to little means. permalink fedilink source parent