I dont see a problem with formatting in the post your quoting. You want me to make large scroll areas between quotes or something?
The quotes were butt up against your reply to them. It was difficult to discern where the break was as I usually reply to this forum between 3 and 5 AM local time. Just a single space between the quote and the reply does wonders.
Then your knowledge is lacking. There is one central heating company, one central water utility company. In fact in order to use anything but that company you will likely spend more on legal fees than just using them. While technically it may not be illegal to use others after proper paperwork, practically there is no choice. And there is no alternative other than you make your own heating and dig your own well. It may be different in other countries.
Yes, competition helps to keep everyone in check, which is why i was arguing for it previuosly.
Perhaps it is not my knowledge that is lacking, but my experience. I have lived quite a few different places but admittedly all but one was in the US. Everywhere I have lived or visited in the US has had at least two or three different options for heating, electricity, and telecom unless the services were not available at all. Could you elaborate on where there is ONLY "one central heating company, one central water utility company"?
Really? I can film my own Avengers and sell them? Do tell me how im sure i could make a lot of money on that.
But no, you dont sell identical services, you sell alternative services. To use the previously used potato example, an alternative service would be to sell carrots while somone has monopoly on potatoes. you wouldnt be selling potatoes, but still be in the food service market.
Well, you could either move to China and not give a fuck or you could film a knockoff. A superhero film with similar heroes, villains, and plot with just enough changed to not incur the wrath of the law. IE, to provide an identical service (superhero mash-up movie) without using proprietary "things". It happens all the time.
As for your potato example, no. It would be like one farm owning a proprietary genetic make-up and the other farm growing a different species of potato to compete in the potato market.
While i could provide evidence of my education i do believe that its not the education but the idea put forth here that you should be responding to.
To assert you have a masters in a business field and then to have such a flawed understanding of an entry level term like monopoly is concerning. It means either you are lying about your education, which would render any meaningful discussion from a business education standpoint moot, or you do in fact have a masters but are, for one reason or another, unable to recall all of the information.
Personally I don't care. I would have this conversation with someone without any business education if they could remain civil, but it would change how I approached the conversation. Don't bother posting any "evidence" as it will either be fake or a gross breach of forum rules.
They dont have different laws. laws are the same for everyone. They do have clauses that are specific to them. they do not allow them to go and randomly kill people they dont like however. Classified law is a joke. This is like saying god told them to do. If the public cannot see the law exists its as good as it doesnt.
I'm going to need a second to laugh at the juxtaposition of the first three sentences. Anyway, I think we need to define what we are talking about a little bit better. The classified clauses deal with special forces in combat and those are far different from the unclassified clauses dealing with the armed forces in general. For example, and this is all US law because that's what I know, an unclassified clause is that it is illegal to own a spring assisted knife unless you are in law enforcement or the military. Another is that military personal can attend civilian handgun training under the age of 21 (the legal age to own a handgun). I don't know any of the classified clauses because... well they're classified. I do know from talking with some people who were absorbed by SOCOM (Special Operations Command) during a restructuring that... let's just say situations like the one faced in Lone Survivor don't happen any more and take from that what you will.
There are argument to be made for both sides of the classified law debate and both have merits. However, it is kind of a catch 22 as we need to know what they are to debate them but if the laws are disclosed it defeats the purpose of them being classified in the first place. Namely our enemies will adapt to the now known rules special forces operators must abide by.
You put forth a good reason for this and to a point it is understandable, however still not commendable. And if the world knew that F-22 was bad then maybe they would have incentive to build one that doesnt.
Not commendable? And putting the lives of every single person on the west coast in jeopardy IS commendable? ... I'll continue this in the next section.
I know. I dont care. This is because i believe the world would be a better place in the long run. In this i have a Vulcan way of looking at this. The good of many outweigh the good of few.
I happen to value human life in most circumstances and the fact that you so brazenly don't is legitimately disturbing. Perhaps you don't care because it wasn't your country at risk. It wasn't your family at risk. So I'll ask you this mr utilitarian, how is the US being attacked by a foreign power in a moment of weakness for the good of the many? Being the attack would have to take advantage of our limited air combat capabilities and the scope of the attack it would be a nation that would do it. That means the US is at war with said nation. That means all of the US' allies are at war with said nation. Said nation would then be at war with all of the US' allies. All of said nation's allies are at war with the US AND the US' allies. Welcome to WW3.
So if the entire world is the few, who the fuck is the many?