There was an amusing debate on lewrockwell.com. Under pressure from the State, Amazon.com kicked Wikileaks off its servers. (Amazon.com lets people rent space on its servers. That's "Amazon Web Services".)
Some people are calling for a boycott of Amazon.com, in protest. Lewrockwell.com makes money off "Amazon affiliate links". They're advocating to not boycott Amazon.com. (If you put a link to Amazon.com on your website, and people click the link and later buy, then you get a commission.)
Someone pointed out "There are more people who would boycott Amazon.com for *NOT* kicking Wikileaks off their servers, than there are people who would boycott for censoring Wikileaks."
Amazon.com executives have an obligation to their shareholders. If they took a moral stand they might lose their business. It isn't worth antagonizing State terrorists. Amazon.com wouldn't be accused of "Hosting Wikileaks on their servers." State terrorists would find some other excuse. The laws are so vague that anyone could be accused of breaking them.
Suppose you boycott Amazon.com and buy from X instead, paying the same price or slightly more. The amount of taxes on the transaction is approximately the same. The State makes the same revenue, whether you buy from Amazon.com or from another State-licensed business. (Amazon.com has been helping people avoid sales taxes on transactions, exploiting a legal technicality.)
If you really want to hurt State parasites, you have to work off the books. If you work as an agorist, assuming a 50% income taxation rate, you're denying the State a huge chunk of your labor, even if you later buy from a State-licensed business.
Even better, as the agorist economy gets more sophisticated, there will be alternatives to Amazon.com. Now, you probably incur a financial loss or inconvenience if you boycott Amazon.com. An agorist store would have lower prices and higher quality, because they're bypassing all State taxes and regulations. If you work as an agorist and purchase goods from other agorists, then you're really hurting the State.
If you decide to boycott Amazon.com over Wikileaks, you aren't accomplishing much. As long as you work on-the-books as a wage slave, the State is stealing your labor. As long as you buy from a State-licensed business, State parasites get a cut of the transaction.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Should You Boycott Amazon.com Over Wikileaks?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If you remember back in 2000/2001, the customer service representatives at Amazon.com in Seattle grouped together to complain about excessive hours and bad shift patterns.
In response Amazon.com fired a lot of customer service reps and moved some of the work out to India.
At the time there were accusations that Amazon.com was anti-union.
There are other accusations that Amazon.com treats employees like batteries i.e. sucks out all their energy and then dumps them.
Some groups have staff that regularly leave after 1 year.
The codebase was developed very quickly and Amazon.com got into a pattern of releasing new projects quickly and then having to expend a lot of energy fixing all the problems. What you see from the outside isn't necessarily what goes on in the inside.
On another website, one commenter neatly summarized the situation as the below.
QUOTE
Killing civilians = video game
Committing crimes = fine
Reporting crimes = criminal
Everyone knows the current "accusations" (if you can call them that, the accusations don't even seem to be detailed in writing yet i.e. just non-specific, non-detailed lawyer, media released dog dirt) are fake, but Julian is in prison. Not because there is any evidence against him, but because a man in a silly wig says because he is Johnny Foreigner he is a flight risk.
This seems a nasty, shyster lawyer trick.
If the corrupt people pursing Julian detailed their accusations, the case would go away as there is nothing. So these goons don't give any details - just jelly so it can be spun out a bit more.
It is VERY BENT.
DON'T HAVE A VALID CASE? NO PROBLEM. JUST DON'T GIVE ANY DETAILS.
SO THAT'S ALRIGHT THEN?
That is an interesting point. Even if Assange is ultimately acquitted, he isn't reimbursed for legal expenses and time spent in jail.
I would guess he has to pay lawyers in both Sweden and the United Kingdom. Double whammy.
If the thugs in the US cobble some stupid case together, Julian will have to pay for US lawyers as well.
The legal profession is a "fraud". Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. You don't need to get paid a fortune for knowing what every citizen on this planet knows.
Lawyers have no skills that a productive society needs.
> ultimately acquitted,
Bear in mind, Julian HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING YET.
His lawyers have not even been given detailed accusations.
The Swedes even refused to talk to him when he was in Sweden for 40 days after the two women asked for advice. NOTE ASKED FOR ADVICE, NOT MADE A COMPLAINT.
How bent does the system have to get?
What authority do Swedish prosecutors and UK judges have?
Are they directly elected by the people?
Well UK judges are NOT elected by the people.
This is a pity. If a judge makes bad decisions, the people should have the ability to vote him out.
If a prosecutor makes bad decisions (i.e. delaying for over a year so as the 6 month time limit on assault gets passed, so a policeman can get away with killing an innocent man) he should be voted out.
But these jokers still stay in office.
The useless politicians say they cannot interfere in the legal process and so the court system is not answerable to the people.
One way I've seen a lot of people use to avoid paying taxes is to downsize their life and live on less. Small, energy efficient house, public transportation. Even move to another country like Thailand and run a remote business from the beach there. All perfectly legal. Best way to avoid taxes is to be poor. But being poor is not bad if you prepare well.
Post a Comment