Slashdot Mirror

>> Prior to car safety regulation, people were not any more likely to die in an auto accident than they are now
>Seat belts don't save lives, eh?

Seatbelts do save lives. People tend to drive more careless when they have seatbelts. Thus, your counterargument doesn't invalidate the proposition.

> Standard Oil was broken up because it ... well, I don't know, but I'm sure you have a tinfoil hat answer for that one too.
Standard Oil was broken up because... because it was a convenient way how to get rid of a very efficient competitor.
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosoph icalissues/economics/monopolyandindustrialorganiza tion/witchhunting.shtml

[Better formatting]

No, World War 2 helped end that cycle early, NOT FDR. Cycles are part of nature, they will happen one way or another. This one was just exacerbated by the relatively recently formed Fed Reserve and their decision to shrink the money supply so drastically.

http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdoverview.html
"What caused the Great Depression? To get a handle on that, it's necessary to look at previous depressions and compare. The Great Depression was by no means the first depression this country ever had, but it was clearly the worst. What made it different than the rest? At the time of the Great Depression, government intervention in the economy was higher than it had ever been and a special government agency had been set up specifically to prevent depressions and their associated problems, such as bank panics."

http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosoph icalissues/economichistory/mysteries.shtml
"Many free-market economists had attempted to answer the first question, including Benjamin M. Anderson and Murray N. Rothbard,2 but none had the impact equal to Milton Friedman's empirical studies on money in the early 1960s. His was the first effective effort to destroy the argument that the Great Depression was the handiwork of an inherently unstable capitalistic system. Friedman (and his co-author, Anna J. Schwartz) demonstrated forcefully that it was not free enterprise, but rather government - specifically the Federal Reserve System - that caused the Great Depression."

Your belief that the GD was caused by a Free Market has been misproven many times. It's still a common fallacy, but it's not true. But, I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually think that FDR saved us from it. He didn't. HITLER and HIROHITO brought us out of that slump.

http://www.policyreview.org/aug01/roberts.html
"A country that doesn't understand its own history is not well equipped to deal with its future. The Great Depression was not a failure of the old order. It was the failure of the new order that had just begun.
The Federal Reserve is the most powerful institution of a new order that believed in the efficacy of government and its ability to do good. The same Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression when its wise men made a series of cumulative mistakes that contracted the money supply by one-third and wiped out purchasing power in an unprecedented fashion."

No, World War 2 helped end that cycle early. Cycles are part of nature, they will happen one way or another. http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdoverview.html "What caused the Great Depression? To get a handle on that, it's necessary to look at previous depressions and compare. The Great Depression was by no means the first depression this country ever had, but it was clearly the worst. What made it different than the rest? At the time of the Great Depression, government intervention in the economy was higher than it had ever been and a special government agency had been set up specifically to prevent depressions and their associated problems, such as bank panics." http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosoph icalissues/economichistory/mysteries.shtml "Many free-market economists had attempted to answer the first question, including Benjamin M. Anderson and Murray N. Rothbard,2 but none had the impact equal to Milton Friedman's empirical studies on money in the early 1960s. His was the first effective effort to destroy the argument that the Great Depression was the handiwork of an inherently unstable capitalistic system. Friedman (and his co-author, Anna J. Schwartz) demonstrated forcefully that it was not free enterprise, but rather government - specifically the Federal Reserve System - that caused the Great Depression." Your belief that the GD was caused by a Free Market has been misproven many times. It's still a common fallacy, but it's not true. But, I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually think that FDR saved us from it. He didn't. HITLER and HIROHITO brought us out of that slump. http://www.policyreview.org/aug01/roberts.html "A country that doesn't understand its own history is not well equipped to deal with its future. The Great Depression was not a failure of the old order. It was the failure of the new order that had just begun. The Federal Reserve is the most powerful institution of a new order that believed in the efficacy of government and its ability to do good. The same Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression when its wise men made a series of cumulative mistakes that contracted the money supply by one-third and wiped out purchasing power in an unprecedented fashion."

Also known as protectionism rather than capitalism. Then again, thats not particularly new.

Julian's anonymity, however, itself testifies to his larger life's work. More clearly than almost anyone else, Julian understood Adam Smith's insight that in free markets wealth is the product of human creativity. And the greater the number of free people, the greater the number of innovative ideas for transforming raw resources into goods and services that improve human lives. In free markets, more people mean more wealth. This is the reason why Julian rightly celebrated population growth, and why he devoted so much effort toward championing open immigration.

This is perfect! It'll be just as effective as the Interstate Commerce Act was to prevent short-haul railroads from charging unreasonable prices! I wonder if there's any phrase more general and less effective than "deceptive arts and practices."

I'm sorry, but I believe you are the misguided one. Check it out:

Child Labor and the British Industrial Revolution

When the Itanium came out and was given that goofy name, I always thought it would be the 'Edsel' of processors... and indeed it sure enough is turning out that way.

Here is an article that will help answer your question:

http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrenteven ts/educationhomeschoolingorchildren/towardfree.sht ml

Oh, you mean someone wanting to turn a quick buck rather than turn you in to the authorities because it's part of some nefarious scheme?

That damned capitalism! Why can't everyone be a communist like you and the rest of the open source crowd?

Oh yeah, communism doesn't work.

In Soviet Russia, NYT registers you!

Sometimes, there are good reasons to post anonymously (although I won't here, but I'm glad for the option;)

Besides, publicly accessible data posted anon is different from the law requesting user data. The fact that there are certain goverment parties interested in 'going after' these people who committed no crime (by posting publicy available information) sorta proves the point that anonimity is desirable. You don't want the FBI breaking in your door and confiscating all you computers, even if it means you are found not guilty in the end.

Hell, Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams wrote anonymously !

This is an old fallacy. It's basically the belief that there's a net loss of jobs when something more efficient than human labor replaces human labor. If you're only looking at half of the picture, it looks like there's a net loss. But the mistake is only looking at the immediate consequences and not looking at the longer term consequences. In the long term, efficiency creates more jobs. Don't believe me? Read this. Or this.

If you still believe that creating an efficiency is wrong when someone loses their job as a consequence, then you must also believe that using a computer is wrong, because you could clearly have hired someone (possibly lots of people) to deliver your communications instead of relying on automation. And for that matter, why use a car, when doing so has caused the unemployment of so many buggy drivers and horse . And for that matter, why use buggies at all. A single person can only travel so far on foot before needing rest. To get your messege to the entire world, you could employ many, many more people if you insisted that it be delivered by foot.

Yet does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. The 911 bottom line: "cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare."

The District of Columbia's highest court spelled out plainly the "fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

I'm not trying to defend communism here, but the ideology behind communism does not imply totalitarian governing methods.
The fact that most communistic governments has resolved to said measures is a sad fact that just proves that communism doesn't work

The only places communism truly works, are in anthills and termite nests. ;)

Gee, Mr. Marx, your mind is as open as ever. Two hundred twentyone years in the grave didn't change you a bit. Your thoughts still stink.

• Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this
  Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
  
  
• Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law
  in the United States only through legislation which would be valid
  in the absence of treaty.
  
  
• Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive
  and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization.
  All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed
  on treaties by this article.
  
  
• Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article
  by appropriate legislation.
  

"The methodological arsenal of modern econometrics cannot detect a single shred of evidence that immigrants have a sizeable adverse impact on the earnings and employment opportunities of natives."- George Borjas

Nearly all discussion I can find specifically addresses Eminent Domain, where a government takes private property from citizen or citizens and under what circumstances that might happen.

I think we're getting crossways on the difference between 'private property'/'public property' and "public forum". Your constitutional right to free speech is not protected on private property from the owner of that property. If you are the owner, you say what rights of speech someone has there. Here is an article discussing property rights, that should make clear the distinction between a 'public forum' and 'public property' or 'private property'.

Yes, yes, there are smart programmers in India, Singapore, Russia, and several other countries, but this article misses the point entirely and is rather short sighted. This outsourcing problem is an increasing and very alarming trend. There is a new kind of brain drain happening now in America.

See here

This particular link points out that "...the best minds will not, for the most part leave the country, they will simply never develop." While I don't agree with everything in it, I do have to concur with that particular point. Historically, countries that have been affected by "brain drains" have been significantly hurt economically. The author points out that America has seen "brain drains" before, and has survived them rather well. Let me point out that it is also the world's largest economy. A large system as it is, it will have a reasonable amount of resistance to economic change, but just how many industries do we have to lose before this economy collapses entirely? As tasteless as it may sound, to me, this guy sounds exactly like a NASA head saying that the Columbia is a robust enough vehicle to make it through reentry without bothering to check that wing for impact damage.

On the other side of things, lets say we decide to let our already crappy economy get a little more weakened. What do we get as a result? Very likely millions of jobless workers. There is only a finite amount of what we can do to remedy this. Retraining them is not a complete solution, as there is no guarantee that there are comparable paying jobs, and the retraining itself could end up costing billions.

Where do ALLL rights come from? a piece of paper that a body of people i.e. government, backs.

Wow! I'm pretty sure you don't mean that! If I don't get it on paper, from my government, it's not a right? So in a dictatorship, there really isn't a right to free speech?

I reject that. Certain rights are inherent.

Everybody benefits from education.

That's nice. I even agree. But it doesn't really work to make education a "right".

Here's another good essay on the subject:

http://www.libertyhaven.com/personalfreedomissues/ freespeechorcivilliberties/rightsvsrights.html

steveha

Yet another cry out that changes in technology are going to "historically" destroy jobs.

I'm too bored with this line of thinking to even trot out the buggy whip analogy. Please save me the effort and just read this:

Creative Destruction, again

This has happened a thousand times before, but somehow, this time is different. Whatever.

Can't find the actual article I was seeking, but on a similar note, here is a less-popular view that says the reason Tucker failed is because the cars themselves were less good than promised, rather than because of evil machinations by competitors. (Though there may have been quite a bit of that, too ;))

Also, entrapment is only illegal if the law officers used fraud or undue persuasion to cause someone to commit a crime -- so much so, that an ordinarily law-abiding person would be compelled to commit the crime.

Cops can tempt criminals to commit crimes, and even initiate or plan out the criminal act (ie, buying or selling drugs, offering or buying prostitution, planning a bank robbery heist). None of this is entrapment, unless their actions would have cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.

If a cop tricks someone into unintenionally breaking the law, or harasses them so much that they eventually cave in and break the law, or threaten them, etc, it may be entrapment. It's actually pretty subjective and up to the jury, usually.

But a lot of misconceptions of entrapment abount -- ie the ever-popular, "if you ask them if they're a cop, and they say no, then it's entrapment." And also the misconception that entrapment is a crime and can apply to non-law-enforcement. It's not a crime, it's a defense against being charged with a crime. (Well, unless you perform a crime while trying to get someone to perform a crime -- that's still a crime)

For a somewhat inflammatory discussion, see this: http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrenteven ts/nationalbudgetsdefecitsorspending/lawdeceit.htm l

I had a more objective look at it, written by a lawyer, but I can't find it.

sorry if this is off-topic.

(note: I'm not an anti-gun freak; I'm just sayin'.)

also: does prior restraint fit into all this? I don't know the first thing about law but this concise explanation seems to indicate so:

In essence, prior restraint consti-tutes a label which may be applied fairly to all state restrictions which fetter human action before the fact.

If you bought a device that's used for many, many different things, and you're liable to be sued even though there's no evidence that shows you were about to do so...

Jeez, I don't know... how on earth did the auto industry recover when all of the workers were replaced by robot welding machines?

Oh, that's right. They did just fine -- because now we have a market for assembly robot designers, robot repairmen, plant designers (industrial engineers). More car production means more car lots, more salesmen jobs, more delivery jobs to move the products. Then you have more demand for skilled workers, scientists to make faster hydraulics, better chips & CPUs.

One door closes, another one opens.

Google spake thusly, Robots!, a fairly well researched opinion piece on why robotic industry is good for everyone.

"Natural rights" is a technical term that describes the foundation of a whole system of ethics. It means roughly the same as "inalienable rights" or "intrinsic rights", if either of those sound familiar to you. Natural rights don't necessarily have anything to do with nature.

here is a brief introduction that I found, if you are interested.

No, but interestingly enough, it refuses to record Pearl Jam concerts...

The basic idea is that a restriction on speech, such as the FBI actions in the libraries, will affect my speech and ability to speak in the future. Read the linked page; it explains it better than I can.

Uphill is right.

The entire non-event of DAT in the United States is a testament to the power of the recording industry to control the introduction of new technology.

I have a feeling that we'll have analog connectors for a lot longer than is necessary or convenient from a technical perspective simply because of fears in some quarters that such connections endanger an existing revenue stream.

I'm sorry you think that I am "throwing numbers out". You're trying to create a Guaranteed Minimum Income" and I am trying to "follow the money" and show you who pays for it.

I suggest your read the following article the following article. It documents how the Swedish model, which your GMI seems to be loosely based upon, has failed. Those who are on the GMI have no incentive to take the "menial jobs", such as McDonalds, janitors, contruction laborers, etc.

The only option to fill those jobs is to increase the wages for the low-skill/no-skill positions to far enough above GMI to attract workers. Also, those who tend to be lazy will not have starvation and homelessness motivating them to find work. They'll just sit on their behinds watching Oprah and WWF all day.

But let's get back to the money. So, you want to institute a "royalty" on the local copper mine. Let's say that the local mining company sells the copper it mines for one dollar a pound.

With your GMI requirements copper prices just shot up to two dollars a pound so that 50% can be put in the GMI fund. Everything that uses copper, electronics, cookware, metal alloys, etc, just had their raw material costs double. They can't absorb that increase in cost without raising the price of their products. This will follow the same model I used in my previous posting, ending with labor costs increasing becuase the cost of living just increased.

You made the point earlier that oil/mining companies "choose" to raise prices, they don't "have" to. Look at the company's financial statements. There is only a certain amount of money received from their customers. They have to pay for their products (the raw material), the people to mine/drill for it, the supervisors and support personell, etc. The left over is profit. Yes, most executives are over-paid, but solving that problem will not double a company's profit. Especially one as big as most oil/mining companies.

If you use my model from above (copper form $1 to $2 per pound), the mining company is left with a problem. They probably ran on 20%-30% gross margin. That means that 30 cents of every dollar paid for overhead and profit, and sevnty cents went for raw material and extraction labor. If you add a $1 royalty, this means that the thei cost of good just went from 70 cents to $1.70. If the company does not raise prices, it will be selling $1.70 copper for $1, but not for long. So, they have no choice but to raise prices. If they raise prices to $2 a pound, their gross margin is cut in half (to 15%), but they have the same number of dollars to spend on overhead, IF they can sell the same number of pounds of copper.

What happens to your scenario if an African or South American nation offers our companies copper at $1.50 a pound, or less. Our companies would either jump at it or the copper lobby would get a tarrif act passed to even the playing field. Then the US companies look at relocating to Mexico or Canada so that they can avoid US tariffs and still access the US market.

If I were King of the World and looking for ways to use royalties from mining, I would rather use them to find new sources of minerals, say in space, rather than in subsidizing lazy people. Limited supplies of raw materials is a VERY good point, but lets solve that problem.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court has found that a farmer growning feed for his own hogs was engaging in interstate commerce (and, no, it wasn't because the farm extended over a state line; it was because the action affected interstate commerce by having an effect, however infinitesimal, on the overall agricultural market).-

"Child Labor. Another qualitative argument brought forth by the pessimists is that children were forced to endure long hours of work in unhealthy conditions. Although the existence of child labor cannot be denied, it is clear that most pessimists have overstated both its magnitude and the effects on the health of the children involved. In fact, much of the evidence for the pessimist's case comes from the very famous, yet very inaccurate, reports from the government committees investigating the factory system. Almost all of the "condition of England" novels by Dickens, as well as the works of Engels and the Hammonds, have been in large part based on these committee reports (Jefferson, p. 189). Politically motivated and seriously defective, the evidence in these reports is marred by the fact that the doctors who testified against child labor in the factories had not even been in a factory and refused to testify under oath (Hutt, pp. 161-167). Moreover, the great improvement in mortality rates seems to indicate that either child labor was not extensive as before or was less harmful. Indeed, it was the great improvement in productivity instigated by the industrial revolution that has enabled Western societies to banish child labor."

If you look at what you just quoted from the Declaration of Independence, nowhere does it state anything about the right to privacy. If you read through the entire US Constitution nowhere will you find anything about the right to privacy. This right has been fabricated in the minds of people based one a few select Supreme Court precedents, that the Supreme Court can easily go against.

The Fourth Amendment contains a guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures," which has been interpreted as a right to privacy. Read this for some more insight into the issue.

I don't think I'd classify this interpretation of the Constitution by members of the Supreme Court as a "fabrication."