Why are we so fascinated by the idea of someone physically being somewhere?
But I'd volunteer if the one-way mission is a reality. I don't find it necessary to live among other humans in close distance. And once on Mars, I won't do shit. What, are they gonna fire me?
If there's no property tax and capital gain tax, government will lose the power it has with monetary inflation. Everybody will just buy real assets, instead of holding paper money.
Yet you see a Ron Paul thread and you dive right into it. Care to explain which one of us here spammed you? Insulted you? Idolized the wrong god? Debated at a level below yours?
Have I just pissed you more because I asked those questions? Why?
Heck, for a fun thought, maybe we can forget about money and go back to bartering:)
Bartering was very impractical and very inefficient for exchanging of goods.
However with internet could it be possible that we establish a system where massive bartering can be fluid and seamless? People don't own money, they only own things - the things can be stored thousands of miles away, you can manage them online from your home. When you want to buy something from someone, most likely you don't have the things the seller want in exchange, therefore direct bartering is almost impossible. However this is a massive bartering system where your things are always wanted by someone else, and so on. Transfer of ownership are all electronic and instant, therefore indirect bartering can be established quickly and smoothly. Fractional ownership is also possible(I gave you 1.6% of this house). At the end of the transaction, the ownership of the item is transfered from the seller to you, while you lose some other things, and the seller gained some totally different things.
Of course, nobody wants to personally manage such an inventory of millions of things one might own, except things that one personally wants to control. Bartering institutions will emerge to abstract that from you, and to reduce risk of fluctuation of exchange values. Then some kind of uniformed numerical scale based purely on the activities of exchange might emerge that we can call 'money'. The medium of exchange is now exchange itself! Not any arbitrarily chosen particular material.
Libertarians and classical liberals often cite the Tragedy of the Commons as a classic example of what happens when Lockean property rights to homestead resources are prohibited by a government.[11][12][13] These libertarians and classical liberals argue that the solution to the Tragedy of the Commons is to allow individuals to take over the property rights of a resource, that is, privatizing it.[14] In 1940 Ludwig von Mises wrote concerning the problem:
If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is used without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns -- lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil -- do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation. For them, erosion of the soil, depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output. They cut down trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation. In hunting and fishing, they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds.[15]
Critics of this solution have pointed out that many commons, such as the ozone layer or global fish populations, would be extremely difficult or impossible to privatize.
Libertarians are not anarchists. As soon as they mention 'private property', it implies that a State is necessary to define the ownership of private property and to protect it through rule of law.
China can serve as a counter example. Politically it hasn't changed at all, but economically it abandoned socialism and experienced amazing growth in wealth. Improvement to quality of life is undeniable since it went capitalism.
What do you mean by "results"? As long as you don't get the nomination, the result is zero? If you mean delegates/dollar, Giuliani spent $50M and got exactly one delegate.
You cannot say they didn't *address* these issues just because you think their answers are wrong.
In any case, the inner merits of political ideas are not what is driving the elections. People vote on very vague, abstract and misunderstood feelings.
If you designed a social system that is absolutely the best in any measure, with the only flaw that human nature doesn't support it - does it make any sense? Is your design meaningful and worthwhile at all?
Communism is such a system. It's total nonsense because it blatantly ignores the basic human nature as we know it. You cannot say you have a system for humans in which humans are not humans.
Now let's check Libertarianism, which is my personal favorite because of *my* personality. And the Ron Paul campaign shows that around 1% of American population are in the same taste.
However I have to ask the inconvenient question. People obviously do want powerful governing power over themselves, and people do want that power to solve all of their problems. The trend is undoubtedly clear that people want to assign more power to the power, especially at the times the power doesn't work. It is almost as if it is embedded in their DNA since the monkey time.
If that is a basic human nature, what is the point of advocating Libertarianism which is against that human nature? How can you argue that it is a viable social system for humans? Is it possible to educate people out of that mindset? There's no proof whatsoever that it can be done.
This is not to say any other political system is any better. Especially the democratic socialism we seem to rush into. I believe it will blow up in my life time, when I am too old and most vulnerable. Nice.
So here I am, back to the good old cynicism. It's the only safe corner ironically where I can have some peace of mind. As to Ron Paul, he's a good man as far as I know, and he's obviously very pessimistic and realistic since the beginning. I wish he has achieved whatever he set out to achieve.
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would be against it, but, who of the candidates with a realistic chance of being elected has come out against the Real ID act? Dennis Kucinich. Ha!
Depends on who you ask. Someone will tell you no republican has a chance in hell. Someone will tell you Hillary is going to be skinned alive. I don't think Paul's chance is necessarily less than most other candidates. I'm OK with predictions, but after IOWA and NH, it's quite clear that the pundits don't know what they are talking about, and they don't have that much influence on voters as they would like to. 2008 politics is going to be chaotic, and war/economy could turn really really ugly any time, there is just no way to know at this point of time.
There's nothing special about money at all. It's a medium of exchange. It has what value we agree it has, no matter if the medium is a piece of paper or a string of bits or a hunk of metal. That is all true, but who is "we"? Do people really know what's going on? (Sure, democracy and stuff. Yeah.)
The value of fiat money is completely out of people's control, especially at this point of US history when financial crises are looming on the horizon. When it is cornered, the government will take our wealth away though this magical money system, they don't even have to come to your home and knock down your door.
I disagree. The author of the interstate commerce clause could have never envisioned e-commerce. I'd say that that clause was not intended for the virtual trade form we have today, and anyone interpreting it with new meanings are just making stuff up. Not that it is news. If Fed can argue that I couldn't grow some plants in my backyard because it could influence national market (?!), and people in this country accept that kind of argument, internet regulation by Fed is of course apparently justified.
it would sooner or later kill the whole search engine industry
And the problem is?...
Just look at USA, the country is at risk of electing a nutcase as president, thanks to Google and Youtube. It wouldn't have happened in a million years otherwise.
Not cool, man, government is supposed to be for stability, harmony, 3 representations and 8 shame/honor stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are we so fascinated by the idea of someone physically being somewhere?
But I'd volunteer if the one-way mission is a reality. I don't find it necessary to live among other humans in close distance. And once on Mars, I won't do shit. What, are they gonna fire me?
1. fund, subsidize, give tax exemption to, internet web sites.
2. threaten to take away these 'benefits' if FCC doesn't like what's said on a website.
That's one of the things that Global Warming/Climate Change predicted.
Either way the data goes, it proves the theory. Who doesn't like an unfalsifiable theory?
Why would anybody pay you to make it free to the public? What's in it for him?
If there's no property tax and capital gain tax, government will lose the power it has with monetary inflation. Everybody will just buy real assets, instead of holding paper money.
Yet you see a Ron Paul thread and you dive right into it. Care to explain which one of us here spammed you? Insulted you? Idolized the wrong god? Debated at a level below yours?
Have I just pissed you more because I asked those questions? Why?
I agree with you on that. A person who wants to control^^^^^^help others will more likely succeed in getting into the office.
Heck, for a fun thought, maybe we can forget about money and go back to bartering:)
Bartering was very impractical and very inefficient for exchanging of goods.
However with internet could it be possible that we establish a system where massive bartering can be fluid and seamless? People don't own money, they only own things - the things can be stored thousands of miles away, you can manage them online from your home. When you want to buy something from someone, most likely you don't have the things the seller want in exchange, therefore direct bartering is almost impossible. However this is a massive bartering system where your things are always wanted by someone else, and so on. Transfer of ownership are all electronic and instant, therefore indirect bartering can be established quickly and smoothly. Fractional ownership is also possible(I gave you 1.6% of this house). At the end of the transaction, the ownership of the item is transfered from the seller to you, while you lose some other things, and the seller gained some totally different things.
Of course, nobody wants to personally manage such an inventory of millions of things one might own, except things that one personally wants to control. Bartering institutions will emerge to abstract that from you, and to reduce risk of fluctuation of exchange values. Then some kind of uniformed numerical scale based purely on the activities of exchange might emerge that we can call 'money'. The medium of exchange is now exchange itself! Not any arbitrarily chosen particular material.
Your googling is as good as mine:) Don't chase me on this, I'm too just surface deep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_solutions
Libertarians and classical liberals often cite the Tragedy of the Commons as a classic example of what happens when Lockean property rights to homestead resources are prohibited by a government.[11][12][13] These libertarians and classical liberals argue that the solution to the Tragedy of the Commons is to allow individuals to take over the property rights of a resource, that is, privatizing it.[14] In 1940 Ludwig von Mises wrote concerning the problem:
If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is used without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns -- lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil -- do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation. For them, erosion of the soil, depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output. They cut down trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation. In hunting and fishing, they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds.[15]
Critics of this solution have pointed out that many commons, such as the ozone layer or global fish populations, would be extremely difficult or impossible to privatize.
Libertarians are not anarchists. As soon as they mention 'private property', it implies that a State is necessary to define the ownership of private property and to protect it through rule of law.
China can serve as a counter example. Politically it hasn't changed at all, but economically it abandoned socialism and experienced amazing growth in wealth. Improvement to quality of life is undeniable since it went capitalism.
What do you mean by "results"? As long as you don't get the nomination, the result is zero? If you mean delegates/dollar, Giuliani spent $50M and got exactly one delegate.
Isn't it outrageous that government decides that something is not good enough for you, therefore you better have none of it.
You cannot say they didn't *address* these issues just because you think their answers are wrong.
In any case, the inner merits of political ideas are not what is driving the elections. People vote on very vague, abstract and misunderstood feelings.
If you designed a social system that is absolutely the best in any measure, with the only flaw that human nature doesn't support it - does it make any sense? Is your design meaningful and worthwhile at all?
Communism is such a system. It's total nonsense because it blatantly ignores the basic human nature as we know it. You cannot say you have a system for humans in which humans are not humans.
Now let's check Libertarianism, which is my personal favorite because of *my* personality. And the Ron Paul campaign shows that around 1% of American population are in the same taste.
However I have to ask the inconvenient question. People obviously do want powerful governing power over themselves, and people do want that power to solve all of their problems. The trend is undoubtedly clear that people want to assign more power to the power, especially at the times the power doesn't work. It is almost as if it is embedded in their DNA since the monkey time.
If that is a basic human nature, what is the point of advocating Libertarianism which is against that human nature? How can you argue that it is a viable social system for humans? Is it possible to educate people out of that mindset? There's no proof whatsoever that it can be done.
This is not to say any other political system is any better. Especially the democratic socialism we seem to rush into. I believe it will blow up in my life time, when I am too old and most vulnerable. Nice.
So here I am, back to the good old cynicism. It's the only safe corner ironically where I can have some peace of mind. As to Ron Paul, he's a good man as far as I know, and he's obviously very pessimistic and realistic since the beginning. I wish he has achieved whatever he set out to achieve.
put contextual ads on those maps.
As many slashdotters have pointed out, this would never worked.
The real solution is to ask all pedophiles to register their email addresses so that they can be blocked.
The real racists and sexists in this election are the Clintons. Just sayin'.
And that's the least of their shortcomings.
Depends on who you ask. Someone will tell you no republican has a chance in hell. Someone will tell you Hillary is going to be skinned alive. I don't think Paul's chance is necessarily less than most other candidates. I'm OK with predictions, but after IOWA and NH, it's quite clear that the pundits don't know what they are talking about, and they don't have that much influence on voters as they would like to. 2008 politics is going to be chaotic, and war/economy could turn really really ugly any time, there is just no way to know at this point of time.
The value of fiat money is completely out of people's control, especially at this point of US history when financial crises are looming on the horizon. When it is cornered, the government will take our wealth away though this magical money system, they don't even have to come to your home and knock down your door.
Dump dollars, and own real assets.
My name (Chinese) is "She MaTing".
My physical and mental responses are becoming slower each and every day. I have a feeling that one day it'll just totally stop.
I disagree. The author of the interstate commerce clause could have never envisioned e-commerce. I'd say that that clause was not intended for the virtual trade form we have today, and anyone interpreting it with new meanings are just making stuff up. Not that it is news. If Fed can argue that I couldn't grow some plants in my backyard because it could influence national market (?!), and people in this country accept that kind of argument, internet regulation by Fed is of course apparently justified.
And the problem is?...
Just look at USA, the country is at risk of electing a nutcase as president, thanks to Google and Youtube. It wouldn't have happened in a million years otherwise.
Not cool, man, government is supposed to be for stability, harmony, 3 representations and 8 shame/honor stuff.