You're right, I didn't follow his statement. I thought he was making a different statement, one that I've heard before, many times. His wording was vague, and I misunderstood. And notice my use of "if I follow you." I hereby retract my remarks.
Nevertheless, his statement DOES imply the use of force. Only it's not against the guy working in the sewer; it's against the people who pay for the guy working in the sewer. The money has to come from somewhere, and it's better to let the sewer company develop a direct, self-correcting relationship with its customers than to use taxation as a means to fund an organization that naturally becomes inefficient and loathed by its customers.
Unless you're self-destructive, you don't choose to die fighting. You choose to fight for something while risking death. Another tradeoff of life.
There's really no need to throw away freedom for security. You can have large amounts of both, just as you can have very little of both (the communist proletariat had little security and almost no freedom). In fact, I believe freedom and security are positively related, not negatively. The consequences of throwing away freedom are not as simple as most people think.
I might as well give an example. As gun control increases, it takes away an increasing amount of a person's choice for personal defense. He/she is faced with an increasingly large tradeoff that didn't exist before: (1) defend him/herself more effectively (with a gun) and risk becoming a criminal, or (2) defend him/herself less effectively (without a gun) and increase the risk of becoming prey to a REAL criminal. This new tradeoff creates a new fear, which is small at first, but it becomes larger as gun control escalates (as it naturally does, since the bureaucrats don't recognize that it's self-defeating). Then, multiply that amount of fear by 260 million (the US population), and you have a real problem. But the problem is "hidden" because it is dispersed over so many people.
Whether you agree with everything I've said or not, I hope you will at least consider that there may be some hidden consequences that you may not have considered.
The "War on Drugs" is a good example, too. But IMHO the fact that you've swerved into the ditch (the CDA) doesn't necessarily mean that you must henceforth drive in the oncoming lane (libertarianism). There's always a middle way, and it's usually worth following. Extremism in the defense of anything is a vice, and moderation in the pursuit of anything is usually a virtue. I'm a fanatical moderate! Hear me roar!:)
"Extremism in the defense of anything is a vice" is a self-contradicting statement. You've taken the extreme against extremism.
Not all extremes are bad, just as not all absolutes are false. The trick is choosing the correct ones. If you think you don't have to choose, them read the previous paragraph again. If you think you can get by with self-contradictions, then you have some very deep philosophizing to do.
Regarding sewage: Corporations already do GIANT tasks, requiring thousands of workers and complex organization. They do it for money (among other things), and they do it efficiently because they build on self-interest instead of trying to oppose it. You can't say the same about government organizations; they are inefficent and degenerative by design.
You say that "not many people would work in the sewers for the good of their fellow man, they would only do it to get paid." If I follow you, then they should be forced to work in the sewers by the government? That's your answer?? Is getting paid to do a job just too immoral for you??
What do they say? "He who gives up a little freedom to gain a little security deserves and gets neither" -- indeed. Oh, yes indeed. See above. On the other hand, all of life is a matter of trading freedom for security. "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch": It's just a question of what kind of a bargain you drive. I'm not free to sleep in until noon on weekdays and then drink my breakfast; in return for giving up that freedom, I get a regular paycheck. It's called adulthood. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
You don't understand the quote. When you voluntarily give up your ability to sleep in until noon, you haven't lost any freedom because you can voluntarily quit your job. It's a tradeoff, and as you said, we make tradeoffs every day.
Giving up your freemdom, on the other hand, means you don't have any choice in the matter any more. You've truly given up the right to decide for yourself.
Libertarians understand the value of choice. That's why we don't want the bureaucrats making personal decisions for us, no matter how benevolent and well-intentioned they claim to be. We understand that even if they were each a hundred times smarter than the rest of us, they couldn't solve our problems for us. We, more than anyone, know there's no such thing as a free lunch.
I agree with your point about a computer's case, but I thought I'd point out that there are far more than just a tiny number of ways to implement a GUI. It's just that very few of them have become mainstream. When I worked at Apple, I saw several cool GUI innovations that came out of ATG but never made it into a product.
Regarding the GUI lawsuit -- Apple's lawyers should have made it clear how much time and money Apple invested the development of their GUI, only to have others copy it. (For those who still think Apple did the same to Xerox, I paraphrase Woz: "Apple made a deal with Xerox involving stock, while Microsoft merely copied them.")
QuickTime is primarily a transport mechanism for different media formats, and it ships with the ability to read several different formats (encapsulated in codecs), MPEG being one of them.
Saying "support MPEG instead of QuickTime" is like saying "use blue ink instead of pens."
Not the same as Social Darwinism. Read Bionomics, by Michael Rothschild, particularly the last section dedicated to the difference between the free market and SD.
Why did the S&L's fail? I guarantee the gov't had something to do with it. If I recall, I believe they were insured by the gov't. If they had been private insurance companies with profits in mind, it wouldn't have happened. But since the gov't isn't a business, kaplooie. Many of the problems people state as needing to be solved by the gov't were caused by the gov't in the first place.
Pumping increasingly more money into subsidies to "solve" problems only delays the inevitable crash. And the longer you wait, the harder they crash.
I believe in zero subsidies. Subsidies are inherently corrupt because there is a broken feedback loop from the producer (of money) and the spender. A stable system requires strong feedback. Roads, schools, etc. are quite possible without subsidies. I think that fact is glaringly obvious in the case of the public schools nowadays.
You beg the question when you say that the gov't has to find work for immigrants who can't find it themselves. Free flow of immigrants would create a demand for businesses that find work for people. The private sector can handle it just fine, as long as the gov't doesn't provide a "free" solution (which would damage the market for such businesses).
We would NOT "certainly have implosions in third world countries" without IMF bailouts. The IMF is contributing to the problem, not solving it. Once again, OPM corrupts. Taxation, actually. Taxation creates a commons of wealth, which results in overspending and overconsuming in the long run. Taxation IS a form of theft when you consider how much power a single person has over his money that is taken in taxes.
One difference between the Wild West and modern times is the (near) lack of gov't subsidies back then. But this isn't what makes modern times more civilized. Subsidies do not equate with civilization. The real difference is the organization now and the lack of it back then. Organization and establishment of laws and ways of dealing with criminals. In other words, avoidance of the prisoner's dilemma among people who are exploring new territory and are therefore sparsely populated and constantly encountering new and different people whose philosophies and intentions aren't known. That's what made it the "Wild" West. Nothing to do with subsidies.
Perhaps you misunderstood my last statement. I'm not blaming the immigrants. I'm blaming the US gov't for supplying handouts paid with OPM (other people's money) and then clamping down on the borders to prevent "outsiders" from getting it. No handouts, no problem, open up those borders. Attract the immigrants who are excited by the notion of earning an honest living and nothing more.
Regarding sin -- I'm not religious. But I do believe in absolutes and morals. I require rational arguments, not faithful ones. I don't mind rants, as long as there's a mind behind it.
"People like me?" I didn't say I think the handouts are a mountain of money. They aren't. But I do see them as dangerous, no matter how big they are or what they pay for, because they grow like a cancer, taking away more and more of the wealth of honest, productive people over time. And the middlemen in charge of it all (the politicians and their "friends") ARE getting a mountain of money. It's a corrupt system, and it will continue to grow until more people wake up and start opposing the confiscation of their property.
I agree that Apple is an accomplice in the slavery initiated by the Mexican government (something I almost pointed out in my last posting). My original posting was meant to oppose the idea that people should be paid more than market value merely because they have less than others. Clearly, there are other issues, and the fact that Apple (and any other company) takes part in employing people who are partly enslaved is a serious problem.
I'm all for opening up the borders. Let the immigrants come here for the honest living, not the handouts.
Shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same material benefits that those Irish and Californian workers do?
Actually, no. They should have the right to pursue a quality of life, but no one has the right to HAVE a quality of life. The same argument goes for all the entitlement programs of the US gov't. Arguing that everyone deserves a particular material thing shows a lack of understanding of basic economics, as well as an unconscious belief in slavery (slavery of the productive).
Slavery is not the same as cheap labor. Slavery is forced employment. People who work for cheap wages do so because they have no other employment alternative, usually because they either don't have the skills, or they live under the heavy hand of an oppressive gov't (the latter often contributing to the former). And there's no quick fix (e.g., minimum wage) to the problem.
Yeah, who wants low wages when you can have even lower ones, or none at all. Damn Apple for employing cheap labor!
And damn that Mexican gov't for not forcing the people to protect themselves! Apple, or any company for that matter, certainly isn't smart enough to think about protecting itself against the threat of fire. If it weren't for gov't regulations, we'd all be pulling out guns and shooting ourselves in the feet all day long. Thank you, big brother.
That's sarcasm, if you didn't notice. Seriously, don't be so protectionist and paternalistic. It isn't good for anyone.
Extremes are quite useful at times, especially as counter-examples.
For you extreme-haters out there, please notice that I didn't rely solely on the rock extreme to make my point.
Besides, it's not true that nothing is valueable to a rock. Even a rock can be destroyed. Assuming the goal is the rock's continued existence, it's fairly obvious that a calm, grassy field is more valuable than a beach on the Atlantic where the rock would be pummelled by ocean waves.
This is an excellent development. I think it was David Friedman who said that a good economist is concerned not merely with money, but with valuables in general.
(By the way, "intrinsic value" implies a value judgement without a valuer, which is meaningless. My name and address hold great value to my family and friends, but less value to a company whose products I buy, and no value at all to a rock.)
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, I didn't follow his statement. I thought he was making a different statement, one that I've heard before, many times. His wording was vague, and I misunderstood. And notice my use of "if I follow you." I hereby retract my remarks.
Nevertheless, his statement DOES imply the use of force. Only it's not against the guy working in the sewer; it's against the people who pay for the guy working in the sewer. The money has to come from somewhere, and it's better to let the sewer company develop a direct, self-correcting relationship with its customers than to use taxation as a means to fund an organization that naturally becomes inefficient and loathed by its customers.
Unless you're self-destructive, you don't choose to die fighting. You choose to fight for something while risking death. Another tradeoff of life.
There's really no need to throw away freedom for security. You can have large amounts of both, just as you can have very little of both (the communist proletariat had little security and almost no freedom). In fact, I believe freedom and security are positively related, not negatively. The consequences of throwing away freedom are not as simple as most people think.
I might as well give an example. As gun control increases, it takes away an increasing amount of a person's choice for personal defense. He/she is faced with an increasingly large tradeoff that didn't exist before: (1) defend him/herself more effectively (with a gun) and risk becoming a criminal, or (2) defend him/herself less effectively (without a gun) and increase the risk of becoming prey to a REAL criminal. This new tradeoff creates a new fear, which is small at first, but it becomes larger as gun control escalates (as it naturally does, since the bureaucrats don't recognize that it's self-defeating). Then, multiply that amount of fear by 260 million (the US population), and you have a real problem. But the problem is "hidden" because it is dispersed over so many people.
Whether you agree with everything I've said or not, I hope you will at least consider that there may be some hidden consequences that you may not have considered.
The "War on Drugs" is a good example, too. But IMHO the fact that you've swerved into the ditch (the CDA) doesn't necessarily mean that you must henceforth drive in the oncoming lane (libertarianism). There's always a middle way, and it's usually worth following. Extremism in the defense of anything is a vice, and moderation in the pursuit of anything is usually a virtue. I'm a fanatical moderate! Hear me roar! :)
"Extremism in the defense of anything is a vice" is a self-contradicting statement. You've taken the extreme against extremism.
Not all extremes are bad, just as not all absolutes are false. The trick is choosing the correct ones. If you think you don't have to choose, them read the previous paragraph again. If you think you can get by with self-contradictions, then you have some very deep philosophizing to do.
Regarding sewage: Corporations already do GIANT tasks, requiring thousands of workers and complex organization. They do it for money (among other things), and they do it efficiently because they build on self-interest instead of trying to oppose it. You can't say the same about government organizations; they are inefficent and degenerative by design.
You say that "not many people would work in the sewers for the good of their fellow man, they would only do it to get paid." If I follow you, then they should be forced to work in the sewers by the government? That's your answer?? Is getting paid to do a job just too immoral for you??
What do they say? "He who gives up a little freedom to gain a little security deserves and gets neither" -- indeed. Oh, yes indeed. See above. On the other hand, all of life is a matter of trading freedom for security. "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch": It's just a question of what kind of a bargain you drive. I'm not free to sleep in until noon on weekdays and then drink my breakfast; in return for giving up that freedom, I get a regular paycheck. It's called adulthood. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
You don't understand the quote. When you voluntarily give up your ability to sleep in until noon, you haven't lost any freedom because you can voluntarily quit your job. It's a tradeoff, and as you said, we make tradeoffs every day.
Giving up your freemdom, on the other hand, means you don't have any choice in the matter any more. You've truly given up the right to decide for yourself.
Libertarians understand the value of choice. That's why we don't want the bureaucrats making personal decisions for us, no matter how benevolent and well-intentioned they claim to be. We understand that even if they were each a hundred times smarter than the rest of us, they couldn't solve our problems for us. We, more than anyone, know there's no such thing as a free lunch.
According to Apple's web site, the card is $99 and the base is $299, MSRP.
I agree with your point about a computer's case, but I thought I'd point out that there are far more than just a tiny number of ways to implement a GUI. It's just that very few of them have become mainstream. When I worked at Apple, I saw several cool GUI innovations that came out of ATG but never made it into a product.
Regarding the GUI lawsuit -- Apple's lawyers should have made it clear how much time and money Apple invested the development of their GUI, only to have others copy it. (For those who still think Apple did the same to Xerox, I paraphrase Woz: "Apple made a deal with Xerox involving stock, while Microsoft merely copied them.")
QuickTime is primarily a transport mechanism for different media formats, and it ships with the ability to read several different formats (encapsulated in codecs), MPEG being one of them.
Saying "support MPEG instead of QuickTime" is like saying "use blue ink instead of pens."
Here's the link to Social Darwinism discussed in "Bionomics: Economy as Ecosystem": Bionomics Outline
Not the same as Social Darwinism. Read Bionomics, by Michael Rothschild, particularly the last section dedicated to the difference between the free market and SD.
Why did the S&L's fail? I guarantee the gov't had something to do with it. If I recall, I believe they were insured by the gov't. If they had been private insurance companies with profits in mind, it wouldn't have happened. But since the gov't isn't a business, kaplooie. Many of the problems people state as needing to be solved by the gov't were caused by the gov't in the first place.
Pumping increasingly more money into subsidies to "solve" problems only delays the inevitable crash. And the longer you wait, the harder they crash.
I don't have much time, so I'll try to summarize.
I believe in zero subsidies. Subsidies are inherently corrupt because there is a broken feedback loop from the producer (of money) and the spender. A stable system requires strong feedback. Roads, schools, etc. are quite possible without subsidies. I think that fact is glaringly obvious in the case of the public schools nowadays.
You beg the question when you say that the gov't has to find work for immigrants who can't find it themselves. Free flow of immigrants would create a demand for businesses that find work for people. The private sector can handle it just fine, as long as the gov't doesn't provide a "free" solution (which would damage the market for such businesses).
We would NOT "certainly have implosions in third world countries" without IMF bailouts. The IMF is contributing to the problem, not solving it. Once again, OPM corrupts. Taxation, actually. Taxation creates a commons of wealth, which results in overspending and overconsuming in the long run. Taxation IS a form of theft when you consider how much power a single person has over his money that is taken in taxes.
One difference between the Wild West and modern times is the (near) lack of gov't subsidies back then. But this isn't what makes modern times more civilized. Subsidies do not equate with civilization. The real difference is the organization now and the lack of it back then. Organization and establishment of laws and ways of dealing with criminals. In other words, avoidance of the prisoner's dilemma among people who are exploring new territory and are therefore sparsely populated and constantly encountering new and different people whose philosophies and intentions aren't known. That's what made it the "Wild" West. Nothing to do with subsidies.
I guess I had more time than I thought.
Perhaps you misunderstood my last statement. I'm not blaming the immigrants. I'm blaming the US gov't for supplying handouts paid with OPM (other people's money) and then clamping down on the borders to prevent "outsiders" from getting it. No handouts, no problem, open up those borders. Attract the immigrants who are excited by the notion of earning an honest living and nothing more.
Regarding sin -- I'm not religious. But I do believe in absolutes and morals. I require rational arguments, not faithful ones. I don't mind rants, as long as there's a mind behind it.
"People like me?" I didn't say I think the handouts are a mountain of money. They aren't. But I do see them as dangerous, no matter how big they are or what they pay for, because they grow like a cancer, taking away more and more of the wealth of honest, productive people over time. And the middlemen in charge of it all (the politicians and their "friends") ARE getting a mountain of money. It's a corrupt system, and it will continue to grow until more people wake up and start opposing the confiscation of their property.
I agree that Apple is an accomplice in the slavery initiated by the Mexican government (something I almost pointed out in my last posting). My original posting was meant to oppose the idea that people should be paid more than market value merely because they have less than others. Clearly, there are other issues, and the fact that Apple (and any other company) takes part in employing people who are partly enslaved is a serious problem.
I'm all for opening up the borders. Let the immigrants come here for the honest living, not the handouts.
Shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same material benefits that those Irish and Californian workers do?
Actually, no. They should have the right to pursue a quality of life, but no one has the right to HAVE a quality of life. The same argument goes for all the entitlement programs of the US gov't. Arguing that everyone deserves a particular material thing shows a lack of understanding of basic economics, as well as an unconscious belief in slavery (slavery of the productive).
Slavery is not the same as cheap labor. Slavery is forced employment. People who work for cheap wages do so because they have no other employment alternative, usually because they either don't have the skills, or they live under the heavy hand of an oppressive gov't (the latter often contributing to the former). And there's no quick fix (e.g., minimum wage) to the problem.
Yeah, who wants low wages when you can have even lower ones, or none at all. Damn Apple for employing cheap labor!
And damn that Mexican gov't for not forcing the people to protect themselves! Apple, or any company for that matter, certainly isn't smart enough to think about protecting itself against the threat of fire. If it weren't for gov't regulations, we'd all be pulling out guns and shooting ourselves in the feet all day long. Thank you, big brother.
That's sarcasm, if you didn't notice. Seriously, don't be so protectionist and paternalistic. It isn't good for anyone.
Extremes are quite useful at times, especially as counter-examples.
For you extreme-haters out there, please notice that I didn't rely solely on the rock extreme to make my point.
Besides, it's not true that nothing is valueable to a rock. Even a rock can be destroyed. Assuming the goal is the rock's continued existence, it's fairly obvious that a calm, grassy field is more valuable than a beach on the Atlantic where the rock would be pummelled by ocean waves.
This is an excellent development. I think it was David Friedman who said that a good economist is concerned not merely with money, but with valuables in general.
(By the way, "intrinsic value" implies a value judgement without a valuer, which is meaningless. My name and address hold great value to my family and friends, but less value to a company whose products I buy, and no value at all to a rock.)