Lew Rockwell has a think for flare, I am glad to see this article got some attention even if misunderstood. There is no way you can make an argument against the criminalization of potential crime without addressing the issue of drunk driving. His argument is that while we should be diligent in the persecution of trespassers that persecution of potential trespassers is going too far. In business management there is an idea that you should not focus on punishing people for what they were doing while they should have been doing something else, focus on what they were NOT doing. People should be busted for not driving safely, but are we using the best metric?
It is more of a legal argument than a moral one. If a person is driving dangerously should they not be cited if it is determined that they are not legally intoxicated? Why not instead bust people for driving dangerously and only allow for intoxication to be an enhancement. The law is HIGHLY technical, and Rockwell likes to often attack it in highly technical and extreme ways. His articles tend to be worth controversial discussion and not group think.
Ayn Rand is not the beginning or end of libertarian thought. She was a contributor. She also supported the idea of using war to promote US interests, possible the most anti-libertarian position anyone could take. Just because something has a founding in Libertarian principles does not mean that the conclusions that individual comes to is representative of all Libertarians.
Simpler than that, Intellectual Property is incompatible (and an erosion of) with a capital theory of property rights. Can't visit youtube right now, but the first result if you search for "Stephan Kinsella" gives a great lecture on this subject.
While I am not sure how it works exactly in Europe, "Tax Exempt" in the United States is only an exemption from filing because you are stating up front that you do not intended to produce "profit". There is lots of other paperwork you need to do instead. The only "tax break" is for those making donations to legally recognized "charities".
In communities where there is already motivation to "be all you can be", this new requirement will mean that marginally successful students will not graduate. In less motivated communities it will be a motivator to drop out sooner. If you want to encourage more students to take Algebra II, try convincing them on the merits, not with threats. This plan works on the same flawed logic of price fixing.
As long as people seem to be foaming at the mouth to impose all kinds of "requirements" on people, why not require that all high schools make available the opportunity to meet the states high school graduation requirements, and let them graduate.
Relating to price fixing, minimum wage will always be unlivable, and "high school graduate" will always be "unskilled".
1) What incentive would the bank have to hold your money for free at zero reserve?
2) Similar to what you were saying about bonds, how would this be different from, or why not let the market, determine the reserve rate?
Google is doing well.
Irish Government is going bankrupt.
Just on face value, which group is being the most responsible with their money?
Is it just me, or does the idea of taking resources from one group of responsible people and giving it to another that are clearly incompetent counterintuitive? IMO, the best example of the failure of "trickle down economics" is giving money to the government. The logic makes sense though: a majority of people do not gain direct monetary profit from Google. Government likes to throw wealth around like sand on a beach. Google has lots of smart people that will probably survive a swift kick to the face, and when the government starts throwing the money around, there is a pretty decent chance some of it will come my way one way or another, at least relatively to leaving Google with its own money that it earned. So in democracy, we can trade A for B, take back A, then trade it for B and C, take back A again, and trade it for B, C, and D. And apparently, this is how you build an economy. And what do we do if people claim to feel cheated by this system and don't want to play along? We throw them in jail, call THEM a cheat, and get to take all their stuff.
They are clearly evil for not paying their fair share. I don't think I can support a company anymore that obviously hates police, fireman, and teachers. The government should shut them down. If not for taxes, what has Google really done for us? I mean, I use their search engine and most all of their apps every day, I even bought one of their new phones. I think it is time after all that loyalty that they do something for me! Those greedy bastards...
There are many ways to be here legally and not all of them include citizenship. People come here temporarily for work and school in addition to vacation. Further, how can people not be denied the right to vote but then also need prove that they are not just a tourist?
Personally, I think you just made the best example of "here legally" != "legal citizen", and how it can be get complicated.
No. Under a capitalistic, free market, private property system it is generally accepted that zero scarcity = zero cost, as far as "taking it to its logical conclusion". Some business models just don't work or depend on fraud / deception. Creating artificial scarcity is a form of fraud and deception.
There were many that thought that the printing press would start a revolution where no author would ever write again if books could just be printed and shared with anybody. There was a revolution... but I don't think it quite went the way the incumbent industry thought it was going to go.
Just word of warning, if I ever hear someone say, "I made an informed decision today! I bought the hardware that says 'Works with Windows' on it. That is what we use, right?"
I am going to *facepalm* at them very very loudly.
Technically, "Works with Windows" just means that a driver was written. I do not believe it makes any claim to its functionality or quality assurance. There is only an implication. It would be just as informative to put on the box "Window users should buy this product. The greatest barrier to driver development is hardware manufacturers that go out of their way to obfuscate how a device works. Whether or not a device has software to make the hardware more functional is an important business decision that depending on the product will determine their long term viability. If there are "restrictions" on fraudulent and deceptive advertising in addition to promising that nothing was added to the product to make it more annoying to use or develop for thoroughly covers any remote value a product might gain from a "Works with Windows" sticker.
This is pretty cool. I hope it actually shows up on more than one product, and purchased by more people than just Richard Stallman. It is something that may or may not catch on to a certain segment of the market, and not just the Linux community. And remember, this is a standard being proposed by the FSF, not a new law being proposed.
That is like saying that there being no difference between individual liberty and liberal government, freedom for people to make their own choices about their own life and be responsible for them, versus freedom for the state to help or protect you in any way that it sees fit for your own good.
Total anarchy is not the only form or "true" freedom. I wouldn't even say that is much freedom in any sense.
It is also easy to avoid controversy by never doing anything interesting ever, but I will agree that "common sense" is a much more polite term, and probably more socially acceptable. Good call since people that boring typically have nothing better to do than to blog about how upset they got when they were accused of being boring.
this only proves that social construct theory is nature rather than nurture / environmental. People form social groups through the avoidance of annoying and hostile relationships. It does not seem far fetched at all to think that people would trend towards useful, interesting, non-hostile, non-living things. People, including babies seek stimulation for learning. A playful robot would hold my attention, and I might lose interest if I thought there was a good chance he robot was going to cause me harm.
This "study" would have been much more interesting if they had only released the video tape and not shared their opinions.
Thanks for pointing that out for all of us. All posts may be useless, but yours is clearly least useless of them all, second only to this one pointing out how less useless your post is.
Gaining an understanding of the way the network of friends morphs based on wants and needs is interesting. Using that insight to try and maintain a maximum number of friends is questionable at best. I would much rather use such information to let people know that they do not need to feel guilty about unfriending because it is normal, or if the results seem irrational we can know how "normal" people think so that we can be sure to avoid such behavior in the future, even if just for ourselves.
I have heard several versions of that "saying", and not only is it a bit different each time, but I am starting to notice a pattern. Are you trying to say that Ron Jeremy has really only been with about 350 women?
Actually trying to imagine this. A hat trick is one thing, but sleeping with 10 different people you have never slept with before, but never want to sleep with again, I am thinking something is SERIOUSLY wrong here. You might think after maybe 5 or so you might reconsider your game plan; Either you need better partners, or you are in desperate need of some training. In my experience, people that like what they get come back for more.
I think what is often over looked is that corporatism != free market. A corporation is a blend of free choices within a structure defined by the government that trades certain economic freedom for protectionism most often in the way of liability. But government protection against risk is already a violation of free market principles. When people are allowed to take risks but do not need to bear the consequences the rules of the game have been radically altered implicitly changing (in to way that conforms to natural law) the optimal strategy for gain.
Congress continually operates on the notion that it can modify the risk gain relationship and expect people to keep doing things the same way they were doing them before.
For example, one big business has a big idea, and it will be really good for everybody. The problem is that certain tax liabilities make it difficult to do business in a particular way, so they create a tax break for companies doing thing a particular way. Sounds fine until other business look at their models and will restructure to take advantage of the new rules having consequences that the legislature never intended, or at last never expected. So now that the business environment has been screwed up by bad legislation after businesses have adapted to the new rules, they blame the corporations for exploiting loop holes.
It would be like if there were a welfare system that said that anybody wearing a burlap shirt (clearly somebody quite poor) was entitled to $1000 in assistance. Now all the poor people are going to be helped. But what happens after? Some people with enough money that they do not need to wear burlap shirts keep wearing them because they know that if they stop wearing the shirt then they won't get the $1000 next month. Maybe not so bad. But what if a large number of people start going out and buying burlap shirts that never wore one before because they want the money? OR someone starts of a new big business mass producing burlap shirts to meet the new demand?
This isn't people being evil, it is the way people survive in nature. Government has an amazing power to manipulate the rules that guide people. They have a weapon more powerful than anybody is able to control. People are terrible at looking at secondary consequences of their actions. This is a common argument for government to step in and take control. But when an individual acts, other people are able to react and create new opportunities. But it is proportional to their size. The way this WORKS is the principle of spontaneous order. When government changes something, it vast and sweeping. Rather than one or a few people reacting to the influence of an individuals decision, everybody is required to adapt to everybody else. The most immediate effect may have been predictable, but what was already an organic cascade of cause and effect is going to take on a radically new semi-unpredictable direction. While some might like to think that simply repealing the bad law would fix the problem, it may have an equally large effect, but it will not have an equal reverse effect because it is no longer the same environment.
Corporations are not just legal fictions, but "the corporation" as an idea and a law is a public institution.
In short, BAD copyright law has caused people to behave in extremely unnatural ways. People are forced to design their business around the law, but after that, it is laissez-faire (the pieces will fall where they will). Government continues to taint the landscape dictating where the pieces will fall. The unintended result (giving them the benefit of doubt) is three massive media corporations plus one big lobby. Primarily, copyright is so powerful that whoever owns the most can kill anybody with less with the real prize of being able to write the next copyright bill.
The idea that copyright exists to promote science and the useful arts is beyond a joke as it has really manipulated focus from content creation to content creation and distribution control as a primary focus revolving around suing consumers of information, and taking control of the law itself.
Hate the merger, but remember that this is the symptom of bad public policy, not something that calls for one.
Slashdot Mirror
Lew Rockwell has a think for flare, I am glad to see this article got some attention even if misunderstood. There is no way you can make an argument against the criminalization of potential crime without addressing the issue of drunk driving. His argument is that while we should be diligent in the persecution of trespassers that persecution of potential trespassers is going too far. In business management there is an idea that you should not focus on punishing people for what they were doing while they should have been doing something else, focus on what they were NOT doing. People should be busted for not driving safely, but are we using the best metric?
It is more of a legal argument than a moral one. If a person is driving dangerously should they not be cited if it is determined that they are not legally intoxicated? Why not instead bust people for driving dangerously and only allow for intoxication to be an enhancement. The law is HIGHLY technical, and Rockwell likes to often attack it in highly technical and extreme ways. His articles tend to be worth controversial discussion and not group think.
Ayn Rand is not the beginning or end of libertarian thought. She was a contributor. She also supported the idea of using war to promote US interests, possible the most anti-libertarian position anyone could take. Just because something has a founding in Libertarian principles does not mean that the conclusions that individual comes to is representative of all Libertarians.
Simpler than that, Intellectual Property is incompatible (and an erosion of) with a capital theory of property rights. Can't visit youtube right now, but the first result if you search for "Stephan Kinsella" gives a great lecture on this subject.
While I am not sure how it works exactly in Europe, "Tax Exempt" in the United States is only an exemption from filing because you are stating up front that you do not intended to produce "profit". There is lots of other paperwork you need to do instead. The only "tax break" is for those making donations to legally recognized "charities".
everyone should be able to say and believe absolutely what the hell they like, and those rights should be protected indiscriminately
And as beliefs go I know ASCAP would completely disagree with you. ;)
In communities where there is already motivation to "be all you can be", this new requirement will mean that marginally successful students will not graduate. In less motivated communities it will be a motivator to drop out sooner. If you want to encourage more students to take Algebra II, try convincing them on the merits, not with threats. This plan works on the same flawed logic of price fixing.
As long as people seem to be foaming at the mouth to impose all kinds of "requirements" on people, why not require that all high schools make available the opportunity to meet the states high school graduation requirements, and let them graduate.
Relating to price fixing, minimum wage will always be unlivable, and "high school graduate" will always be "unskilled".
1) What incentive would the bank have to hold your money for free at zero reserve?
2) Similar to what you were saying about bonds, how would this be different from, or why not let the market, determine the reserve rate?
Google is doing well.
Irish Government is going bankrupt.
Just on face value, which group is being the most responsible with their money?
Is it just me, or does the idea of taking resources from one group of responsible people and giving it to another that are clearly incompetent counterintuitive? IMO, the best example of the failure of "trickle down economics" is giving money to the government. The logic makes sense though: a majority of people do not gain direct monetary profit from Google. Government likes to throw wealth around like sand on a beach. Google has lots of smart people that will probably survive a swift kick to the face, and when the government starts throwing the money around, there is a pretty decent chance some of it will come my way one way or another, at least relatively to leaving Google with its own money that it earned. So in democracy, we can trade A for B, take back A, then trade it for B and C, take back A again, and trade it for B, C, and D. And apparently, this is how you build an economy. And what do we do if people claim to feel cheated by this system and don't want to play along? We throw them in jail, call THEM a cheat, and get to take all their stuff.
TL;DR Fuck institutionalized theft.
They are clearly evil for not paying their fair share. I don't think I can support a company anymore that obviously hates police, fireman, and teachers. The government should shut them down. If not for taxes, what has Google really done for us? I mean, I use their search engine and most all of their apps every day, I even bought one of their new phones. I think it is time after all that loyalty that they do something for me! Those greedy bastards...
There are many ways to be here legally and not all of them include citizenship. People come here temporarily for work and school in addition to vacation. Further, how can people not be denied the right to vote but then also need prove that they are not just a tourist?
Personally, I think you just made the best example of "here legally" != "legal citizen", and how it can be get complicated.
No. Under a capitalistic, free market, private property system it is generally accepted that zero scarcity = zero cost, as far as "taking it to its logical conclusion". Some business models just don't work or depend on fraud / deception. Creating artificial scarcity is a form of fraud and deception.
There were many that thought that the printing press would start a revolution where no author would ever write again if books could just be printed and shared with anybody. There was a revolution... but I don't think it quite went the way the incumbent industry thought it was going to go.
THANK you FOR making THAT more CLEAR for EVERYBODY.
Just word of warning, if I ever hear someone say, "I made an informed decision today! I bought the hardware that says 'Works with Windows' on it. That is what we use, right?"
I am going to *facepalm* at them very very loudly.
Technically, "Works with Windows" just means that a driver was written. I do not believe it makes any claim to its functionality or quality assurance. There is only an implication. It would be just as informative to put on the box "Window users should buy this product. The greatest barrier to driver development is hardware manufacturers that go out of their way to obfuscate how a device works. Whether or not a device has software to make the hardware more functional is an important business decision that depending on the product will determine their long term viability. If there are "restrictions" on fraudulent and deceptive advertising in addition to promising that nothing was added to the product to make it more annoying to use or develop for thoroughly covers any remote value a product might gain from a "Works with Windows" sticker.
This is pretty cool. I hope it actually shows up on more than one product, and purchased by more people than just Richard Stallman. It is something that may or may not catch on to a certain segment of the market, and not just the Linux community. And remember, this is a standard being proposed by the FSF, not a new law being proposed.
That is like saying that there being no difference between individual liberty and liberal government, freedom for people to make their own choices about their own life and be responsible for them, versus freedom for the state to help or protect you in any way that it sees fit for your own good.
Total anarchy is not the only form or "true" freedom. I wouldn't even say that is much freedom in any sense.
It is also easy to avoid controversy by never doing anything interesting ever, but I will agree that "common sense" is a much more polite term, and probably more socially acceptable. Good call since people that boring typically have nothing better to do than to blog about how upset they got when they were accused of being boring.
Obligatory
Too bad I'll never know... not really.
this only proves that social construct theory is nature rather than nurture / environmental. People form social groups through the avoidance of annoying and hostile relationships. It does not seem far fetched at all to think that people would trend towards useful, interesting, non-hostile, non-living things. People, including babies seek stimulation for learning. A playful robot would hold my attention, and I might lose interest if I thought there was a good chance he robot was going to cause me harm.
This "study" would have been much more interesting if they had only released the video tape and not shared their opinions.
Thanks for pointing that out for all of us. All posts may be useless, but yours is clearly least useless of them all, second only to this one pointing out how less useless your post is.
Gaining an understanding of the way the network of friends morphs based on wants and needs is interesting. Using that insight to try and maintain a maximum number of friends is questionable at best. I would much rather use such information to let people know that they do not need to feel guilty about unfriending because it is normal, or if the results seem irrational we can know how "normal" people think so that we can be sure to avoid such behavior in the future, even if just for ourselves.
TL;DR Now you know if you are normal on FB. Yay?
But all bets are off if it gets them laid by the surveyor.
I have heard several versions of that "saying", and not only is it a bit different each time, but I am starting to notice a pattern. Are you trying to say that Ron Jeremy has really only been with about 350 women?
Who told you?
Why not quantity and quality?
Actually trying to imagine this. A hat trick is one thing, but sleeping with 10 different people you have never slept with before, but never want to sleep with again, I am thinking something is SERIOUSLY wrong here. You might think after maybe 5 or so you might reconsider your game plan; Either you need better partners, or you are in desperate need of some training. In my experience, people that like what they get come back for more.
I think what is often over looked is that corporatism != free market. A corporation is a blend of free choices within a structure defined by the government that trades certain economic freedom for protectionism most often in the way of liability. But government protection against risk is already a violation of free market principles. When people are allowed to take risks but do not need to bear the consequences the rules of the game have been radically altered implicitly changing (in to way that conforms to natural law) the optimal strategy for gain.
Congress continually operates on the notion that it can modify the risk gain relationship and expect people to keep doing things the same way they were doing them before.
For example, one big business has a big idea, and it will be really good for everybody. The problem is that certain tax liabilities make it difficult to do business in a particular way, so they create a tax break for companies doing thing a particular way. Sounds fine until other business look at their models and will restructure to take advantage of the new rules having consequences that the legislature never intended, or at last never expected. So now that the business environment has been screwed up by bad legislation after businesses have adapted to the new rules, they blame the corporations for exploiting loop holes.
It would be like if there were a welfare system that said that anybody wearing a burlap shirt (clearly somebody quite poor) was entitled to $1000 in assistance. Now all the poor people are going to be helped. But what happens after? Some people with enough money that they do not need to wear burlap shirts keep wearing them because they know that if they stop wearing the shirt then they won't get the $1000 next month. Maybe not so bad. But what if a large number of people start going out and buying burlap shirts that never wore one before because they want the money? OR someone starts of a new big business mass producing burlap shirts to meet the new demand?
This isn't people being evil, it is the way people survive in nature. Government has an amazing power to manipulate the rules that guide people. They have a weapon more powerful than anybody is able to control. People are terrible at looking at secondary consequences of their actions. This is a common argument for government to step in and take control. But when an individual acts, other people are able to react and create new opportunities. But it is proportional to their size. The way this WORKS is the principle of spontaneous order. When government changes something, it vast and sweeping. Rather than one or a few people reacting to the influence of an individuals decision, everybody is required to adapt to everybody else. The most immediate effect may have been predictable, but what was already an organic cascade of cause and effect is going to take on a radically new semi-unpredictable direction. While some might like to think that simply repealing the bad law would fix the problem, it may have an equally large effect, but it will not have an equal reverse effect because it is no longer the same environment.
Corporations are not just legal fictions, but "the corporation" as an idea and a law is a public institution.
In short, BAD copyright law has caused people to behave in extremely unnatural ways. People are forced to design their business around the law, but after that, it is laissez-faire (the pieces will fall where they will). Government continues to taint the landscape dictating where the pieces will fall. The unintended result (giving them the benefit of doubt) is three massive media corporations plus one big lobby. Primarily, copyright is so powerful that whoever owns the most can kill anybody with less with the real prize of being able to write the next copyright bill.
The idea that copyright exists to promote science and the useful arts is beyond a joke as it has really manipulated focus from content creation to content creation and distribution control as a primary focus revolving around suing consumers of information, and taking control of the law itself.
Hate the merger, but remember that this is the symptom of bad public policy, not something that calls for one.