> I do see laws written that explicitly state that things the people have a right to shall not be required to license.
Yet you need a license to drive. The moment your actions affect anybody else - the government (as the representatives of everybody else) gets a stake in the decision. No business can possibly claim NOT to affect society, hence society gets a stake in the decision of what kinds of businesses can exist to affect it.
I actually have to wonder - how the hell is it that the landlord can just single-handedly change the rental contract anyway ? Surely any addendums (which modify the contract) must be agreed to by both parties before they can take effect ?
>A businesses can exist without a government to issue permits, inspect premises, and ensure compliance (with whatever). Not the other way around. Suck it up, cupcake.
Actually history has proven this statement false. You don't get businesses without those things - you get feudal warlords.
>If a business is messed up enough, people will eventually vote with their feet.
Maybe this theory actually could work in practice, but the reality is society has generally found that it's better to get rid of the butcher selling the dodgy meat BEFORE half the town is dead. And generally businesses tend to have no such thing as a conscience. It takes a very evil person to poison a town's drinking water - it merely takes a typical company to do the same. If we don't prohibit this behavior explicitly - not only can we not even try to prevent it, we can't punish them if they do it either (something we mostly do in the hope of preventing all the other companies from also doing it).
Libertarians always claim their theories cannot be disproven by empirical facts. The claim is two-fold, firstly they mostly subscribe to Austrian economics - a cult that rejects the very concept of empiricism and so can conveniently ignore when all their economic predictions invariably fail to occur (for example). Secondly they claim that their ideas in terms of government has never been truly tested - so it can't be refuted until it is. Except... it has, repeatedly, they just disavow every occurrence there-off because they all went very bad, very quickly. Tortuga, Somalia - all places of small and limited government with no real regulation. One historical, one current. In both cases the 'government' was quickly a non-entity and actual rule devolved into powerful warlords (seeing as there was no powerful government to prevent this) who are much, much worse than any democratic government. Liberty was soon replaced with slavery and forced labour - since the government was too weak to prevent this (by means of things like labor laws to define what is or isn't free labor and punish those who violate that). And in both cases death, famine and disease were soon rampant. Productivity rapidly broke down and very soon the main industry was piracy - that is, taking the productivity of people in other (functional) countries to supply the needs of your own non-functional one by force.
This is what *always* happens (indeed it's the only thing that CAN happen) when folks like you get their way. Another version of that ruled Europe for centuries, it's mature form is called 'aristocracy' (an aristocrat is just what warlords become after a generations when their position gains political cement) - and the economic system was called feudalism. Feudalism wasn't REPLACED by capitalism it replaced it. It's what capitalism without adequate regulation must ultimately become. We returned to a functional market economy only when we added regulations - by taking away the 'rights' that the feudal warlords had claimed for centuries. Reducing the liberty of the few, to give liberty to the many - it's the only way that liberty ever has been or ever can be increased.
>Dunno about him, but I much prefer a strong state, over which I have democratic control in the form of my vote, to plutocratic jungle where my landlord/employer/whatever does shit like this. But perhaps you fancy being one of the overlords.
We used to have that system. It was called feudalism. It's what libertarianism (or indeed any other brand of unregulated capitalism) must inevitably devolve into. We got rid of that system for very, very good reasons.
It is is agreed that the party of the former will take a shit weighing no more than 6 ounces and taking no more than 15 minutes not more than once a day while the party of the latter agrees to donate wood-pulp based hygiene enhancing products (commonly known as toilet paper) to an amount not to exceed 5 leaves per shit. The party of the former promises to use the provided handle to thoroughly flush (see instructional leaflet in addendum B) the provided device until no remaining shit (hereafter 'floaters') is left in the bowl section of the device (see sketch in addendum D). If any shit is stubbornly stuck the party of the former will use the provided brush to loosen it and then clean the brush using the aforementioned flush handle. Upon completion of the shit the party of the former will use the provided aerosol spray to reduce the risk of subsequent disturbance to the nasal passages of other parties. Spraying will be done for no less than 2 and no more than 4 seconds. The party of the latter agrees to provide and replenish aforementioned aerosol spray on a continuous basis.
Section B: Problems, complaints and dispute resolution See Addendum G.
>I can only hope someone has warned the executives at Xiaomi about whom they are dealing with, but apparently they either don't know or don't care
Oh they do, and historically, they are not going to get hurt - in fact they are likely to make quite a nice bundle of cash out of the process. It's everybody ELSE in the company who will end up jobless. Microsoft's destruction of 'partner' companies are usually done in a way that benefits the executives of those companies - that's exactly why they keep going along with it. It destroys the company, it destroys whatever made their products unique, it puts a lot of people out of work and it hurts consumers no-end, but the executives, they score.
Er... every study of every country ever done... they have all found that immigrants create more jobs than they take.
So if you remove the immigrants, the jobs they created get removed - and no, the jobs they used to have don't get refilled - the companies just go under. But so do the companies where those knock-on jobs were. Trump's plan would cause a new depression far worse than the one we call the 'great' depression.
>Would you suggest then that if 100 Million immigrants were to enter the US in a given year that there would suddenly be 20 million vacant jobs? No, of course not.
No, I will make you face the reality in the opposite direction - if you deport the current 11 million odd immigrants, you'll put pretty much the ENTIRE 350 Americans out of work. Every employed American owes his job to those immigrants.
If you want to be mad about unemployment - then be mad at the people who caused it, that would be the fraudulent wall street bankers who caused the recession and destroyed the economies of almost every country on earth including their own.
If Trump wins in November. The best thing Obama could do for the world is order the US nuclear stockpile destroyed before he is sworn in... if he did that, he may actually deserve that peace prize they gave him.
>There is Congress and the Supreme Court that act as a check on the Executive Branch of the US government
A check that works very well only as long as the president is sane... a president who is genuinely crazy - and has the nuclear launch codes, that's not a scenario the founding fathers ever foresaw nor is there any check and balance to THAT.
>Eastern Germany tried to keep their own people in, not others out
Bullshit. They did both. Try asking somebody who traded in Eastern Germany what it was like getting a VISA just to hope across to the other side of Berlin to go buy something from a supplier there. They were extremely reticent to letting anybody in - and you would never get a VISA unless you could PROVE you would only be there a short while.
>Mexico could become a better place today if they wanted to. They obviously don't.
Mexico already has - that's why the nett migration rate has been negative for years. More people leave the US for Mexico than the other way around. You could probably help speed that up for a lot less than the wall would cost with none of the negative side effects of the institution of an absolute police state.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about people, not dogs.
Here's a better question: what are the limits to property rights ? Would you consider it justified if I see your kid drowning in your pool and jumped the fence to pull him out ? I'd be entering your property without permission - but I'd be doing it to save a life... would you seriously consider charging me for that ? Because if you don't, you have to rethink your entire stance on immigration as well. Those people are trying to save the lives of their children. That's not something I can begrudge anybody because complete pacifist that I am, if my daughter's life was endanger I would kill and kill and kill to save her. I wouldn't just be happy to die for her, I would kill for her - and crossing an artificial line somebody drew on the ground to mark the end of one government and the start of another - that is not a major thing to do for this goal, compared to what I WOULD do - that's the LEAST I could do.
>I have yet to see anyone who floats this thought acknowledge that some cultures are in fact better than others. If you let the wrong person in- and they're far more common in shitty cultures- they will degrade and destroy everything we've built with our nicer, more secure, more productive cultures.
I'm afraid whoever told you this bullshit was lying to your face. All cultures are 100% evil. There is no redeeming qualities to ANY of them. It's our biggest evolutionary failure that we still have them. And no, "your" culture is none of the things you describe. The greatest evils and murders in history were all done by "your" culture. Nearly all the wealth that gave "your" culture it's current dominant position (which you false describe as *productivity) was stolen from other cultures over a half a millenium process of enslavement, oppression, eradication and subjugation. Most of the gold in your vaults were mined in Africa. Hell most of the rare earths in your phone right now was mined by slaves in east Africa.
Your economies are built on ensuring the enduring poverty of other countries because their poverty keeps the price of resources low. You may not rule their countries anymore but you don't need to since you rule the markets.
*The idea that wealth is correlated to productivity is flat out easy to prove wrong. The hardest working people in the world are invariably the poorest. They are also the most ingenius and the most creative. They have to be all these things because without that they don't survive. The wealth of Europe and America is built on the exact opposite of productivity - on laziness, by NOT having to work hard or be very creative or ingenius to survive - people get to spend their mental and physical energy on more profitable endeavors. But the hard work that bring those endeavors to life didn't dissappear - they just got outsourced to people who have no choice but to suffer so far off foreigners can live in luxury. Colonialism never ended... it just changed it's clothes.
>If anyone can move anywhere at anytime, one risks the tragedy of the commons where people arrive, shit all over things, and then move on and not care about the results
You've just described 100-thousand odd years of human history. Nothing ever has or could stop or change that - least of all something as abstract as "borders" or "countries". On the contrary - both the above are just symptoms of the same process. When one group finds an area with plenty of resources and then actively try to avoid others accessing it - until they have finished destroying said commons themselves. We've been doing all of this, including borders and territories, for 10 times recorded history.
If something is going to change such a fundamental behavior - it won't be rhetoric or ideas however insane or intellectual they may be.
Slashdot Mirror
No. It's the Japanese restaurant owner from South Park, Colorado.
> I do see laws written that explicitly state that things the people have a right to shall not be required to license.
Yet you need a license to drive. The moment your actions affect anybody else - the government (as the representatives of everybody else) gets a stake in the decision. No business can possibly claim NOT to affect society, hence society gets a stake in the decision of what kinds of businesses can exist to affect it.
I actually have to wonder - how the hell is it that the landlord can just single-handedly change the rental contract anyway ? Surely any addendums (which modify the contract) must be agreed to by both parties before they can take effect ?
>A businesses can exist without a government to issue permits, inspect premises, and ensure compliance (with whatever). Not the other way around. Suck it up, cupcake.
Actually history has proven this statement false. You don't get businesses without those things - you get feudal warlords.
>If a business is messed up enough, people will eventually vote with their feet.
Maybe this theory actually could work in practice, but the reality is society has generally found that it's better to get rid of the butcher selling the dodgy meat BEFORE half the town is dead. And generally businesses tend to have no such thing as a conscience. It takes a very evil person to poison a town's drinking water - it merely takes a typical company to do the same. If we don't prohibit this behavior explicitly - not only can we not even try to prevent it, we can't punish them if they do it either (something we mostly do in the hope of preventing all the other companies from also doing it).
Libertarians always claim their theories cannot be disproven by empirical facts. The claim is two-fold, firstly they mostly subscribe to Austrian economics - a cult that rejects the very concept of empiricism and so can conveniently ignore when all their economic predictions invariably fail to occur (for example). Secondly they claim that their ideas in terms of government has never been truly tested - so it can't be refuted until it is. Except... it has, repeatedly, they just disavow every occurrence there-off because they all went very bad, very quickly. Tortuga, Somalia - all places of small and limited government with no real regulation. One historical, one current.
In both cases the 'government' was quickly a non-entity and actual rule devolved into powerful warlords (seeing as there was no powerful government to prevent this) who are much, much worse than any democratic government. Liberty was soon replaced with slavery and forced labour - since the government was too weak to prevent this (by means of things like labor laws to define what is or isn't free labor and punish those who violate that). And in both cases death, famine and disease were soon rampant.
Productivity rapidly broke down and very soon the main industry was piracy - that is, taking the productivity of people in other (functional) countries to supply the needs of your own non-functional one by force.
This is what *always* happens (indeed it's the only thing that CAN happen) when folks like you get their way. Another version of that ruled Europe for centuries, it's mature form is called 'aristocracy' (an aristocrat is just what warlords become after a generations when their position gains political cement) - and the economic system was called feudalism. Feudalism wasn't REPLACED by capitalism it replaced it. It's what capitalism without adequate regulation must ultimately become. We returned to a functional market economy only when we added regulations - by taking away the 'rights' that the feudal warlords had claimed for centuries. Reducing the liberty of the few, to give liberty to the many - it's the only way that liberty ever has been or ever can be increased.
>Dunno about him, but I much prefer a strong state, over which I have democratic control in the form of my vote, to plutocratic jungle where my landlord/employer/whatever does shit like this. But perhaps you fancy being one of the overlords.
We used to have that system. It was called feudalism. It's what libertarianism (or indeed any other brand of unregulated capitalism) must inevitably devolve into. We got rid of that system for very, very good reasons.
It is is agreed that the party of the former will take a shit weighing no more than 6 ounces and taking no more than 15 minutes not more than once a day while the party of the latter agrees to donate wood-pulp based hygiene enhancing products (commonly known as toilet paper) to an amount not to exceed 5 leaves per shit.
The party of the former promises to use the provided handle to thoroughly flush (see instructional leaflet in addendum B) the provided device until no remaining shit (hereafter 'floaters') is left in the bowl section of the device (see sketch in addendum D). If any shit is stubbornly stuck the party of the former will use the provided brush to loosen it and then clean the brush using the aforementioned flush handle.
Upon completion of the shit the party of the former will use the provided aerosol spray to reduce the risk of subsequent disturbance to the nasal passages of other parties. Spraying will be done for no less than 2 and no more than 4 seconds. The party of the latter agrees to provide and replenish aforementioned aerosol spray on a continuous basis.
Section B: Problems, complaints and dispute resolution
See Addendum G.
>Natalie Portman pouring a bowl of hot grits into your erstwhile idle pants
What happened... she used to be naked and petrified...
>2016: Elect Baggins for a better shire!
Screw you ! I'm voting Took !
>OR maybe their is no escape but to move into a log cabin in the woods...
Yeah, like my buddy Ted. His advice: make sure your cabin is somewhere that still has good snailmail service. Can't attach the explosives to e-mail.
>I can only hope someone has warned the executives at Xiaomi about whom they are dealing with, but apparently they either don't know or don't care
Oh they do, and historically, they are not going to get hurt - in fact they are likely to make quite a nice bundle of cash out of the process. It's everybody ELSE in the company who will end up jobless. Microsoft's destruction of 'partner' companies are usually done in a way that benefits the executives of those companies - that's exactly why they keep going along with it.
It destroys the company, it destroys whatever made their products unique, it puts a lot of people out of work and it hurts consumers no-end, but the executives, they score.
Er... every study of every country ever done... they have all found that immigrants create more jobs than they take.
So if you remove the immigrants, the jobs they created get removed - and no, the jobs they used to have don't get refilled - the companies just go under. But so do the companies where those knock-on jobs were. Trump's plan would cause a new depression far worse than the one we call the 'great' depression.
GP was talking about cultures - not economics. In that context productivity is a code-word for work-ethic.
>Would you suggest then that if 100 Million immigrants were to enter the US in a given year that there would suddenly be 20 million vacant jobs? No, of course not.
No, I will make you face the reality in the opposite direction - if you deport the current 11 million odd immigrants, you'll put pretty much the ENTIRE 350 Americans out of work. Every employed American owes his job to those immigrants.
If you want to be mad about unemployment - then be mad at the people who caused it, that would be the fraudulent wall street bankers who caused the recession and destroyed the economies of almost every country on earth including their own.
>But you cant be intellectually honest and argue that any of those are actually the case
At least one I can. Every economic study ever performed has consistently found that immigrants create far more jobs than they take.
>Know of ANY candidate who ever followed through on their campaign promises ?
Lincoln springs to mind. So does FDR. What you think a guy got elected for that many terms if people were not getting what they wanted out of him ?
If Trump wins in November. The best thing Obama could do for the world is order the US nuclear stockpile destroyed before he is sworn in... if he did that, he may actually deserve that peace prize they gave him.
>There is Congress and the Supreme Court that act as a check on the Executive Branch of the US government
A check that works very well only as long as the president is sane... a president who is genuinely crazy - and has the nuclear launch codes, that's not a scenario the founding fathers ever foresaw nor is there any check and balance to THAT.
>Eastern Germany tried to keep their own people in, not others out
Bullshit. They did both. Try asking somebody who traded in Eastern Germany what it was like getting a VISA just to hope across to the other side of Berlin to go buy something from a supplier there. They were extremely reticent to letting anybody in - and you would never get a VISA unless you could PROVE you would only be there a short while.
>Mexico could become a better place today if they wanted to. They obviously don't.
Mexico already has - that's why the nett migration rate has been negative for years. More people leave the US for Mexico than the other way around. You could probably help speed that up for a lot less than the wall would cost with none of the negative side effects of the institution of an absolute police state.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about people, not dogs.
Here's a better question: what are the limits to property rights ? Would you consider it justified if I see your kid drowning in your pool and jumped the fence to pull him out ? I'd be entering your property without permission - but I'd be doing it to save a life... would you seriously consider charging me for that ? Because if you don't, you have to rethink your entire stance on immigration as well. Those people are trying to save the lives of their children. That's not something I can begrudge anybody because complete pacifist that I am, if my daughter's life was endanger I would kill and kill and kill to save her. I wouldn't just be happy to die for her, I would kill for her - and crossing an artificial line somebody drew on the ground to mark the end of one government and the start of another - that is not a major thing to do for this goal, compared to what I WOULD do - that's the LEAST I could do.
Funny how literally the ONLY example in all of history of immigrants hurting the natives were WHITE immigrants.
Oh - and immigrants are NOT invaders. That's the difference.
>I have yet to see anyone who floats this thought acknowledge that some cultures are in fact better than others. If you let the wrong person in- and they're far more common in shitty cultures- they will degrade and destroy everything we've built with our nicer, more secure, more productive cultures.
I'm afraid whoever told you this bullshit was lying to your face. All cultures are 100% evil. There is no redeeming qualities to ANY of them. It's our biggest evolutionary failure that we still have them. And no, "your" culture is none of the things you describe. The greatest evils and murders in history were all done by "your" culture. Nearly all the wealth that gave "your" culture it's current dominant position (which you false describe as *productivity) was stolen from other cultures over a half a millenium process of enslavement, oppression, eradication and subjugation. Most of the gold in your vaults were mined in Africa. Hell most of the rare earths in your phone right now was mined by slaves in east Africa.
Your economies are built on ensuring the enduring poverty of other countries because their poverty keeps the price of resources low. You may not rule their countries anymore but you don't need to since you rule the markets.
*The idea that wealth is correlated to productivity is flat out easy to prove wrong. The hardest working people in the world are invariably the poorest. They are also the most ingenius and the most creative. They have to be all these things because without that they don't survive. The wealth of Europe and America is built on the exact opposite of productivity - on laziness, by NOT having to work hard or be very creative or ingenius to survive - people get to spend their mental and physical energy on more profitable endeavors. But the hard work that bring those endeavors to life didn't dissappear - they just got outsourced to people who have no choice but to suffer so far off foreigners can live in luxury. Colonialism never ended... it just changed it's clothes.
>If anyone can move anywhere at anytime, one risks the tragedy of the commons where people arrive, shit all over things, and then move on and not care about the results
You've just described 100-thousand odd years of human history. Nothing ever has or could stop or change that - least of all something as abstract as "borders" or "countries".
On the contrary - both the above are just symptoms of the same process. When one group finds an area with plenty of resources and then actively try to avoid others accessing it - until they have finished destroying said commons themselves. We've been doing all of this, including borders and territories, for 10 times recorded history.
If something is going to change such a fundamental behavior - it won't be rhetoric or ideas however insane or intellectual they may be.
Apparently somebody thinks only Jews died in the second world war... you know because soldiers are immortal or something.