I don't see why he can't be let go. Name the people he's harmed. Sure he's embarrassed a bunch of government bureaucrats, but since they work for me - the tax paying citizen, I can hardly see a problem with that.
I suppose what he did was treason, violated the government's legal edicts, but seriously here. This US is a man made institution, not a god, not an ends in itself. Freedom is the ends, the state is supposed to be the means to protect that. Letting him go is going to harm everybody how?
In the science of praxeology, they don't claim to know the mechanisim of what makes humans tick. They just presume that the mechanisims behind human behavior is too complicated to prefectly predict in many areas, and then work from there. Even though this is not hard science, you can still make extremely usefull predictions about human behavior in society and in large groups, and what kinds of social structures favor optimum desired outcomes.
Anyhow, the point is that praxeology implies free markets for optimum economic success, and public benefit, and many of the AGW proposals addressing global warming fly directly in the face of this. So obviously something is screwed up somewhere. Especialy when they say that disaster is immenent, and that we need to have insane taxes, regulations, and global government right this second to fix it. Also, predictions about AGW fly all over the place ranging from 1 degree in 100 years to a catistrophic heating event in the next decade. Also, every time a new discovery is made... like the amount plankton plays a role in the oceans, like methane generation in the soil... their computer models go to hell, and they all go running back to redo them and recalculate. Even with people screaming loudly that the debate is closed. Also, why does the UN have a pannel on climate change? This is not a science orginisation, it is a political one... at times there seems almost to be a desparate push as in, fuck it all to hell right now we must have a big co2 tax, or something similar this minute.
For decades I have heard fear mongering about immigrants taking away IT jobs, and without fail just the opposite has been true, every time. In fact, what usually happens is that a bunch of cheap immigrants end up working for a start-up, a certain percentile of those start-ups that wouldn't have existed otherwise make it big, and then they hire 10000 engineers driving demand for IT talent through the roof, and pushing demand for even more immigrants. While I keep hearing these stories that the immigrants are going to push me out of a job, just the opposite has happened to the extreme. Talented people from a low freedom and low capital environment end up moving to a high capital high freedom environment, and creating wealth that never existed before - a lot of wealth.
In truth, software and most IT is global. But notice how things like Linux flourish in silicon valley the most, even though they can afford MS windows a lot easier than the 3rd world. That's because when you mix freedom with capital, it creates growth.
So what are you saying? that the private sector doesn't think it's worth it, and so we need to ream the tax payers for it, or are you saying that the private sector isn't as forward seeing as the government sector? Uh huh.
You make my point. Peoples faith in the ability of government to solve problems, and their ignorance of the ones it causes, is astounding. Why don't you cross out the words "our country" up there, and put in the words "the catholic church". At least then, you are intellectually honest about the faith and ignorance.
I don't know if bitcoin is a good store of value, but I do know that it is worth considering as a transaction currency, because it is unregulated and range-bound.
We all know bitcoins can't go to infinity, because there is a infinite amounts of goods out there, but we also should know that bitcoin will unlikely go to zero. In fact, I can guarantee that it will not go to zero, because I can take a few K of my own money and guarantee an exchange value for all the bitcoins in existence. Now, why would somebody do that? Well, because bitcoin can be useful as a private transaction currency. As long as it is useful for transactions, it will probably be worth it for somebody somewhere to back it, for something.
I don't know if it is in a bubble, or how volatile it will be, but as long as it's range bound, the market will be able to compensate for that and make it useful. Even if the nature of bitcoin makes it deflationary, and susceptible to wild fluctuation. As long as it's range-bound, and useful for transactions, I don't believe the market will fail. However, it may change its pricing structure. People may price their stuff dollars, euros, or gold, and then complete the transaction in bitcoins. Even if that's the best that bitcoin can do, its still a major improvement.
Another very important thing. When governments screw with the currency, they almost always accompany it with things like capital controls, legal tender laws, limited withdraws, forced exchange rates, and so on. Bitcoin has none of that getting in the way, meaning the market will probably be extremely flexable about bitcoin use.
I think people are losing sight of the big picture here, taxes are violent and coercive by their very nature. Optimisation, efficiency, and simplicity at doing that are not necissairly a good thing. Maybe the Germans were efficient at cremating Jewish bodies too, perhaps it saved them a lot of money freeing up more capital for the German government. Whopie ! Yeah I know, gresham's law,... sue me.
In truth, IPv6 for an internal network doesn't make any sense at all, it's not worth the switch for most people. For the internet, it may make some sense if the cost of a fixed IP address is too much, and you provide or use a service that can't use NAT, and the people who are trying to reach you are from a new audience who are not IPv4 bound, and other means like dynamic DNS are not practical. The key question, isn't the number of IPv4 addresses available, but the number that absolutely must be fixed for people to go about their business... and that number is probably closer to a few million, than to 4 billion.
IMHO, the key problem here is that the powers that be are not letting IP addresses be allocated by the market, but rather by assignment. The market would automatically adjust supply, and demand, and once the cost reached a certain threshold (if ever)... that would determine when people think it's worth it to switch.
I remember a few years ago, I talked about how IPv6 was overrated on slashdot and in the tech community, and promptly got blown off and down voted. They may have had a fundamental understanding about the technology, but didn't jack fuck about the marketplace.
Yeah, but just how toxic is fructose? It's over abundant in every fruit out there, as well as honey. Foods supplementing the human diet for eons, have had tons of fructose. Anything is toxic in high enough quantities.
You see, in a normal world if I printed up some paper and tried to use it to buy goods and services from you, nobody would take it. But if you tax people in that paper, and you take measures that people owe you debt denominated in that paper, and you start out with a commodity (like gold) and switch it out for certificates of promise, and then paper later on. Then you can force something that's worthless to have value. (Of course, none of this stuff can be done without the force of law to pounce the crap out of people)
In a way, this is how all fiat money works. But since the US was the world reserve currency, we had the additional ability to print money more recklessly than in other places. That is, and get away with it without causing the US to become a banana republic. I think a lot of other countries are getting fed up with that (if not jealous), which is why the game is coming to an end.
The number one violator of privacy is the federal government. On the internet, on the phone, with out passports, with TSA, even on our drivers licenses they're just non stop. How about not having to tell the IRS my bank account, my income, or every transaction over 10000, since when was anything like that any of their freaking business.
After all, isn't that what they are really saying. "Prove that my plantation will be more profitable if I use hired labor, rather than slave labor". Well, maybe it will or won't be, but that completely ignores the relevant issue at hand. Sure, he wants to make a profit, but so does everyone and their mother.
When one relies on a proprietary model instead of a free model, it is just another way of saying, "I assert the right to attack you if you copy things and it interferes with my goals". Maybe he won't be profitable, perhaps he can't survive or make as much money in a world where he can not restrict the freedom ans liberty of others. Perhaps the plantation masters couldn't either. So what. He owes it to me to respect my liberty to copy as I please, but neither I nor society owe him a goddam thing other than the same kind of respect.
If verizon and AT&T were being defrauded, why not use the civil court system and file a law-suit? Why not just cut off services? What kind of fraud requires the FBI to raid datacenters right now, it's not like they're going anywhere? If they had enough evidence to raid, they should have had enough evidence to arrest the owners and press charges first at the very least.
How do you defraud ATT and verizon anyhow? splice into their network? reverse bill them? Set up a 2nd tier provider dummy corp, provide services, and then fold it when the bill comes due? I mean, this isn't some fly by night scheme is it?
Uhh, your argument proves the point. The slaves were not a valid nor just property even though the law and many people believed they were. Many Native Americans had their rights violated even though the law at the time didn't recognize it. Rights and property are not created by law, they exist above it. Just because people call patent a property doesn't mean that it is.
Slavery started out as short term indentured servitude that could not be inherited.
Copyright started out as 14 years max.
Is not a coincidence that slavery was maxed out just before industrial revolution forces killed it, and not a coincidence that copyright imposition has maxed out just before the information age is killing it. The more society advances, the more money stands to be gained by imposing these controls till it eventually reaches a point where society can't take it anymore and is forced to remove the parasite in a violent way. Unfortunately, patent is rather genocidal, so it's removal will probably be rather violent. (eg how patents lawsuits held back generic AIDS drugs from Africa, how they slowed development of anti-lock brakes and air bag development for decades while millions died)
Just because someone calls something a property right, doesn't mean that it is a property right. Do you own slaves? Last I checked, me using an invention, doesn't stop you from using your own copy. If it seems a lot different than regular property, that's because it is.
Well, the whole philosophy behind natural law (used by the founding fathers) is that individuals have inherent rights (like property) even if no government exists at all, but people (being social, but imperfect creatures) typically organize in the form of government to secure their rights.
So by that measure, property is not created by common consent or force.
Also, some of the other examples you pointed to, are not about property, but fraud or an intrusion of peoples privacy. Copyrights are not property either. Trademarks would be more about stopping fraud, than about property. "your data", is more about a privacy violation. "your money" is more about keeping tack of value (without fraud) than about property.
In fact patents violate property. If I made an exact copy of your corn farm, and you say I can't have a corn farm because you do, then that violates my right to do what I justly please with my property. Well the same is true with invention, imitation is not stealing. The whole foundation of property revolves around the fact that being finite creatures, not everybody can use every resource at the same time without imposing on others. Well, with invention, they can.
I think its important to understand that as society enters into the coming replication age, that the phony property right they call "patent" will become genocidal.
As things like nanotech and 3d printing take off, production will shift away from the factory and back into the home. The market will start to center around production and creation services instead of production goods.
The people and industries on the losing side of this model will almost certainly try to turn to a patent royalty model, and will almost certainly use extremely coercive measures to impose their control. Just look at Monsanto and ADM and their heavy handed patent strategies used against farmers. Just look at the RIAA and how they cling to their royalty control model under the guise of "intellectual" property and attacked everyone. Just look at the slave plantations, how the plantation masters envisioned that the future of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton-gin and their "ownership" of slaves to vastly expand the size and production capabilities of their plantations. Just look at how pharmaceutical companies sued African nations in the world court to ban them from buying generic AIDS drugs from India. Just look at how patents in the USA slowed anti-lock brakes and air-bags development by decades as millions died.
Mark my words, if we let them push the lie that patent is a "property" or an "incentive" or "protection", genocidal consequences will not be far away.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why he can't be let go. Name the people he's harmed. Sure he's embarrassed a bunch of government bureaucrats, but since they work for me - the tax paying citizen, I can hardly see a problem with that.
I suppose what he did was treason, violated the government's legal edicts, but seriously here. This US is a man made institution, not a god, not an ends in itself. Freedom is the ends, the state is supposed to be the means to protect that. Letting him go is going to harm everybody how?
In the science of praxeology, they don't claim to know the mechanisim of what makes humans tick. They just presume that the mechanisims behind human behavior is too complicated to prefectly predict in many areas, and then work from there. Even though this is not hard science, you can still make extremely usefull predictions about human behavior in society and in large groups, and what kinds of social structures favor optimum desired outcomes.
Anyhow, the point is that praxeology implies free markets for optimum economic success, and public benefit, and many of the AGW proposals addressing global warming fly directly in the face of this. So obviously something is screwed up somewhere. Especialy when they say that disaster is immenent, and that we need to have insane taxes, regulations, and global government right this second to fix it. Also, predictions about AGW fly all over the place ranging from 1 degree in 100 years to a catistrophic heating event in the next decade. Also, every time a new discovery is made ... like the amount plankton plays a role in the oceans, like methane generation in the soil ... their computer models go to hell, and they all go running back to redo them and recalculate. Even with people screaming loudly that the debate is closed. Also, why does the UN have a pannel on climate change? This is not a science orginisation, it is a political one ... at times there seems almost to be a desparate push as in, fuck it all to hell right now we must have a big co2 tax, or something similar this minute.
For decades I have heard fear mongering about immigrants taking away IT jobs, and without fail just the opposite has been true, every time. In fact, what usually happens is that a bunch of cheap immigrants end up working for a start-up, a certain percentile of those start-ups that wouldn't have existed otherwise make it big, and then they hire 10000 engineers driving demand for IT talent through the roof, and pushing demand for even more immigrants. While I keep hearing these stories that the immigrants are going to push me out of a job, just the opposite has happened to the extreme. Talented people from a low freedom and low capital environment end up moving to a high capital high freedom environment, and creating wealth that never existed before - a lot of wealth.
In truth, software and most IT is global. But notice how things like Linux flourish in silicon valley the most, even though they can afford MS windows a lot easier than the 3rd world. That's because when you mix freedom with capital, it creates growth.
Solar flares lead to more cloud formation which leads to more reflection of regular light, which leads to colder temperatures.
So what are you saying? that the private sector doesn't think it's worth it, and so we need to ream the tax payers for it, or are you saying that the private sector isn't as forward seeing as the government sector? Uh huh.
You make my point. Peoples faith in the ability of government to solve problems, and their ignorance of the ones it causes, is astounding. Why don't you cross out the words "our country" up there, and put in the words "the catholic church". At least then, you are intellectually honest about the faith and ignorance.
If you have to ask, you don't get it.
Is there anything the government can't keep it's paws out of?
because there is a FINITE amounts of goods out there
I don't know if bitcoin is a good store of value, but I do know that it is worth considering as a transaction currency, because it is unregulated and range-bound.
We all know bitcoins can't go to infinity, because there is a infinite amounts of goods out there, but we also should know that bitcoin will unlikely go to zero. In fact, I can guarantee that it will not go to zero, because I can take a few K of my own money and guarantee an exchange value for all the bitcoins in existence. Now, why would somebody do that? Well, because bitcoin can be useful as a private transaction currency. As long as it is useful for transactions, it will probably be worth it for somebody somewhere to back it, for something.
I don't know if it is in a bubble, or how volatile it will be, but as long as it's range bound, the market will be able to compensate for that and make it useful. Even if the nature of bitcoin makes it deflationary, and susceptible to wild fluctuation. As long as it's range-bound, and useful for transactions, I don't believe the market will fail. However, it may change its pricing structure. People may price their stuff dollars, euros, or gold, and then complete the transaction in bitcoins. Even if that's the best that bitcoin can do, its still a major improvement.
Another very important thing. When governments screw with the currency, they almost always accompany it with things like capital controls, legal tender laws, limited withdraws, forced exchange rates, and so on. Bitcoin has none of that getting in the way, meaning the market will probably be extremely flexable about bitcoin use.
The risk of the ponzi scheme going to hell is 1000 time's greater than the risk of a tornado.
I think people are losing sight of the big picture here, taxes are violent and coercive by their very nature. Optimisation, efficiency, and simplicity at doing that are not necissairly a good thing. Maybe the Germans were efficient at cremating Jewish bodies too, perhaps it saved them a lot of money freeing up more capital for the German government. Whopie ! Yeah I know, gresham's law, ... sue me.
In truth, IPv6 for an internal network doesn't make any sense at all, it's not worth the switch for most people. For the internet, it may make some sense if the cost of a fixed IP address is too much, and you provide or use a service that can't use NAT, and the people who are trying to reach you are from a new audience who are not IPv4 bound, and other means like dynamic DNS are not practical. The key question, isn't the number of IPv4 addresses available, but the number that absolutely must be fixed for people to go about their business ... and that number is probably closer to a few million, than to 4 billion.
IMHO, the key problem here is that the powers that be are not letting IP addresses be allocated by the market, but rather by assignment. The market would automatically adjust supply, and demand, and once the cost reached a certain threshold (if ever) ... that would determine when people think it's worth it to switch.
I remember a few years ago, I talked about how IPv6 was overrated on slashdot and in the tech community, and promptly got blown off and down voted. They may have had a fundamental understanding about the technology, but didn't jack fuck about the marketplace.
Yeah, but just how toxic is fructose? It's over abundant in every fruit out there, as well as honey. Foods supplementing the human diet for eons, have had tons of fructose. Anything is toxic in high enough quantities.
You see, in a normal world if I printed up some paper and tried to use it to buy goods and services from you, nobody would take it. But if you tax people in that paper, and you take measures that people owe you debt denominated in that paper, and you start out with a commodity (like gold) and switch it out for certificates of promise, and then paper later on. Then you can force something that's worthless to have value. (Of course, none of this stuff can be done without the force of law to pounce the crap out of people)
In a way, this is how all fiat money works. But since the US was the world reserve currency, we had the additional ability to print money more recklessly than in other places. That is, and get away with it without causing the US to become a banana republic. I think a lot of other countries are getting fed up with that (if not jealous), which is why the game is coming to an end.
The number one violator of privacy is the federal government. On the internet, on the phone, with out passports, with TSA, even on our drivers licenses they're just non stop. How about not having to tell the IRS my bank account, my income, or every transaction over 10000, since when was anything like that any of their freaking business.
.... a collapsing computer system for a collapsing ponzi scheme. All I can say is burn baby burn !!
After all, isn't that what they are really saying. "Prove that my plantation will be more profitable if I use hired labor, rather than slave labor". Well, maybe it will or won't be, but that completely ignores the relevant issue at hand. Sure, he wants to make a profit, but so does everyone and their mother.
When one relies on a proprietary model instead of a free model, it is just another way of saying, "I assert the right to attack you if you copy things and it interferes with my goals". Maybe he won't be profitable, perhaps he can't survive or make as much money in a world where he can not restrict the freedom ans liberty of others. Perhaps the plantation masters couldn't either. So what. He owes it to me to respect my liberty to copy as I please, but neither I nor society owe him a goddam thing other than the same kind of respect.
If verizon and AT&T were being defrauded, why not use the civil court system and file a law-suit? Why not just cut off services? What kind of fraud requires the FBI to raid datacenters right now, it's not like they're going anywhere? If they had enough evidence to raid, they should have had enough evidence to arrest the owners and press charges first at the very least.
How do you defraud ATT and verizon anyhow? splice into their network? reverse bill them? Set up a 2nd tier provider dummy corp, provide services, and then fold it when the bill comes due? I mean, this isn't some fly by night scheme is it?
I know how to make site and downloads more responsive. Just use Apache on Linux. ..... You're Welcome.
Uhh, your argument proves the point. The slaves were not a valid nor just property even though the law and many people believed they were. Many Native Americans had their rights violated even though the law at the time didn't recognize it. Rights and property are not created by law, they exist above it. Just because people call patent a property doesn't mean that it is.
Slavery started out as short term indentured servitude that could not be inherited.
Copyright started out as 14 years max.
Is not a coincidence that slavery was maxed out just before industrial revolution forces killed it, and not a coincidence that copyright imposition has maxed out just before the information age is killing it. The more society advances, the more money stands to be gained by imposing these controls till it eventually reaches a point where society can't take it anymore and is forced to remove the parasite in a violent way. Unfortunately, patent is rather genocidal, so it's removal will probably be rather violent. (eg how patents lawsuits held back generic AIDS drugs from Africa, how they slowed development of anti-lock brakes and air bag development for decades while millions died)
Just because someone calls something a property right, doesn't mean that it is a property right. Do you own slaves? Last I checked, me using an invention, doesn't stop you from using your own copy. If it seems a lot different than regular property, that's because it is.
Well, the whole philosophy behind natural law (used by the founding fathers) is that individuals have inherent rights (like property) even if no government exists at all, but people (being social, but imperfect creatures) typically organize in the form of government to secure their rights.
So by that measure, property is not created by common consent or force.
Also, some of the other examples you pointed to, are not about property, but fraud or an intrusion of peoples privacy. Copyrights are not property either. Trademarks would be more about stopping fraud, than about property. "your data", is more about a privacy violation. "your money" is more about keeping tack of value (without fraud) than about property.
In fact patents violate property. If I made an exact copy of your corn farm, and you say I can't have a corn farm because you do, then that violates my right to do what I justly please with my property. Well the same is true with invention, imitation is not stealing. The whole foundation of property revolves around the fact that being finite creatures, not everybody can use every resource at the same time without imposing on others. Well, with invention, they can.
I think its important to understand that as society enters into the coming replication age, that the phony property right they call "patent" will become genocidal.
As things like nanotech and 3d printing take off, production will shift away from the factory and back into the home. The market will start to center around production and creation services instead of production goods.
The people and industries on the losing side of this model will almost certainly try to turn to a patent royalty model, and will almost certainly use extremely coercive measures to impose their control. Just look at Monsanto and ADM and their heavy handed patent strategies used against farmers. Just look at the RIAA and how they cling to their royalty control model under the guise of "intellectual" property and attacked everyone. Just look at the slave plantations, how the plantation masters envisioned that the future of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton-gin and their "ownership" of slaves to vastly expand the size and production capabilities of their plantations. Just look at how pharmaceutical companies sued African nations in the world court to ban them from buying generic AIDS drugs from India. Just look at how patents in the USA slowed anti-lock brakes and air-bags development by decades as millions died.
Mark my words, if we let them push the lie that patent is a "property" or an "incentive" or "protection", genocidal consequences will not be far away.