My professional work is reviewed by an assistant and an editor. My posts here are not, but I do get free peer review:)
Funny sidenote: 3 people IRL already jibed me about that word in the post. The third commented how the word WAS acceptable in my context: government, to me, is irrespective and unregarded. It is also "unboundless," "undauntless," "uneffectless," and "unfathomless.":)
Everyone has the right to use intellectual property law to protect the fruits of their labor.
I disagree.
If you make a brick and I steal that physical brick, I took your property. If I see your brick because you let me on your property, and I make a better brick, I excel. Yet I have to work to produce my brick.
If I create a story, there is effort. If people want my story, am I selling them the story or the means to receive the story?
You believe the first, I believe the second.
You can perform the story live, but to a small audience. You can create a physical book, but it could be copied. You have to decide how to balance that.
My previous replies speak of "First Published" hostory sites. Authors can publish their works to sites that historically were rated high by previous authors. Then they can publish their books.
Readers can buy the books. Or they can wait for the book to be knocked off. Yet if the reader gets enjoyment out of reading the story, they'd likely want more. The "pirate" couldn't produce a new story. The author wouldn't (for free). Money is a motivator.
Remember, if you find joy or knowledge reading my posts, you just profited (not financially but you gained). If you want to profit more, you could reply and ask for more info. I'd reply for free, but I'd also let you know you could buy even deeper info.
Without it, society plunges into anarchy. I could only dream it would. Anarchy != Chaos.
Government doesn't protect me from someone hitting my car. I do. I put money into a pool with millions of others. If someone hits my car, I get money out of that pool.
No one, except for government, can come on my property and violate my natural rights. Once I leave my property and enter your land, my rights are very limited. You can tell me what to say, wear or if I can bear arms.
You're saying that contracts would disappear, too.
If I have an idea and I need capital, I'd go see a bank, explain the end-result, and wait for interest to be shown.
Then I'd ask for a NDA to be signed before revealing the process.
Having an idea isn't enough!! You also need to produce the best product with the best usability. Patents hurt the end user by preventing others from improving.
This is true. My editor and I debate it constantly. For a long time, I feared my writings would get me in trouble. One book is about loving chauvinism. It also teaches the average geek how to get laid with gorgeous girls even if you're fat, bald and broke. See the conflict of promoting it here and still trying to get credibility?
My other book is a fictional account of overthrowing government. I'd don't want to wear my tinfoil, so I publish anonymously.
Soon my third work will be finished, tying both works together in a non-fiction book on chauvinism, anti-statism and the future. The mask will be lifted as enough people in real life know I am the same person as the author. Maybe in 2 weeks I'll post in my journal, very good idea. I'll have to send you my books and $20 for the help:)
So? In a copyopen world, websites would exist solely for authors to prove they "first published" a given work. I already Torrent my PDFs, and have seeded them to a few cache-history sites to prove I wrote them. I say pirate away. I'll make money on your wasted effort.
My writings contain a sizable portion of my proprietary ideas, but not all. I keep something for my live audience. Eventually I hope to webcast those public events (for a price). My books? I'd probably pay people to read them!
Good question. If I want to try to sell 100,000 copies, I'd have to go through exactly what you described. I've had offers for my works, and the money sucks. In fact, most mass published books lose money.
I have no problems letting others distribute my work, even under their names. 30 years ago? Maybe I'd mind. But with the web, I could upload my works to various "First Author" sites (which I bet WOULD exist in a copyopen world) and then readers would know who really authored it.
Right now, I am tempted by two publishing deals strictly for ego and fame. Yet the money is better in self-publishing and self-marketing. I can speak to 50 people at $10/head and sell 20 copies of my book, signed, at $25. I make $1000, spend $200, for 2 hours of work. $400 per hour!
Patents on drugs are useless. $300M to make a drug seems like a lot. Remove changes to tort laws and excessive FDA bureaucracy and even $200M seems like too much.
Yet we have billions of citizens needing meds. If you're the first to market, you've some time to recoup. By the time your drug is reverse engineered and the copy is proven to be equally effective and safe, you're closer to offering your produt at a discount.
I publish under a nom de plume, but I'm considering changing that. I refuse to advertise my website, blog or books on/. as it would diminish my credibility, just like F reeI pod do. I'll drop you an e-mail with a link where you can Torrent free PDF copies:)
Whenever I call for an end to copyright and IP, people ask for the theory behind a copyopen world. They say the world isn't black and white, that we just need more laws to balance copyright and copy rights.
What is a patent? It is lending government's monopoly on the use of force. It is completely incompatible with freedom. When some law is made giving 1 person in 10,000 the unique power of force, there is a problem. This patent hells ezos and the top shareholders, not the average employee of Amazon.
If I tell you that you can't eat an orange, you'll tell me to shove it. Rather than explain why eating an orange is bad and convincing you, I'm going to use government to force you to stop. If you don't, you go to court. If you refuse the court, out come the guns.
To those who believe their livelihood depends on copyright and patent, I call shens. I've written two books that are "freely" copyable. In both I request $20 to acquire my official version and help motivate me to write more. Guess what? I get the money. Often. With the web, it is even easier to make money this way.
Patents and copyright are dead. Use your talents to build and convince, not build and coerce. What you invent likely came from seeing the inventions of others and making a new or better way to do something. If you want to cut off others from bettering your idea, then make another, better version.
BTW, I stopped using Amazon years ago. I prefer buying local, and promoting my own businesses while I do. Local store owners, managers and employees then hire me rather than going online. It is a nice circle of barter and trade rather than padding UPS' and Bezos' pockets. I have no shortage of work for myself and any of my employees, who also refuse Amazon as they know their lives depend on our neighbors.
Apple sees how much Microsoft pays in supporting what ends up being other manufacturer's problems. MS isn't innocent, but if Video Driver #16 works where #1-15 crashed, why did MS have to handle 500,000 phone calls?
I'm not sure I agree with the author's positions at all...
Mac OS X will not be available on any old x86 PC, though, as Apple wants to retain control over its hardware platform. Right, Apple wants the fastest, smoothest and most gorgeous OS. It won't run on any old X86. You don't see V12 engines in Hyundais either. You don't see marble floors in Section 8 housing. You don't see big, soft seats in coach class.
From the company's point of view, this is an understandable position, as the margins on Apple-branded computers are much higher than is usual for standard x86 PCs. Which allows them more money to develop the next OS, more money to pay employees and more money for risky R&D. If you sell $500 cost hardware for $500, you're left with nothing for the future. Yet profit isn't the only motive. By restricting the base hardware, Apple spends less on supporting what ends up being dumb users. My MS helpdesk team fixes 90% of problems that can be assessed as "sub par hardware" and "user is a moron and bought crap."
Were Apple to put the x86 version of its operating system on general release, Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones. And lose MS' favor? I highly doubt it. New techs needed, new marketing, a bifurcated customer base? Keep bullshiting, ye who know not business.
This would put enormous pressure on the price of Apple's own computers -- something the company is naturally keen to avoid Right. Every business wants to avoid competition. Even the one the editor (or his parents) works for.
I see intelligent thought behind Apple. Lexus makes a great car, with a ton of room for third party add-ons and third party service. But their smooth engine and user friendly console won't fit in a Hyundai. Are Hyundai drivers mad?
No producer of high quality goods should listen to cheapskate NewEgg buyers who don't care for quality and future development.
For instance, when setting the time zone in Windows, you must select it from a list; with Mac OS X you simply click your region on a map of the world. I shouldn't even comment on the quality of reviews like this.
Mac OS X x86 also runs on the AMD platform. ???
Final versions are generally considerably faster and less resource-hungry than beta versions. Or, "it'll run better on the required hardware, which is more than just a processor."
I'm actually excited for this move by Apple, but it changes nothing for me. I haven't seen a Mac in nearly 6,000 work orders.
The supply of these licenses is limited and must be labeled "used." Sure, CDs are CDs but it still is a different product. Competitors are free to negotiate a similar license, or even buy these cheap used copies from the reseller and resell them themselves at a tiny profit.
This situation makes me think of the whole (wrong) idea of predatory pricing. It doesn't exist. In 1904, Henry Dow exported bromine to Germany, to sell at a price far below the cartels. The cartels decided to drop their price below cost to destroy Dow's business. Dow bought their sub-cost Bromine and resold it to the German market at a hefty pricing.
This deal is good for budget-conscious consumers and will only be a blip for most resellers. There are numerous ways for them to compete. Whining to Microsoft is not an answer.
First, common stock ownership today is a scam produced by the SEC and Broker Dealers, as well as the mercantilistic big businesses. Just like the IRS and the taxcode are shills for CP s and tax accountants. They sell common stocks to an "idiot" public, and bolste their premium share and options values. We always feel comfortable with 7% growth and 12% "boom" years, right?
Bah. If I have a business that I own net me less than a 30% net profit annually, it's a failure. I like to see 70-100% net profits annually.
When you own a business, you should see similar returns. Publicly traded companies can be as bad as big government -- the shareholders/citizens are screwed while those in power hire friends and family to help skim the profits. Yet the SEC enables it by setting rules so complex that no shareholder could navigate it.
When a stock gets $50 for an IPO share, the company gets $50. That's the end of it. Future trades in that share get you a risky gamble. Sure, that $50 could earn a corporation 100% annual profits for 3 years, reinvested so the share should be worth $400 (gross equity), but it doesn't happen. Now that the company is grown, what about future profits? You'll never see a fair dividend as an owner.
Dissolving the SEC is only the first step. Dissolving corporate veil laws is a big wall. Teaching investors what a reasonable and acceptable profit is very important.
Investors give the company money and in return own a portion of the company. Right, with an equal portion of net profits, paid as dividends.
and replaces it with the possibility of purchasing a portion of the compainies debt. You own a portion of debt, equity, and profits. Hopefully equity > debt, paying profits!
A successful company is more valuable than the sum of its debts. Yes, there is equity and future profit potential. You own both.
Basicially as I read it you propose replacing brokers with (unregulated) banks correct?
Basically. The banks would preferably be backed by 100% gold reserves, too. You could still have brokers who found you the best banks and even direct investments into companies. Stock markets would still exist (like ebay) but would be far riskier.
If you remove exchanges and brokers and replace them with banks wouldn't it also remove some of the fluidity of money? The fluid money we have today is fiat ("fake"), backed by nothing. The cenal bank cartel is a monopoly that counterfeits (inflates) currency to give to the charter banks. This causes our bubbles in every market. In a free market banking system, banks take money in to loan it out or to secure it.
Banks aren't very interested in sending your money in their trust elsewhere, and this proposal would only strengthen the banks stranglehold on my money. Banks want your money! You get a 5% insured savings account, they loan it out for 10%, pay 1% for private insurance, and earn 4% minus defaults.
Another question, if savings accounts are zero risk who pays for the "free market insurance?" You do. If you merely want security with 100% balance available at no notice, you'd pay 1% for insurance (or some rate). You might get the previously mentioned savings account (and lose instant access) or invest in higher risk accounts with better paybacks.
If not why don't I just keep my money under my mattress; essentially removing money from the economy. You could! In fact, doing so makes my money worth more (the Fed does it today, they mask their counterfeit inflation by hiding dollars under the bed called Asian Banks).
Imagine the economy has $100 total of gold backed notes. If you put your $5 in the bank, the economy has access to that money in loans. A car costs $5.
Now, you take your $5 and hide it under the bed for a very long time, removing it from circulation. When the supply of money goes down and the demand goes up, remaining supplies go up in price. The remaining $95 out there assumes the value that $100 did, automatically over time. That $5 car now costs $5.26, unless the supply of cars goes up or demand goes down.
Contract insurers. Your signature would be insured at a rate based on the liability of contract breach and your history of fulfilling contracts. One of my bonding agents insures my signature for $1M today.
In easier terms, picture an ebay-like feedback system. You screw people, you get negative feedback. Eventually, people with zero feedback are treated like people with bad feedback, limited to tiny contracts.
Contract insurance exists today. I use it constantly. 3rd party arbitration removes the courts.
Right, re-read my reply:) Investors can tell the bank (creditors) that their liability is limited to the company's equity and insurance.
I'm no fan of the stock markets. They are heavily regulated by the SEC and various pseudo-government organizations. The banking cartel is bad, too.
Free market (fed-free) banks are historically the right medium for limited liability investments. You give them capital, pick a risk/reward ratio, and offer the time you need to give notice to withdraw your capital. Savings accounts might be zero risk (through free market insurance) but with little reward. Venture funds might be huge risks with huge rewards.
Company groups would sell their business plans to banks who have a contractual obligation to the depositor. Today's brokers make money whether you gain or lose.
Good question. I've pondered it for years, and I believe the proper response would be a "simple" one.
A group of investors (called Company) need financing. The contract with another group (called Bank) to borrow money. The Company group agree,s contractually, to use the money for a specific process and pay it back with interest. The Bank group agrees to hold the Company group liable only for the equity in the company. Both agree to a third party arbitrator. Both have contract insurance in case they jump out of the contract.
Now, they sell the product to a consumer. They sell it with a contract, stipulating that their liability is limited to a certain (insured) amount. Again, buyer and seller stipulate to use an arbitrator.
I think life could exist as bargains through contracts. Stores with bad agreements would go under due to competition. Contract insurers would replace credit scores. Limited liability clauses could protect your interests.
Without government force, everyone would live with these contracts. Today, the elite are protected by the law, the average are hurt by it. The contract-with-arbitration-and-insurance gives a more level playing field.
Otherwise, what protects the privacy of someone who is renting his flat?
A contract between you and the landlord. Chooce an insured third party arbitrator, and agree to financial penalties. You both own contract insurance policies so you trust one another.
Should the landlord be able to come in unannounced, at any time, for any reason?
It is their property. You should agree, in the contract, to having privacy.
Should the landlord be able to write up a contract with the police, saying that they can come in unannounced, at any time, for any reason?
His property, his right, unless you agree that he can't.
Should the police be able to search my car without cause, if I happen to be driving a rental car and the rental place has agreed to it?
Based on natural law, yes. Unless you contractually agree to prevent it.
Can the owners put up hidden cameras in your hotel room, and put movies of your activities on the Internet?
Again, yes. Unless you agree to a privacy clause.
What you're effectively arguing here is that only those who own their own stuff should have any right to privacy.
Bingo. If you can't afford to buy, you have to borrow. Borrowing (renting/leasing) means the owners can set the rules, you can decide to not borrow. Or move to a town that you can afford to buy in.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, sure. I do very well with my way, better (per reader) than 99% of the authors sold by Borders (per reader).
I also haven't lived with mommy in 15 years.
The majority of authors, musicians and artists need to embrace what the Internet has opened for them. Billions of possible fans, with cash to spend.
Haha. Great question.
:)
:)
My professional work is reviewed by an assistant and an editor. My posts here are not, but I do get free peer review
Funny sidenote: 3 people IRL already jibed me about that word in the post. The third commented how the word WAS acceptable in my context: government, to me, is irrespective and unregarded. It is also "unboundless," "undauntless," "uneffectless," and "unfathomless."
Everyone has the right to use intellectual property law to protect the fruits of their labor.
I disagree.
If you make a brick and I steal that physical brick, I took your property. If I see your brick because you let me on your property, and I make a better brick, I excel. Yet I have to work to produce my brick.
If I create a story, there is effort. If people want my story, am I selling them the story or the means to receive the story?
You believe the first, I believe the second.
You can perform the story live, but to a small audience. You can create a physical book, but it could be copied. You have to decide how to balance that.
My previous replies speak of "First Published" hostory sites. Authors can publish their works to sites that historically were rated high by previous authors. Then they can publish their books.
Readers can buy the books. Or they can wait for the book to be knocked off. Yet if the reader gets enjoyment out of reading the story, they'd likely want more. The "pirate" couldn't produce a new story. The author wouldn't (for free). Money is a motivator.
Remember, if you find joy or knowledge reading my posts, you just profited (not financially but you gained). If you want to profit more, you could reply and ask for more info. I'd reply for free, but I'd also let you know you could buy even deeper info.
No copyright needed.
Without it, society plunges into anarchy. I could only dream it would. Anarchy != Chaos.
Government doesn't protect me from someone hitting my car. I do. I put money into a pool with millions of others. If someone hits my car, I get money out of that pool.
No one, except for government, can come on my property and violate my natural rights. Once I leave my property and enter your land, my rights are very limited. You can tell me what to say, wear or if I can bear arms.
You're saying that contracts would disappear, too.
If I have an idea and I need capital, I'd go see a bank, explain the end-result, and wait for interest to be shown.
Then I'd ask for a NDA to be signed before revealing the process.
Having an idea isn't enough!! You also need to produce the best product with the best usability. Patents hurt the end user by preventing others from improving.
This is true. My editor and I debate it constantly. For a long time, I feared my writings would get me in trouble. One book is about loving chauvinism. It also teaches the average geek how to get laid with gorgeous girls even if you're fat, bald and broke. See the conflict of promoting it here and still trying to get credibility?
:)
My other book is a fictional account of overthrowing government. I'd don't want to wear my tinfoil, so I publish anonymously.
Soon my third work will be finished, tying both works together in a non-fiction book on chauvinism, anti-statism and the future. The mask will be lifted as enough people in real life know I am the same person as the author. Maybe in 2 weeks I'll post in my journal, very good idea. I'll have to send you my books and $20 for the help
So? In a copyopen world, websites would exist solely for authors to prove they "first published" a given work. I already Torrent my PDFs, and have seeded them to a few cache-history sites to prove I wrote them. I say pirate away. I'll make money on your wasted effort.
My writings contain a sizable portion of my proprietary ideas, but not all. I keep something for my live audience. Eventually I hope to webcast those public events (for a price). My books? I'd probably pay people to read them!
Good question. If I want to try to sell 100,000 copies, I'd have to go through exactly what you described. I've had offers for my works, and the money sucks. In fact, most mass published books lose money.
I have no problems letting others distribute my work, even under their names. 30 years ago? Maybe I'd mind. But with the web, I could upload my works to various "First Author" sites (which I bet WOULD exist in a copyopen world) and then readers would know who really authored it.
Right now, I am tempted by two publishing deals strictly for ego and fame. Yet the money is better in self-publishing and self-marketing. I can speak to 50 people at $10/head and sell 20 copies of my book, signed, at $25. I make $1000, spend $200, for 2 hours of work. $400 per hour!
Patents on drugs are useless. $300M to make a drug seems like a lot. Remove changes to tort laws and excessive FDA bureaucracy and even $200M seems like too much.
Yet we have billions of citizens needing meds. If you're the first to market, you've some time to recoup. By the time your drug is reverse engineered and the copy is proven to be equally effective and safe, you're closer to offering your produt at a discount.
I publish under a nom de plume, but I'm considering changing that. I refuse to advertise my website, blog or books on /. as it would diminish my credibility, just like F reeI pod do. I'll drop you an e-mail with a link where you can Torrent free PDF copies :)
Whenever I call for an end to copyright and IP, people ask for the theory behind a copyopen world. They say the world isn't black and white, that we just need more laws to balance copyright and copy rights.
What is a patent? It is lending government's monopoly on the use of force. It is completely incompatible with freedom. When some law is made giving 1 person in 10,000 the unique power of force, there is a problem. This patent hells ezos and the top shareholders, not the average employee of Amazon.
If I tell you that you can't eat an orange, you'll tell me to shove it. Rather than explain why eating an orange is bad and convincing you, I'm going to use government to force you to stop. If you don't, you go to court. If you refuse the court, out come the guns.
To those who believe their livelihood depends on copyright and patent, I call shens. I've written two books that are "freely" copyable. In both I request $20 to acquire my official version and help motivate me to write more. Guess what? I get the money. Often. With the web, it is even easier to make money this way.
Patents and copyright are dead. Use your talents to build and convince, not build and coerce. What you invent likely came from seeing the inventions of others and making a new or better way to do something. If you want to cut off others from bettering your idea, then make another, better version.
BTW, I stopped using Amazon years ago. I prefer buying local, and promoting my own businesses while I do. Local store owners, managers and employees then hire me rather than going online. It is a nice circle of barter and trade rather than padding UPS' and Bezos' pockets. I have no shortage of work for myself and any of my employees, who also refuse Amazon as they know their lives depend on our neighbors.
I'd be leery if you wanted me to go homopolar in my center.
Apple sees how much Microsoft pays in supporting what ends up being other manufacturer's problems. MS isn't innocent, but if Video Driver #16 works where #1-15 crashed, why did MS have to handle 500,000 phone calls?
I'm not sure I agree with the author's positions at all...
Mac OS X will not be available on any old x86 PC, though, as Apple wants to retain control over its hardware platform. Right, Apple wants the fastest, smoothest and most gorgeous OS. It won't run on any old X86. You don't see V12 engines in Hyundais either. You don't see marble floors in Section 8 housing. You don't see big, soft seats in coach class.
From the company's point of view, this is an understandable position, as the margins on Apple-branded computers are much higher than is usual for standard x86 PCs. Which allows them more money to develop the next OS, more money to pay employees and more money for risky R&D. If you sell $500 cost hardware for $500, you're left with nothing for the future. Yet profit isn't the only motive. By restricting the base hardware, Apple spends less on supporting what ends up being dumb users. My MS helpdesk team fixes 90% of problems that can be assessed as "sub par hardware" and "user is a moron and bought crap."
Were Apple to put the x86 version of its operating system on general release, Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones. And lose MS' favor? I highly doubt it. New techs needed, new marketing, a bifurcated customer base? Keep bullshiting, ye who know not business.
This would put enormous pressure on the price of Apple's own computers -- something the company is naturally keen to avoid Right. Every business wants to avoid competition. Even the one the editor (or his parents) works for.
I see intelligent thought behind Apple. Lexus makes a great car, with a ton of room for third party add-ons and third party service. But their smooth engine and user friendly console won't fit in a Hyundai. Are Hyundai drivers mad?
No producer of high quality goods should listen to cheapskate NewEgg buyers who don't care for quality and future development.
For instance, when setting the time zone in Windows, you must select it from a list; with Mac OS X you simply click your region on a map of the world. I shouldn't even comment on the quality of reviews like this.
Mac OS X x86 also runs on the AMD platform. ???
Final versions are generally considerably faster and less resource-hungry than beta versions. Or, "it'll run better on the required hardware, which is more than just a processor."
I'm actually excited for this move by Apple, but it changes nothing for me. I haven't seen a Mac in nearly 6,000 work orders.
The supply of these licenses is limited and must be labeled "used." Sure, CDs are CDs but it still is a different product. Competitors are free to negotiate a similar license, or even buy these cheap used copies from the reseller and resell them themselves at a tiny profit.
This situation makes me think of the whole (wrong) idea of predatory pricing. It doesn't exist. In 1904, Henry Dow exported bromine to Germany, to sell at a price far below the cartels. The cartels decided to drop their price below cost to destroy Dow's business. Dow bought their sub-cost Bromine and resold it to the German market at a hefty pricing.
This deal is good for budget-conscious consumers and will only be a blip for most resellers. There are numerous ways for them to compete. Whining to Microsoft is not an answer.
First, common stock ownership today is a scam produced by the SEC and Broker Dealers, as well as the mercantilistic big businesses. Just like the IRS and the taxcode are shills for CP s and tax accountants. They sell common stocks to an "idiot" public, and bolste their premium share and options values. We always feel comfortable with 7% growth and 12% "boom" years, right?
Bah. If I have a business that I own net me less than a 30% net profit annually, it's a failure. I like to see 70-100% net profits annually.
When you own a business, you should see similar returns. Publicly traded companies can be as bad as big government -- the shareholders/citizens are screwed while those in power hire friends and family to help skim the profits. Yet the SEC enables it by setting rules so complex that no shareholder could navigate it.
When a stock gets $50 for an IPO share, the company gets $50. That's the end of it. Future trades in that share get you a risky gamble. Sure, that $50 could earn a corporation 100% annual profits for 3 years, reinvested so the share should be worth $400 (gross equity), but it doesn't happen. Now that the company is grown, what about future profits? You'll never see a fair dividend as an owner.
Dissolving the SEC is only the first step. Dissolving corporate veil laws is a big wall. Teaching investors what a reasonable and acceptable profit is very important.
Investors give the company money and in return own a portion of the company. Right, with an equal portion of net profits, paid as dividends.
and replaces it with the possibility of purchasing a portion of the compainies debt. You own a portion of debt, equity, and profits. Hopefully equity > debt, paying profits!
A successful company is more valuable than the sum of its debts. Yes, there is equity and future profit potential. You own both.
Basicially as I read it you propose replacing brokers with (unregulated) banks correct?
Basically. The banks would preferably be backed by 100% gold reserves, too. You could still have brokers who found you the best banks and even direct investments into companies. Stock markets would still exist (like ebay) but would be far riskier.
If you remove exchanges and brokers and replace them with banks wouldn't it also remove some of the fluidity of money? The fluid money we have today is fiat ("fake"), backed by nothing. The cenal bank cartel is a monopoly that counterfeits (inflates) currency to give to the charter banks. This causes our bubbles in every market. In a free market banking system, banks take money in to loan it out or to secure it.
Banks aren't very interested in sending your money in their trust elsewhere, and this proposal would only strengthen the banks stranglehold on my money. Banks want your money! You get a 5% insured savings account, they loan it out for 10%, pay 1% for private insurance, and earn 4% minus defaults.
Another question, if savings accounts are zero risk who pays for the "free market insurance?" You do. If you merely want security with 100% balance available at no notice, you'd pay 1% for insurance (or some rate). You might get the previously mentioned savings account (and lose instant access) or invest in higher risk accounts with better paybacks.
If not why don't I just keep my money under my mattress; essentially removing money from the economy. You could! In fact, doing so makes my money worth more (the Fed does it today, they mask their counterfeit inflation by hiding dollars under the bed called Asian Banks).
Imagine the economy has $100 total of gold backed notes. If you put your $5 in the bank, the economy has access to that money in loans. A car costs $5.
Now, you take your $5 and hide it under the bed for a very long time, removing it from circulation. When the supply of money goes down and the demand goes up, remaining supplies go up in price. The remaining $95 out there assumes the value that $100 did, automatically over time. That $5 car now costs $5.26, unless the supply of cars goes up or demand goes down.
I bet the mic evangelists are pissed!
Contract insurers. Your signature would be insured at a rate based on the liability of contract breach and your history of fulfilling contracts. One of my bonding agents insures my signature for $1M today.
In easier terms, picture an ebay-like feedback system. You screw people, you get negative feedback. Eventually, people with zero feedback are treated like people with bad feedback, limited to tiny contracts.
Contract insurance exists today. I use it constantly. 3rd party arbitration removes the courts.
Actually, the freedom of speech is a private property issue.
On your property, you can speak freely. You can not speak freely on my property without my consent.
Right, re-read my reply :) Investors can tell the bank (creditors) that their liability is limited to the company's equity and insurance.
I'm no fan of the stock markets. They are heavily regulated by the SEC and various pseudo-government organizations. The banking cartel is bad, too.
Free market (fed-free) banks are historically the right medium for limited liability investments. You give them capital, pick a risk/reward ratio, and offer the time you need to give notice to withdraw your capital. Savings accounts might be zero risk (through free market insurance) but with little reward. Venture funds might be huge risks with huge rewards.
Company groups would sell their business plans to banks who have a contractual obligation to the depositor. Today's brokers make money whether you gain or lose.
I refuse to own stock in any public-share company. I feel it is wrong.
I own shares in companies I can say I have a voice in. I make 20-40% dividends annually.
I'll never have a 401K, I'm not a slave.
Good question. I've pondered it for years, and I believe the proper response would be a "simple" one.
A group of investors (called Company) need financing. The contract with another group (called Bank) to borrow money. The Company group agree,s contractually, to use the money for a specific process and pay it back with interest. The Bank group agrees to hold the Company group liable only for the equity in the company. Both agree to a third party arbitrator. Both have contract insurance in case they jump out of the contract.
Now, they sell the product to a consumer. They sell it with a contract, stipulating that their liability is limited to a certain (insured) amount. Again, buyer and seller stipulate to use an arbitrator.
I think life could exist as bargains through contracts. Stores with bad agreements would go under due to competition. Contract insurers would replace credit scores. Limited liability clauses could protect your interests.
Without government force, everyone would live with these contracts. Today, the elite are protected by the law, the average are hurt by it. The contract-with-arbitration-and-insurance gives a more level playing field.
Find my errors, it is still a WiP.
Hence why I promote the anarcho-capitalist side, over the common social-mercantilist position we normally hear.
I own businesses. I publish books, music and stories. You'd think I'd support these legal constructs.
Yet I know I am poorer because my money goes to support millions of others' legal defenses. I'd rather protect myself.
Otherwise, what protects the privacy of someone who is renting his flat?
A contract between you and the landlord. Chooce an insured third party arbitrator, and agree to financial penalties. You both own contract insurance policies so you trust one another.
Should the landlord be able to come in unannounced, at any time, for any reason?
It is their property. You should agree, in the contract, to having privacy.
Should the landlord be able to write up a contract with the police, saying that they can come in unannounced, at any time, for any reason?
His property, his right, unless you agree that he can't.
Should the police be able to search my car without cause, if I happen to be driving a rental car and the rental place has agreed to it?
Based on natural law, yes. Unless you contractually agree to prevent it.
Can the owners put up hidden cameras in your hotel room, and put movies of your activities on the Internet?
Again, yes. Unless you agree to a privacy clause.
What you're effectively arguing here is that only those who own their own stuff should have any right to privacy.
Bingo. If you can't afford to buy, you have to borrow. Borrowing (renting/leasing) means the owners can set the rules, you can decide to not borrow. Or move to a town that you can afford to buy in.