"It's a sad fact that my first impression and most of my interactions with libertarians have been with the crazy anarcho-capitalist form." Sad fact? That you are exposed to ideas that you disagree with? Surely that's a good thing. And why crazy? Again just because you find the ideas uncomfortable, how does that make it 'crazy'? If you agree with the general axioms of the libertarian movement then anarcho-capitalism is just taking the ideas to their natural logical conclusion. If you don't think that the axioms are crazy then you cannot think that the outcome is crazy. You might not like that outcome, or think it's unrealistic in practice or even impossible, but that's another issue. Many anarcho-capitalists think the small-govt minarchists are the crazy ones for thinking they can have their cake and eat it. Minarchists are still statists, the only difference between them and totalitarian states is the arbitrary point they choose on the spectrum for where *they* would like freedom to end. That is inconsistent with their argument for freedom in the first place, their claims to the contrary and protecting 'rights' by initiating force notwithstanding. If you choose an ethical philosophy (which is what libertarianism is at heart, rather than a political one) then you simply cannot pick and choose where you decide to stop following the conclusions of your philosophy (just because it is 'convenient' or 'practical') and still expect to be taken seriously when you use your philosophy to justify something. If you believe it is ethical to initiate violence to achieve your ends then be happy with the use of force against you. You can have no qualms about it's use againsgt you as you agree with it in principle. If you do not believe that initiating violence is ok, (and that applies to everyone) then follow that to it's conclusion and you have the 'crazy' world the anarcho-capitalists inhabit. You may not like what that world says, but at least it is ethically consistent given the axioms.
There are reasonable ones out there, I've talked to em. I want to hear what they think.:)
Perhaps you ought to try having a clue before exhibiting your ignorance. Nobody who actually understands what a true free-market is would claim that information transfer is instantaneous or that a perfect market situation could ever exist. So burn those straw men, purdy flames.
So because there is something *you* want that isn't provided on terms that *you* prefer, you think it's ok to simply force others to bend to *your* will rather than meet their terms (or simply not partake of their offering)? How does that make you any better than them? They want their terms and you want it on yours, and somehow your default position is that your terms are more important than theirs to the point of justifying force (legislation) to get your way? And anyway, if you have a need maybe others do too. So perhaps if all your ISPs are ignoring a market niche which you have spotted, rather than moving to another country you could try to fill that niche? Or have those ISPs used force (legislation) to prevent competition from nimble startups like you from being able to operate. Hmmm, that old force doesn't look so appealing now does it, now that it isn't helping you that is. But to be consistent you'd have to agree that it was right for them to use it to get things on their terms, after all it was exactly what you wanted to do yourself so it must be ok right?
"you do not have a right to demand that no one else do the same" I don't agree. When you sell something you can sell just a subset of those rights. The contract/agreement will determine which rights are being transferred and under what terms. Both parties may agree not to transfer full ownership rights, and only assign the subset of rights for a limited time (such as rental or lease agreements). When you rent a vehicle you know that it isn't yours to onsell, you only have the use of it for an agreed period. That is defined by the contract. Any other transfer of a set of property rights can be bound by the same kind of agreements. The arguments about 'purchasing' ownership of the physical media miss the point, that the actual set of property rights you have agreed to are listed in the contract of sale (in whatever form that may be). If you do not abide by the terms then the contract can be terminated by the seller. Whether it constitutes theft on your part is another issue, but at the very least you are in breach of contract. So I'd say that yes you can demand that others do the same, as long as both parties are aware of and agree to the terms of the agreement. Either side is free not to enter the contract if they are unhappy with the terms. That surely is the essence of free association.
So now you're down on selling to Senior Citizens?
Hell, if the oldies want to overclock their copy of Word and get rest-home respect then I say let 'em
I was so pissed at President Tone's Labour getting elected in the first place that I emigrated to NZ but the same bloody thing happened here - a spin obsessed narcisisstic Labour govt modelling itself on our lad at Number 10 got in. Jeez...
Surely an elected representative is given the power by those who elected them to do more than just act as a proxy. The member is elected, suposedly as an intelligent and thinking individual, to make descisions on behalf of those he/she represents. Those descisions may not always be in agreement with some or perhaps even all of those who elected them but thats just the way it is - hence the need for care when electing someone - they can exercise a great deal of power.
In general of course, the representative will tend to side with the views of his/her electorate if only for self-preservation. Leaving aside the arguements of self-interested representatives, they have a strong case to argue that they are in a better and more knowledable position than most of the populace to decide on such matters of state. Reverting to mob-rule when descisions are not to peoples taste hardly seems like a move forward.
So how exactly are you going to 'start' your word processor even if its a dedicated word processing device?
If the user can't even cope with such simple concepts as the software equivalent of having an 'on' switch then no advances in usability are going to be of any use to them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Charged particles, on the other hand, may be held at a known location and/or known path with the application of a containment field."
Heisenberg begs to differ.
"It's a sad fact that my first impression and most of my interactions with libertarians have been with the crazy anarcho-capitalist form."
Sad fact? That you are exposed to ideas that you disagree with? Surely that's a good thing.
And why crazy? Again just because you find the ideas uncomfortable, how does that make it 'crazy'? If you agree with the general axioms of the libertarian movement then anarcho-capitalism is just taking the ideas to their natural logical conclusion. If you don't think that the axioms are crazy then you cannot think that the outcome is crazy. You might not like that outcome, or think it's unrealistic in practice or even impossible, but that's another issue. Many anarcho-capitalists think the small-govt minarchists are the crazy ones for thinking they can have their cake and eat it. Minarchists are still statists, the only difference between them and totalitarian states is the arbitrary point they choose on the spectrum for where *they* would like freedom to end. That is inconsistent with their argument for freedom in the first place, their claims to the contrary and protecting 'rights' by initiating force notwithstanding.
If you choose an ethical philosophy (which is what libertarianism is at heart, rather than a political one) then you simply cannot pick and choose where you decide to stop following the conclusions of your philosophy (just because it is 'convenient' or 'practical') and still expect to be taken seriously when you use your philosophy to justify something. If you believe it is ethical to initiate violence to achieve your ends then be happy with the use of force against you. You can have no qualms about it's use againsgt you as you agree with it in principle. If you do not believe that initiating violence is ok, (and that applies to everyone) then follow that to it's conclusion and you have the 'crazy' world the anarcho-capitalists inhabit. You may not like what that world says, but at least it is ethically consistent given the axioms.
There are reasonable ones out there, I've talked to em. I want to hear what they think. :)
while most free-market anarchists could easily call themselves libertarians, I doubt the reverse is true.
Perhaps you ought to try having a clue before exhibiting your ignorance. Nobody who actually understands what a true free-market is would claim that information transfer is instantaneous or that a perfect market situation could ever exist. So burn those straw men, purdy flames.
So because there is something *you* want that isn't provided on terms that *you* prefer, you think it's ok to simply force others to bend to *your* will rather than meet their terms (or simply not partake of their offering)? How does that make you any better than them? They want their terms and you want it on yours, and somehow your default position is that your terms are more important than theirs to the point of justifying force (legislation) to get your way?
And anyway, if you have a need maybe others do too. So perhaps if all your ISPs are ignoring a market niche which you have spotted, rather than moving to another country you could try to fill that niche? Or have those ISPs used force (legislation) to prevent competition from nimble startups like you from being able to operate. Hmmm, that old force doesn't look so appealing now does it, now that it isn't helping you that is. But to be consistent you'd have to agree that it was right for them to use it to get things on their terms, after all it was exactly what you wanted to do yourself so it must be ok right?
"you do not have a right to demand that no one else do the same"
I don't agree. When you sell something you can sell just a subset of those rights. The contract/agreement will determine which rights are being transferred and under what terms. Both parties may agree not to transfer full ownership rights, and only assign the subset of rights for a limited time (such as rental or lease agreements). When you rent a vehicle you know that it isn't yours to onsell, you only have the use of it for an agreed period. That is defined by the contract. Any other transfer of a set of property rights can be bound by the same kind of agreements. The arguments about 'purchasing' ownership of the physical media miss the point, that the actual set of property rights you have agreed to are listed in the contract of sale (in whatever form that may be). If you do not abide by the terms then the contract can be terminated by the seller. Whether it constitutes theft on your part is another issue, but at the very least you are in breach of contract.
So I'd say that yes you can demand that others do the same, as long as both parties are aware of and agree to the terms of the agreement. Either side is free not to enter the contract if they are unhappy with the terms. That surely is the essence of free association.
'It's to crack down on "grey market" resellers'
So now you're down on selling to Senior Citizens?
Hell, if the oldies want to overclock their copy of Word and get rest-home respect then I say let 'em
You are so right dude!
I was so pissed at President Tone's Labour getting elected in the first place that I emigrated to NZ but the same bloody thing happened here - a spin obsessed narcisisstic Labour govt modelling itself on our lad at Number 10 got in. Jeez...
Surely an elected representative is given the power by those who elected them to do more than just act as a proxy. The member is elected, suposedly as an intelligent and thinking individual, to make descisions on behalf of those he/she represents. Those descisions may not always be in agreement with some or perhaps even all of those who elected them but thats just the way it is - hence the need for care when electing someone - they can exercise a great deal of power. In general of course, the representative will tend to side with the views of his/her electorate if only for self-preservation. Leaving aside the arguements of self-interested representatives, they have a strong case to argue that they are in a better and more knowledable position than most of the populace to decide on such matters of state. Reverting to mob-rule when descisions are not to peoples taste hardly seems like a move forward.
Weren't the 'new' T&L enabled cards supposed to reduce the requirement for low-poly models?
So how exactly are you going to 'start' your word processor even if its a dedicated word processing device?
If the user can't even cope with such simple concepts as the software equivalent of having an 'on' switch then no advances in usability are going to be of any use to them.
I thought time was effectively stopped for photons - they don't change between absorbtion & remmission.