Nobody can tell me with any certainty that some artificial fertilizer or hormone or genetic modification won't prove to be very bad for me in the long run.
Burning meat is said to be carcinogenic.
Burning anything release arsenic. Which is used in rat poison. Therefore when cooking any food you're eating rat poison. So the only way not to get cancer from your food is to only ingest 100% pure unicorn farts.
I've also met lots of vegetarians and vegans, and literally none of them have irrational fears of chemicals in foods
I know a lot of vegetarians and vegans and almost ALL consider "chemicals" to be bad. MSG bad. Bad. Bad. "What is MSG" you may ask? dunno but it's bad, Bad. BAD.
Proponents of the free market don't say there aren't cheats and unless they are anarcho-capitalists free-market capitalists consider the role of government is to prosecute companies for fraud.
Clearly it does not as the asteroids don't belong to anyone. Therefore they belong to anyone who can take it (unless it's prevented by governments).
This is not the same as assigning property rights.
A blockchain (seriously now) is a distributed database. It allows multiple parties to "own" and validate the data. There is a value to this beyond bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
Mining is a proof of work there need not be a reward ("bitcoin") attached to it. Banks and large entities can mine, expand the blockchain, in order to prove the validity of contracts - not necessarily in order to "mine" bitcoin.
There's blockchain technology being developed by big banks that don't require miners in the Bitcoin sense. The blockchain is there to show, for instance, that document x was signed at a set date/time by parties a,b and c.
OK. My point was consumption of oil. And perhaps I wasn't precise enoughas saying "bullsh!t" is more of a comment than an answer:-)
You and I and others may not be direct consumers of oil but the trucks that deliver our food do. The farmers that grow the food use it. This food comes wrapped in plastic (I mean oil) and so on; and so on; and so on.
Who?
Not Carl Menger, not Böhm-Bawerk, not von Mises, not Hayek, not Ayn Rand, not Rothbard, not Milton Friedman. Please show me anyone associate with the Austrian or Chicago School who advocated this.
If it's so commonplace you ought to be able to name one.
All technologies are specialized at first and then spread out - whether it's printing or optical lenses or steam engines or whatever. It's good to speed up the process but the DIY maker movement has decentralized and come down in price remarkably fast. The technological barrier is one of knowledge - something that _mainly_ (not only) requires desire to learn.
and instead of thinking I was bull$hitting you could have googled it: The following will give you a good list.
https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
Re 1970s - I agree in a large part of everday life - except for the ridiculous laws on drugs, sex.
But the overwhelming mercantile regulations were bad then too. You are a big corporation (airlines) you get protected. You make money. No competition. And prices are out of reach for everyone but the wealthy.
Do you not feel that we have gone too far in the way of centralized control? You're not horrified at a child's lemonade stands being closed down due to lack of licensing? Or that you must have a fence around your pool else a trespasser who falls in your pool can sue you?
Is there no happy medium between regulatory micromanagement and your description of how horrible it was in the 1800s?
We're losing it primarily to farmland. There are more trees, more forests today (in North America) then there was in 1900. Take a look, for instance at pictures of NH "wilderness" in the 1930s and today. What was farmland is now "old growth" forest. That story has played itself out all over North America.
Now the opposite is true in other parts of the world - South America, and Indonesia. But it shows that the true culprit is farmland; and as farming techniques become more productive that less is needed.
I agree with that. All parties involved in the case should have access as well as if there is a compelling public reason. For instance all cases where a person is shot by a cop.
Stop paying for it then. Don't vote for politicians who promote those views and don't back down from those that call you mean, racist or whatever for not paying for such foolishness.
The power is in you. You are the one you've been waiting for.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody can tell me with any certainty that some artificial fertilizer or hormone or genetic modification won't prove to be very bad for me in the long run.
Burning meat is said to be carcinogenic.
Burning anything release arsenic. Which is used in rat poison. Therefore when cooking any food you're eating rat poison. So the only way not to get cancer from your food is to only ingest 100% pure unicorn farts.
I've also met lots of vegetarians and vegans, and literally none of them have irrational fears of chemicals in foods
I know a lot of vegetarians and vegans and almost ALL consider "chemicals" to be bad. MSG bad. Bad. Bad. "What is MSG" you may ask? dunno but it's bad, Bad. BAD.
So, if you're opposed to people who advocate killing gays and atheists then you're opposed to people who advocate sharia law.
And - what do you do with people who do want to promulgate sharia law AND who migrate to a society that does not want to live under sharia law?
Proof? Evidence? Oh. Non needed. Right. Hyperbole rules the day. Yah!!!
Proponents of the free market don't say there aren't cheats and unless they are anarcho-capitalists free-market capitalists consider the role of government is to prosecute companies for fraud.
Clearly it does not as the asteroids don't belong to anyone. Therefore they belong to anyone who can take it (unless it's prevented by governments). This is not the same as assigning property rights.
You forgot one. A totally regulated, top-down society is nirvana.
Yeah. Then stop moving here and infecting us with your bs.
Thanks! That was funny.
A blockchain (seriously now) is a distributed database. It allows multiple parties to "own" and validate the data. There is a value to this beyond bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
Yes. Long life the collective Comrade.
/sarc
Individual freedom. Individual Rights are meaningless.
Mining is a proof of work there need not be a reward ("bitcoin") attached to it. Banks and large entities can mine, expand the blockchain, in order to prove the validity of contracts - not necessarily in order to "mine" bitcoin.
There's blockchain technology being developed by big banks that don't require miners in the Bitcoin sense. The blockchain is there to show, for instance, that document x was signed at a set date/time by parties a,b and c.
OK. My point was consumption of oil. And perhaps I wasn't precise enoughas saying "bullsh!t" is more of a comment than an answer:-)
You and I and others may not be direct consumers of oil but the trucks that deliver our food do. The farmers that grow the food use it. This food comes wrapped in plastic (I mean oil) and so on; and so on; and so on.
We all use oil in our daily lives.
Bull$h1t
This. Bitcoin is a medium of exchange. The blockchain is the new and interesting technology that is independent of Bitcoin.
Who? Not Carl Menger, not Böhm-Bawerk, not von Mises, not Hayek, not Ayn Rand, not Rothbard, not Milton Friedman. Please show me anyone associate with the Austrian or Chicago School who advocated this.
If it's so commonplace you ought to be able to name one.
Murdering how?
All technologies are specialized at first and then spread out - whether it's printing or optical lenses or steam engines or whatever. It's good to speed up the process but the DIY maker movement has decentralized and come down in price remarkably fast. The technological barrier is one of knowledge - something that _mainly_ (not only) requires desire to learn.
That's true. Fair enough.
Re lemonade stand: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/...
and instead of thinking I was bull$hitting you could have googled it: The following will give you a good list.
https://www.google.com/webhp?s... Re 1970s - I agree in a large part of everday life - except for the ridiculous laws on drugs, sex.
But the overwhelming mercantile regulations were bad then too. You are a big corporation (airlines) you get protected. You make money. No competition. And prices are out of reach for everyone but the wealthy.
Do you not feel that we have gone too far in the way of centralized control? You're not horrified at a child's lemonade stands being closed down due to lack of licensing? Or that you must have a fence around your pool else a trespasser who falls in your pool can sue you?
Is there no happy medium between regulatory micromanagement and your description of how horrible it was in the 1800s?
Wholesale auction? Surveillance is not a bug - it's a feature of government.
You want less surveillance? Then you need a government that does less. You know "small government." ooooooo can't have that.
We're losing it primarily to farmland. There are more trees, more forests today (in North America) then there was in 1900. Take a look, for instance at pictures of NH "wilderness" in the 1930s and today. What was farmland is now "old growth" forest. That story has played itself out all over North America.
Now the opposite is true in other parts of the world - South America, and Indonesia. But it shows that the true culprit is farmland; and as farming techniques become more productive that less is needed.
I agree with that. All parties involved in the case should have access as well as if there is a compelling public reason. For instance all cases where a person is shot by a cop.
Stop paying for it then. Don't vote for politicians who promote those views and don't back down from those that call you mean, racist or whatever for not paying for such foolishness.
The power is in you. You are the one you've been waiting for.