But, it's true, I am one of those who consider global warming to be close to irrelevant. Yup. the temperature changes. What else is new? And nope - even the worse case scenarios doesn't come close to being a catastrophe for biodiversity.
Yes people living in flood plains will be displaced (see Bangladesh) and on islands and peninsulas. OK.
I'm much more concerned about the pollution we're creating and dumping than I am about CO2 levels.
Edit my comment above (There are free market solutions to thieves.)
Re your point. It's simpler than you think although it will take a different take on the problem.
1. There would be companies who do this for a living.
2. Rewards would be based on sales made.
There are many, many papers and briefs (written by attorneys) on this issue. Please see the Cato Institute, von Mises and Heritage.
In general free market people are against lawsuits that circumvent individual responsibility (such as you have to make a high fence around your pool in case a trespasser falls in) but are for lawsuits when you (a corporate entity) makes false claims.
The advertiser would not be the responsible party any more than the ux guy, the graphics people, front-end, back-end coders, dbas, and network people who were involved in putting up the website.
It's the management that cleared the copy who is responsible.
First lie. (not saying you - but in general) Free market capitalism == caveat empto.
Second lie. There is no free market solution to thieves. A thief is not only a person who puts a knife to your throat but someone who claims this product is x when it really is y.
How would this work? There would be companies (and organizations) whose sole purpose, and main source of revenue would be in checking that a claim is truly a claim. If you are interested there are tons of articles and white papers dealing with this.
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but if there's one thing that community does well is explore this particular issue.
It's not a canard. No promoter of free market is in favor of caveat emptor. There are ways of dealing with the issue aside from sclerotic regulatory methods (which also requires law suits). Each method has it's problems.
If an advertiser says that 4 out of 5 dentists prefer X. The advertiser needs to point to a study that shows that 80% of dentists prefer X.
There are different mechanisms to solve the problem but it seems you want to stay with a failed system because it's tried and true.
If we had state run grocery stores in which you could only go to the one in your neighborhood you would think I was crazy for coming with the idea that people should open their own grocery stores - and that there might be a whole range of stores from small corner bodegas to larger stores (Whole Foods, A&P) to Costcos.
Either your "opponent" doesn't understand free markets or you just created a "straw man" to prove your point. There is no magic in the free market just as there is no magic in evolution.Food labeling comes as people want it. It may take time. People may create food coops (populated by avowed socialists) but the food coops are part of the free market (not from a top-down government bureaucracy).
The time and energy put in to make food labeling laws could be done to push the concept of food labeling to consumers. Then these consumers will reward companies who label their foods.
By the way free-market capitalism/= caveat emptor. If you say that your product is made of x (and only x) you are liable for that. In a free-market society if you were found to have adulterated x (or substituted y) you would be successfully sued.
I'm certain you can find all sorts of opponents of capitalism who would say "that's not so." How about showing some intellectual curiosity and reading what proponents of the free-market actually say:
Here's a list to start your reading: Bastiat, Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman.
How about if you graph the grants in solar power given by government and plot it alongside the rate of increase (pick your measure). You might find out, to your chagrin, that the graph does not back your claim.
In general I agree with you. But I often take pictures of the Thanksgiving and Christmas table before we all cut into everything. It's a memory of the occasion.
I've gone to pizzerias (shout out to DiFara's) and taken pictures of the pie. But - these are my memories. Not yours.
But yeah - unless you truly have something to say I can't see being interested in what anyone else had to eat if I wasn't there. (Exception being when my daughter was at camp and sent me a photo of what she had for dinner.
I see now that this list of exceptions is growing.:-)
Puerto Rico? I agree that having a protectorate is BS but the choice is theirs as to whether they become their own country. I was born and raised in NY. Been to PR. Know a lot of PRicans and very few want to be independent.
This is not an imperial relationship. If you can leave at will. If troops aren't controlling your interaction it is not an imperial relationship.
Are you saying that these forces are hostile to local population. Are they conquering troop? That is a defining characteristic of imperial.
Would you rather move to (or have grown up in) North Korea (which stayed free from American Imperialism) or move (or have grown up in ) South Korea? You know, according to you, a country under the boot of American Imperialism?
The sorry thing about spending your time sparring with straw men is that after awhile you start believing your bullsh*t.
Both free market and big government regulators enact punishment after the fact. Both do this, not only to punish wrong-doing but to deter future actions. There is no law that prevents action without punishment. And punishment is done after the fact.
Preaching to the converted. I'm appalled. (perhaps I read the OP wrong) but the best way to combat that is to have a populace who considers civil forfeiture (usually to bankroll a bureaucracy - the DA, the police) to be wrong, corrupt and beyond the pale.
As long as we have people who consider property to be a mere social construct that is divorced from reality and that these social constructs can be eradicated at will by government officials then we are continue slouching down the road to servitude. (channeling hayek here)
Social Contract theory 101: "I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine."
Bring in property is but a social contract and you will get civil war and a dictatorship (whether it's a dictatorship of the proletariat - where some pigs are created more equal than others - or another kind).
No believes that the government should not take property without compensation or that people think that the government can take and redistribute property at whim?
I respectfully disagree. I think there were few men with his combination of skill, taste, resources (which he helped bring together) drive and je ne sais quoi that made him able to lead Apple as he did.
Does he deserve the fanboy adoration as he did? No. But it wasn't simply being at the right place at the right time.
Economic history is littered with people who think they can do as well. There's even a saying: "from rags to riches to rags in 3 generations." Resources and taste are but two of the ingredients necessary in making Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
So when does the public get access to data we paid for?
Do you really want all video made public everywhere for everyone at anytime? There are privacy concerns.
It's good that these cameras are being used but that doesn't mean that everything enters the public domain.
CNN is part of the denialsphere blogs? Ok.
But, it's true, I am one of those who consider global warming to be close to irrelevant. Yup. the temperature changes. What else is new? And nope - even the worse case scenarios doesn't come close to being a catastrophe for biodiversity.
Yes people living in flood plains will be displaced (see Bangladesh) and on islands and peninsulas. OK.
I'm much more concerned about the pollution we're creating and dumping than I am about CO2 levels.
Yes. I understand. I'm reacting to the chicken-little-esque aspect of global warming hysterics (oops I mean climate change).
The climate does change. It changed when humans were still in the stone age and it will be changing when humans are memories in the fossil records.
And just a few days ago news came out that there weren't any hurricanes and perhaps that was due to climate change.
Really? You'll overturn the Bureau of Land Management's right to prevent them from fishing and hunting and going on ancestral lands when they want to?
Edit my comment above (There are free market solutions to thieves.)
Re your point. It's simpler than you think although it will take a different take on the problem.
1. There would be companies who do this for a living.
2. Rewards would be based on sales made.
There are many, many papers and briefs (written by attorneys) on this issue. Please see the Cato Institute, von Mises and Heritage.
In general free market people are against lawsuits that circumvent individual responsibility (such as you have to make a high fence around your pool in case a trespasser falls in) but are for lawsuits when you (a corporate entity) makes false claims.
The advertiser would not be the responsible party any more than the ux guy, the graphics people, front-end, back-end coders, dbas, and network people who were involved in putting up the website.
It's the management that cleared the copy who is responsible.
First lie. (not saying you - but in general) Free market capitalism == caveat empto. Second lie. There is no free market solution to thieves. A thief is not only a person who puts a knife to your throat but someone who claims this product is x when it really is y.
How would this work? There would be companies (and organizations) whose sole purpose, and main source of revenue would be in checking that a claim is truly a claim. If you are interested there are tons of articles and white papers dealing with this.
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but if there's one thing that community does well is explore this particular issue.
It's not a canard. No promoter of free market is in favor of caveat emptor. There are ways of dealing with the issue aside from sclerotic regulatory methods (which also requires law suits). Each method has it's problems.
If an advertiser says that 4 out of 5 dentists prefer X. The advertiser needs to point to a study that shows that 80% of dentists prefer X.
There are different mechanisms to solve the problem but it seems you want to stay with a failed system because it's tried and true.
If we had state run grocery stores in which you could only go to the one in your neighborhood you would think I was crazy for coming with the idea that people should open their own grocery stores - and that there might be a whole range of stores from small corner bodegas to larger stores (Whole Foods, A&P) to Costcos.
Either your "opponent" doesn't understand free markets or you just created a "straw man" to prove your point. There is no magic in the free market just as there is no magic in evolution.Food labeling comes as people want it. It may take time. People may create food coops (populated by avowed socialists) but the food coops are part of the free market (not from a top-down government bureaucracy).
/= caveat emptor. If you say that your product is made of x (and only x) you are liable for that. In a free-market society if you were found to have adulterated x (or substituted y) you would be successfully sued.
The time and energy put in to make food labeling laws could be done to push the concept of food labeling to consumers. Then these consumers will reward companies who label their foods.
By the way free-market capitalism
I'm certain you can find all sorts of opponents of capitalism who would say "that's not so." How about showing some intellectual curiosity and reading what proponents of the free-market actually say:
Here's a list to start your reading: Bastiat, Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman.
How about if you graph the grants in solar power given by government and plot it alongside the rate of increase (pick your measure). You might find out, to your chagrin, that the graph does not back your claim.
In general I agree with you. But I often take pictures of the Thanksgiving and Christmas table before we all cut into everything. It's a memory of the occasion.
:-)
I've gone to pizzerias (shout out to DiFara's) and taken pictures of the pie. But - these are my memories. Not yours.
But yeah - unless you truly have something to say I can't see being interested in what anyone else had to eat if I wasn't there. (Exception being when my daughter was at camp and sent me a photo of what she had for dinner.
I see now that this list of exceptions is growing.
Puerto Rico? I agree that having a protectorate is BS but the choice is theirs as to whether they become their own country. I was born and raised in NY. Been to PR. Know a lot of PRicans and very few want to be independent.
This is not an imperial relationship. If you can leave at will. If troops aren't controlling your interaction it is not an imperial relationship.
Imperial is a matter of debate.
Are you saying that these forces are hostile to local population. Are they conquering troop? That is a defining characteristic of imperial.
Would you rather move to (or have grown up in) North Korea (which stayed free from American Imperialism) or move (or have grown up in ) South Korea? You know, according to you, a country under the boot of American Imperialism?
Do you really believe your bullsh*t?
Please give your evidence.
" imperial corporate assets overseas" - do you really believe your bullsh*t?
Is Korea an imperial corporate asset? Guam?
The sorry thing about spending your time sparring with straw men is that after awhile you start believing your bullsh*t.
Both free market and big government regulators enact punishment after the fact. Both do this, not only to punish wrong-doing but to deter future actions. There is no law that prevents action without punishment. And punishment is done after the fact.
Preaching to the converted. I'm appalled. (perhaps I read the OP wrong) but the best way to combat that is to have a populace who considers civil forfeiture (usually to bankroll a bureaucracy - the DA, the police) to be wrong, corrupt and beyond the pale.
As long as we have people who consider property to be a mere social construct that is divorced from reality and that these social constructs can be eradicated at will by government officials then we are continue slouching down the road to servitude. (channeling hayek here)
Social Contract theory 101: "I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine."
Bring in property is but a social contract and you will get civil war and a dictatorship (whether it's a dictatorship of the proletariat - where some pigs are created more equal than others - or another kind).
No believes that the government should not take property without compensation or that people think that the government can take and redistribute property at whim?
You need to read up on your constitutional history. You don't understand the phrase "general welfare" as it applies to the US Constitution.
The "moron" chose noon as that was something one could tell by a sundial. Base 12 is arbitrary but has its advantages over base 10.
I respectfully disagree. I think there were few men with his combination of skill, taste, resources (which he helped bring together) drive and je ne sais quoi that made him able to lead Apple as he did.
Does he deserve the fanboy adoration as he did? No. But it wasn't simply being at the right place at the right time.
Economic history is littered with people who think they can do as well. There's even a saying: "from rags to riches to rags in 3 generations." Resources and taste are but two of the ingredients necessary in making Apple.
gutenberg, tesla are two :-)
really? So anyone with the same resources and same moderate foresight and taste could have replaced him?
So. Then you're in favor of de-regulating part of the agriculture business by removing subsidies?
Good. I agree, No more subsidies of any kind for farming. If beef prices go up. So be it.