Mars has no magnetosphere, it's has 89% less mass, it is half of the Earth's diameter. Mars could never really sustain a breathable atmosphere with oxygen and nitrogen just because of those characteristics, those gases would simply fly off into space, there cannot be enough density and pressure on the surface of Mars to hold a breathable atmosphere.
Of-course living organisms can survive in various other types of atmosphere, for example carbon dioxide, but even that gas cannot be held by Mars in enough density for anything to breath it.
The crime is the government system that went beyond the limited powers that are specifically authorized to it, and once it can steal individual powers, the businesses will fight back. Those with more money will simply attempt (and succeed) in buying the politicians.
Special interests cannot do anything to you until the government steal you individual freedoms, which is precisely what the Constitution is set up to prevent.
Until you understand that allowing the government to steal powers that are unauthorized to it by the Constitution means that these powers will be sold off to the highest bidder, these crimes will be committed against you.
No, the strongest USA was before 1913, before income taxes, but maybe your definition of 'stronger' is different from mine. I don't consider a country to be stronger because it has a bigger government, I consider a country to be stronger that has more private enterprise, more productive output and stronger money, and money in USA was being destroyed starting from 1913.
US became largest producer, manufacturer, exporter and thus creditor between 1870 and 1914. It was a debtor nation, an after thought after European nations before that time.
The 1950s and 60s in USA are marked with a monopoly on production caused by destruction of infrastructure in other countries, but also it's marked by huge expansion of gov't power, the cold war, the space race, new programs like Medicare, SS was expanding all the time, FDA started doing more over decades, EPA, the dep't of energy appeared when there was none before, dep't of education, all sorts of departments and new cabinet positions.
Also it is silly to say that today US gov't is smaller than it was back in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, the US gov't is growing all the time, again new departments (TSA is a new dep't,) new powers Patriot Act and all other forms of legislation.
Gov't growth is what caused this massive economic heart attack for USA (and for other nations).
I am not going to compare USA to Finland, the differences are magnitudes, it's not possible to compare a kibbutz in Israel to USA for example, it's a comparison that makes no sense. But what we do know about Scandinavia as an example, is that it had its own problems 20 years ago that it decided to solve by reducing its gov't, not by growing it, and Scandinavian countries don't run trade deficits, they balance their budgets (by decreasing spending).
- these European problems are helping US by taking the target off the USA for a while. Once Europe stabilizes one way or another, the sights will again be set on US problems, which are much greater than European problems. As a collective, Europe is in much less debt and in a much better fiscal shape than USA, Europe has more savings and less debt than USA, and while countries like Greece are in a terrible shape, they are tiny problems compared to USA. Nobody can bail out the US dollar.
China's economy is slowing
- by choice. Chiense gov't is intervening in the economy all the time, but even their slow down towards 4% annualized growth is a 'problem' that nobody else can touch.
delaying economic investments
- Orwellian double speak. Delaying the gov't from doing anything is not delaying investments, gov't doesn't invest. It's delaying more growth of spending.
There's no difference between a government employee at a power plant and a private sector employee at a power plant. For example, Greece's economy ticked along quite well with far too many government employees.
- multiple logical failures.
1. Greece's economy was just as screwed up 3 years ago as it is today, the difference is that 3 years ago nobody paid attention to the fact that it was screwed up, the Greeks still could live on cheaply borrowed money.
2. All government jobs are spending jobs, they are all welfare checks paid to people to do absolutely nothing useful in the economy, in the sense that nothing that gov't employees do reduces the trade deficit.
Nothing that gov't employees can do, nothing that gov't contracts do reduces the trade imbalance with other countries, only private sector jobs can do that and gov't only prevents that from happening by misallocating resources from productive private sector jobs to completely unproductive, wasteful and damaging jobs in the public sector.
No amount of ditch digging and road laying can reduce the trade deficit with China, this can only be done by private sector manufacturing jobs. The trade deficit of 1 Trillion a year for 20 years is growing, not shrinking, specifically because gov't spending is increasing thus decreasing private sector investment spending.
Every gov't job is a tax upon the private sector, all gov't employees are paid by the private sector employees and by destruction of currency (inflation).
The bigger the gov't, the greater the trade deficit is going to be, gov't employees extract actual production capacity from the private sector and spend it on foreign made goods, growing the trade deficit.
These money should have been kept in the private sector, all these taxes destroy productive manufacturing jobs, offshore them (and you can blame Romney all you want for outsourcing, but that was not his idea, it was forced upon all businesses by the gov't regulations, taxes, inflation).
Also Keynesian economics to Austrian school (real economics) is what astrology is to astronomy.
(same person, second account, the first one has a 2 or 3 comment limit per day, because people don't want opinions different from their own being expressed).
Governments are psychopaths, the politicians get elected only when they lie and cheat and steal, no politician gets elected by being honest.
Corporations, businesses are held to a much higher standard than any gov't. Businesses have to hire people, have to maintain profitability to stay afloat, they have to appeal to their clients and their clients are not captive audience that only deals with the business because of threat of violence.
Governments are ALL about threat of violence, there is nothing that a government does that is NOT about threat of violence, so you and Chomsky, are quite weird from my POV, for not realising that people are forced to deal with gov't through threat of violence but they are dealing with companies voluntarily.
Psychopaths? So did your computer, that you are using right now, explode in your face and was there a note attached to the inside of the bomb in it saying: fuck you, fucking piece of shit customer, who chose our product, you cocksucker, here is your fucking product right in your face?
Try and not pay your taxes (which you are forced to do, this has nothing to do with voluntary exchange of any goods and services).
By the way, governments kill millions of people around the world, USA killed millions of people in the last 50 years, USSR killed millions of people, China killed millions, Japan killed millions, Germany killed millions.
Governments, not companies. Talk about 'psychopaths'.
you think that companies are inherently altruistic
- no, Mr. Logical Fallacy, I do not and none of it comes out of my comment, but keep building your house of straw, because you think it's going to be easy to take it down.
if only there were less government intervention, then everyone would be better off.
- this is not a question, this is not a hypothesis, this is a fact. Historically speaking, countries with bigger governments and more laws and regulations are worse off than countries with smaller, less powerful governments (relative to the power of the individuals).
So USA was a strong country, economically speaking, when the gov't was not even 1% of what it is today, that's before the gov't figured out how to crack the Constitution.
So USSR was in a terrible economic shape, same with China, when it was a completely command economy.
You can cite Scandinavia and Somalia, but you never look at the facts. Scandinavia does not do deficit spending, the size of its gov't is covered by its income, and the gov't has been shrinking in Scandinavia for 20 years.
Somalia is a war torn country, where people fought against the powerful Communist regime that was in place after the British rule was replaced with it.
So you think if only companies didn't have to comply with all of the filing and other regulatory regulations then the small investor would be better off?
- yes, absolutely. On average people do not gain anything by gambling on prices of IPO stocks, I am talking about public 'investors', who are basically made into the ESCAPE PLAN, and the reason it's an escape plan (exit strategy), is because the IPOs are inflated by the process.
As to your concern about RISK, well that's the point - gov't CANNOT REDUCE RISK.
Tell me, Mr. 'Intelligent', how did gov't reduce risk of people losing their money on Facebook IPO exactly?
Come on, do tell, I am listening. All those regulations, all those rules, and so what? FB is way overvalued, its revenues are going to DROP, there is no way it's worth 38 bucks or 18 bucks or 8 bucks. Maybe 2-3 dollars (if that)?
But some people made crazy money on this, but is that an EFFICIENT allocation of resources, to allow certain people to make CRAZY money on something like that?
I'll answer this question myself, because I don't believe you understand what 'efficient allocation of resources' means. The answer is NO, it was never an investment that was worth 100 billion. It was never an investment that was worth 5 billion. But the problem is, more than that has been pumped out of the pockets of the VICTIMS that the gov't turned the poor investors into.
In your words: hundreds of thousands of companies are looking for investments, while all the credit that banks allocate goes directly to the US Treasury because of the inflation and completely worthless money - interest rates are at 0, this means holding US dollar is worth than holding almost anything material, because material things (that don't go bad) at least stay with you, they don't disappear over time.
You are better off investing in a TON OF JUNK IRON today than investing in any gov't debt or playing in IPO casino, that is very much regulated by the gov't.
The purpose of IPO is not to allow the public to gamble, the purpose is to allow the company to have some money to START THE BUSINESS and to allow the public to S
The bounce is the problem with the IPO market - if the stock was priced correctly, there should be no bounce (and no crash either).
- the problem is with all the regulations around investing set up by the government, which prevents normal people from making money.
Normal people do not place their money into VC funds and companies are not allowed to go IPO before they comply with so many laws, that are set up in order to 'protect' the investors. Well, they 'protect' the investors from making money, that's what they protect investors from.
PayPal co-founder made a billion bucks on a half a million investment on FB, same with many other people - various early investors made money, because they had a lot of upside when they put their money into that company. By the time all of the regulations are complied with and the company can go IPO, guess what: there is NO upside left.
The way it's set up, the poor and middle class are on the bottom of the pyramid set up by the gov't, this pyramid puts the initial rich investors on top and the banks that run the IPO on top and the politicians, who often get part of the pre-IPO stock on top, and the poor and the middle class are shown such nonsense propaganda as Cramer's Mad Money, all of this is propaganda to sell you stocks with no upside.
Of-course due to the inflation, people jump into any opportunity to try and make a big buck by speculation rather than thinking about long term investments.
This guy, Cuban, he is blaming himself, like many victims of a crime do, he doesn't understand that a crime has been perpetrated against him. The crime that is the government system, not the market, has set up.
In Canada all contractors that I am aware of (maybe 80 people) are incorporated. 1 man corporations. In Germany and Switzerland I know a couple of dozen people who do the same, also incorporated.
I am sure many people can post here, confirming their own experience.
You are weird. Psychopaths? Businesses? The entities that are ran by INDIVIDUALS to make money by providing other individuals in the market with goods that the individual want or need at prices that are acceptable? Psychopaths?
Set up a corporation (corporations are people), set up your website with credential, contact, maybe a price list (per hour or per job, whatever), send out offers to companies and to people about your services.
Of-course it's not going to be easy, but you asked the question "how to begin", not "how to really make it a success".
On the contrary, the exact opposite is true. Without patents the companies would have to rely on more trade secrets, but that's a healthy way for the market to attempt and keep a temporary lid on distribution of your products, not government intervention - market solution.
Three hundred thousand. 4.5 million is jobs created in total, but 4.2 million is jobs lost in total.
Of-course most of the jobs created are in service sector, which are exactly the kind of jobs that should be lost, not created. Government and service sector jobs should be lost and manufacturing jobs should be created, that's what the market is trying to do with the recession to get rid of the bubble inflated by the gov't policies, and that's what the gov't (with the Fed) is trying to prevent with more inflation and laws.
Business is what makes all the things that we want, that we need, without which we cannot survive. They are inherently good.
Any form of 'evil' associated with any business comes from abuse of government power, the gov't steals the power and a business fights the gov't back by buying that power.
BTW., Romney already lost because he is now trying to out-Obama Obama, out-Democrat the Democrats. How is that going to work at all? Clearly he is not a Democrat, if somebody wants to vote for Democrats they will vote for Obama.
My point is that the entire 'intellectual' debate of the Right is now: we are going to do a better job PROTECTING Medicare (and SS I guess) than Obama would.
On this account I think it's about 10 or 15, I don't know.
---
The goods and services that we provide for each other must be exchanged for in the voluntary fashion in the market free from gov't intervention, and people do provide each other with outcome of their labor, that's why we do all over-production and under-consumption, because we want to trade.
Trade is about exchange products and services that we produce, not about paper, that's by the way, why gov't printing of fiat currency is just counterfeiting and an inflation tax, that's why gov'ts hate real money, it prevents this type of theft.
As I said, the collective does not have authority to steal freedoms from the individual, and when it tries, it always backfires and makes whatever the perceived problem is worse.
AFAIC climate change or no climate change, we have to adapt to our changing environment all the time anyway, and we are doing a very good job at it without government.
There are over 7,000,000,000 people on this planet, NOT thanks to ANY government. Governments actually reduced the human the population of this earth by quite a chunk even just over the last 100 years.
What gives any gov't, any collective the authority to kill, to murder an individual? Governments get taken down for murder, that's the ultimate consequence, and then the economy may be even more destabilized and cause more pollution (which I agree, people do cause pollution).
It was not any government of the world that allowed over 7 billion people to exist, it was human ingenuity, it was free enterprise, it was people making a buck, running their own business, and that's the only thing that we can rely on to increase our wealth.
The problems that people may have with the pollution, etc., none of them will be solved by governments, governments will always make these problems worse. (for notes, see USSR's record on pollution, it was all government, nothing private.)
In any case, poor societies cannot solve any such problems, only wealthy societies solve them, and they do not solve them by decree of any gov't.
Child labor was not stopped by decree of any gov't, it was stopped because the parents of those kids didn't have to send them to work anymore, because the parents were made much more productive than they used to be before industrialization by private capitalists.
There will be no solutions from government, only problems, that is guaranteed. But more importantly, the gov't doesn't have moral authority over any individual person to tell them how to live their lives.
Somebody (I am not paying attention) mentioned conscription in cases of war. Well you know what, wars are also started by gov't. So the 'solution' - conscription, is again, to a problem that the gov't starts in the first place, and it's not a good solution for the conscripts at all, especially if they get killed in the process.
You are going to put a bunch of people on your altar, their lives, so that you can feel good about your collective actions. Just don't get caught by them.
This is ridiculous, isn't it? A patent system, that gov't introduces supposedly to encourage more innovation and invention is now being routed around because of the damage that it is causing.
It's damage that gov't involvement in the market is causing with all laws and this case is a good example even to the most staunch defenders of government intervention that it is damaging the clients, the end users, the consumers, because it can prevent you from having more choices (and thus from lower prices).
As always it is with all gov't regulations, laws, the actual effect is the exact opposite of the supposedly desired one, and it's always negative for the people.
Did I mention the universe doesn't care about dollar bills either?
- dollars, gold, whatever, it's expression of our effort, our human time on this rock. It's our lives and no collective can force an individual to spend his time on doing things the way the collective wants. The outcome will always be the opposite of what the supposed solution is going to take care of.
Individuals route around the damage caused by the collective in their lives, they look out for themselves, as they should.
Like I answered to the other guy in this thread (it's my second account, the first is maxed out on comments today): where do you see any 'denial' of science in my comment? What is it with/. posters, the logic circuits are shorted or what?
I said that the government has no authority to limit individual freedoms regardless of what our predicament on this planet is. The individual is above the collective, that's all. The collective cannot force an individual to do what it wants, and when it tries, it always backfires, because individuals change their behavior accordingly, to repair the damage done by the collective and the collective always gets the exact opposite result of what it is supposedly aiming for.
Was gov't ever successful at programs that are this abstract? What? War on poverty? War on drugs? War on terror? Did the Patriot Act do it?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and by the way, Titan is inside the magnetosphere envelope of Saturn.
So does it still disagree with me?
Mercury too has an atmosphere, but it's also not breathable.
It's possible to have very heavy chemicals as an atmosphere on a smaller planet than ours, sure, at very different temperatures, very heavy compounds.
Mars has no magnetosphere, it's has 89% less mass, it is half of the Earth's diameter. Mars could never really sustain a breathable atmosphere with oxygen and nitrogen just because of those characteristics, those gases would simply fly off into space, there cannot be enough density and pressure on the surface of Mars to hold a breathable atmosphere.
Of-course living organisms can survive in various other types of atmosphere, for example carbon dioxide, but even that gas cannot be held by Mars in enough density for anything to breath it.
The crime is the government system that went beyond the limited powers that are specifically authorized to it, and once it can steal individual powers, the businesses will fight back. Those with more money will simply attempt (and succeed) in buying the politicians.
Special interests cannot do anything to you until the government steal you individual freedoms, which is precisely what the Constitution is set up to prevent.
Until you understand that allowing the government to steal powers that are unauthorized to it by the Constitution means that these powers will be sold off to the highest bidder, these crimes will be committed against you.
No, the strongest USA was before 1913, before income taxes, but maybe your definition of 'stronger' is different from mine. I don't consider a country to be stronger because it has a bigger government, I consider a country to be stronger that has more private enterprise, more productive output and stronger money, and money in USA was being destroyed starting from 1913.
US became largest producer, manufacturer, exporter and thus creditor between 1870 and 1914. It was a debtor nation, an after thought after European nations before that time.
The 1950s and 60s in USA are marked with a monopoly on production caused by destruction of infrastructure in other countries, but also it's marked by huge expansion of gov't power, the cold war, the space race, new programs like Medicare, SS was expanding all the time, FDA started doing more over decades, EPA, the dep't of energy appeared when there was none before, dep't of education, all sorts of departments and new cabinet positions.
Also it is silly to say that today US gov't is smaller than it was back in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, the US gov't is growing all the time, again new departments (TSA is a new dep't,) new powers Patriot Act and all other forms of legislation.
Gov't growth is what caused this massive economic heart attack for USA (and for other nations).
I am not going to compare USA to Finland, the differences are magnitudes, it's not possible to compare a kibbutz in Israel to USA for example, it's a comparison that makes no sense. But what we do know about Scandinavia as an example, is that it had its own problems 20 years ago that it decided to solve by reducing its gov't, not by growing it, and Scandinavian countries don't run trade deficits, they balance their budgets (by decreasing spending).
Start with a 386 and Debian with CLI only.
Europe is in recession
- these European problems are helping US by taking the target off the USA for a while. Once Europe stabilizes one way or another, the sights will again be set on US problems, which are much greater than European problems. As a collective, Europe is in much less debt and in a much better fiscal shape than USA, Europe has more savings and less debt than USA, and while countries like Greece are in a terrible shape, they are tiny problems compared to USA. Nobody can bail out the US dollar.
China's economy is slowing
- by choice. Chiense gov't is intervening in the economy all the time, but even their slow down towards 4% annualized growth is a 'problem' that nobody else can touch.
delaying economic investments
- Orwellian double speak. Delaying the gov't from doing anything is not delaying investments, gov't doesn't invest. It's delaying more growth of spending.
There's no difference between a government employee at a power plant and a private sector employee at a power plant. For example, Greece's economy ticked along quite well with far too many government employees.
- multiple logical failures.
1. Greece's economy was just as screwed up 3 years ago as it is today, the difference is that 3 years ago nobody paid attention to the fact that it was screwed up, the Greeks still could live on cheaply borrowed money.
2. All government jobs are spending jobs, they are all welfare checks paid to people to do absolutely nothing useful in the economy, in the sense that nothing that gov't employees do reduces the trade deficit.
Nothing that gov't employees can do, nothing that gov't contracts do reduces the trade imbalance with other countries, only private sector jobs can do that and gov't only prevents that from happening by misallocating resources from productive private sector jobs to completely unproductive, wasteful and damaging jobs in the public sector.
No amount of ditch digging and road laying can reduce the trade deficit with China, this can only be done by private sector manufacturing jobs. The trade deficit of 1 Trillion a year for 20 years is growing, not shrinking, specifically because gov't spending is increasing thus decreasing private sector investment spending.
Every gov't job is a tax upon the private sector, all gov't employees are paid by the private sector employees and by destruction of currency (inflation).
The bigger the gov't, the greater the trade deficit is going to be, gov't employees extract actual production capacity from the private sector and spend it on foreign made goods, growing the trade deficit.
These money should have been kept in the private sector, all these taxes destroy productive manufacturing jobs, offshore them (and you can blame Romney all you want for outsourcing, but that was not his idea, it was forced upon all businesses by the gov't regulations, taxes, inflation).
Also Keynesian economics to Austrian school (real economics) is what astrology is to astronomy.
(same person, second account, the first one has a 2 or 3 comment limit per day, because people don't want opinions different from their own being expressed).
Governments are psychopaths, the politicians get elected only when they lie and cheat and steal, no politician gets elected by being honest.
Corporations, businesses are held to a much higher standard than any gov't. Businesses have to hire people, have to maintain profitability to stay afloat, they have to appeal to their clients and their clients are not captive audience that only deals with the business because of threat of violence.
Governments are ALL about threat of violence, there is nothing that a government does that is NOT about threat of violence, so you and Chomsky, are quite weird from my POV, for not realising that people are forced to deal with gov't through threat of violence but they are dealing with companies voluntarily.
Psychopaths? So did your computer, that you are using right now, explode in your face and was there a note attached to the inside of the bomb in it saying: fuck you, fucking piece of shit customer, who chose our product, you cocksucker, here is your fucking product right in your face?
Try and not pay your taxes (which you are forced to do, this has nothing to do with voluntary exchange of any goods and services).
By the way, governments kill millions of people around the world, USA killed millions of people in the last 50 years, USSR killed millions of people, China killed millions, Japan killed millions, Germany killed millions.
Governments, not companies. Talk about 'psychopaths'.
you think that companies are inherently altruistic
- no, Mr. Logical Fallacy, I do not and none of it comes out of my comment, but keep building your house of straw, because you think it's going to be easy to take it down.
if only there were less government intervention, then everyone would be better off.
- this is not a question, this is not a hypothesis, this is a fact. Historically speaking, countries with bigger governments and more laws and regulations are worse off than countries with smaller, less powerful governments (relative to the power of the individuals).
So USA was a strong country, economically speaking, when the gov't was not even 1% of what it is today, that's before the gov't figured out how to crack the Constitution.
So USSR was in a terrible economic shape, same with China, when it was a completely command economy.
You can cite Scandinavia and Somalia, but you never look at the facts. Scandinavia does not do deficit spending, the size of its gov't is covered by its income, and the gov't has been shrinking in Scandinavia for 20 years.
Somalia is a war torn country, where people fought against the powerful Communist regime that was in place after the British rule was replaced with it.
So you think if only companies didn't have to comply with all of the filing and other regulatory regulations then the small investor would be better off?
- yes, absolutely. On average people do not gain anything by gambling on prices of IPO stocks, I am talking about public 'investors', who are basically made into the ESCAPE PLAN, and the reason it's an escape plan (exit strategy), is because the IPOs are inflated by the process.
The initial public offering shouldn't be in the hands of government regulators. Actually the Free Market found a temporary solution to this, that everybody on /. seems to cheer, here it is. Are you against the idea? This is the free market trying to undo the damage that the gov't regulations have caused, but I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the gov't turned around and said: this kickstarter thing, it's competing with our ability to steal money from people on IPO scams.
As to your concern about RISK, well that's the point - gov't CANNOT REDUCE RISK.
Tell me, Mr. 'Intelligent', how did gov't reduce risk of people losing their money on Facebook IPO exactly?
Come on, do tell, I am listening. All those regulations, all those rules, and so what? FB is way overvalued, its revenues are going to DROP, there is no way it's worth 38 bucks or 18 bucks or 8 bucks. Maybe 2-3 dollars (if that)?
But some people made crazy money on this, but is that an EFFICIENT allocation of resources, to allow certain people to make CRAZY money on something like that?
I'll answer this question myself, because I don't believe you understand what 'efficient allocation of resources' means. The answer is NO, it was never an investment that was worth 100 billion. It was never an investment that was worth 5 billion. But the problem is, more than that has been pumped out of the pockets of the VICTIMS that the gov't turned the poor investors into.
In your words: hundreds of thousands of companies are looking for investments, while all the credit that banks allocate goes directly to the US Treasury because of the inflation and completely worthless money - interest rates are at 0, this means holding US dollar is worth than holding almost anything material, because material things (that don't go bad) at least stay with you, they don't disappear over time.
You are better off investing in a TON OF JUNK IRON today than investing in any gov't debt or playing in IPO casino, that is very much regulated by the gov't.
The purpose of IPO is not to allow the public to gamble, the purpose is to allow the company to have some money to START THE BUSINESS and to allow the public to S
The bounce is the problem with the IPO market - if the stock was priced correctly, there should be no bounce (and no crash either).
- the problem is with all the regulations around investing set up by the government, which prevents normal people from making money.
Normal people do not place their money into VC funds and companies are not allowed to go IPO before they comply with so many laws, that are set up in order to 'protect' the investors. Well, they 'protect' the investors from making money, that's what they protect investors from.
PayPal co-founder made a billion bucks on a half a million investment on FB, same with many other people - various early investors made money, because they had a lot of upside when they put their money into that company. By the time all of the regulations are complied with and the company can go IPO, guess what: there is NO upside left.
The way it's set up, the poor and middle class are on the bottom of the pyramid set up by the gov't, this pyramid puts the initial rich investors on top and the banks that run the IPO on top and the politicians, who often get part of the pre-IPO stock on top, and the poor and the middle class are shown such nonsense propaganda as Cramer's Mad Money, all of this is propaganda to sell you stocks with no upside.
Of-course due to the inflation, people jump into any opportunity to try and make a big buck by speculation rather than thinking about long term investments.
This guy, Cuban, he is blaming himself, like many victims of a crime do, he doesn't understand that a crime has been perpetrated against him. The crime that is the government system, not the market, has set up.
In Canada all contractors that I am aware of (maybe 80 people) are incorporated. 1 man corporations. In Germany and Switzerland I know a couple of dozen people who do the same, also incorporated.
I am sure many people can post here, confirming their own experience.
You are weird. Psychopaths? Businesses? The entities that are ran by INDIVIDUALS to make money by providing other individuals in the market with goods that the individual want or need at prices that are acceptable? Psychopaths?
As I said, you are weird.
Set up a corporation (corporations are people), set up your website with credential, contact, maybe a price list (per hour or per job, whatever), send out offers to companies and to people about your services.
Of-course it's not going to be easy, but you asked the question "how to begin", not "how to really make it a success".
On the contrary, the exact opposite is true. Without patents the companies would have to rely on more trade secrets, but that's a healthy way for the market to attempt and keep a temporary lid on distribution of your products, not government intervention - market solution.
NET jobs created during Obama's term is 300,000.
Three hundred thousand. 4.5 million is jobs created in total, but 4.2 million is jobs lost in total.
Of-course most of the jobs created are in service sector, which are exactly the kind of jobs that should be lost, not created. Government and service sector jobs should be lost and manufacturing jobs should be created, that's what the market is trying to do with the recession to get rid of the bubble inflated by the gov't policies, and that's what the gov't (with the Fed) is trying to prevent with more inflation and laws.
Businesses are inherently good.
Business is what makes all the things that we want, that we need, without which we cannot survive. They are inherently good.
Any form of 'evil' associated with any business comes from abuse of government power, the gov't steals the power and a business fights the gov't back by buying that power.
calling a fact 'bullshit' doesn't change the fact.
Funny.
BTW., Romney already lost because he is now trying to out-Obama Obama, out-Democrat the Democrats. How is that going to work at all? Clearly he is not a Democrat, if somebody wants to vote for Democrats they will vote for Obama.
My point is that the entire 'intellectual' debate of the Right is now: we are going to do a better job PROTECTING Medicare (and SS I guess) than Obama would.
That's a lost fight right there.
Fellow men do not interfere, the ones who do, I don't consider to be my fellows.
Actually it's 2 posts per 24 hours on my account here, because of persistent negative moderation of a number of followers.
On this account I think it's about 10 or 15, I don't know.
---
The goods and services that we provide for each other must be exchanged for in the voluntary fashion in the market free from gov't intervention, and people do provide each other with outcome of their labor, that's why we do all over-production and under-consumption, because we want to trade.
Trade is about exchange products and services that we produce, not about paper, that's by the way, why gov't printing of fiat currency is just counterfeiting and an inflation tax, that's why gov'ts hate real money, it prevents this type of theft.
As to your final question, I spent 5 minutes replying to it here already, so I don't have to repeat it, here is the link.
As I said, the collective does not have authority to steal freedoms from the individual, and when it tries, it always backfires and makes whatever the perceived problem is worse.
AFAIC climate change or no climate change, we have to adapt to our changing environment all the time anyway, and we are doing a very good job at it without government.
There are over 7,000,000,000 people on this planet, NOT thanks to ANY government. Governments actually reduced the human the population of this earth by quite a chunk even just over the last 100 years.
What gives any gov't, any collective the authority to kill, to murder an individual? Governments get taken down for murder, that's the ultimate consequence, and then the economy may be even more destabilized and cause more pollution (which I agree, people do cause pollution).
It was not any government of the world that allowed over 7 billion people to exist, it was human ingenuity, it was free enterprise, it was people making a buck, running their own business, and that's the only thing that we can rely on to increase our wealth.
The problems that people may have with the pollution, etc., none of them will be solved by governments, governments will always make these problems worse. (for notes, see USSR's record on pollution, it was all government, nothing private.)
In any case, poor societies cannot solve any such problems, only wealthy societies solve them, and they do not solve them by decree of any gov't.
Child labor was not stopped by decree of any gov't, it was stopped because the parents of those kids didn't have to send them to work anymore, because the parents were made much more productive than they used to be before industrialization by private capitalists.
There will be no solutions from government, only problems, that is guaranteed. But more importantly, the gov't doesn't have moral authority over any individual person to tell them how to live their lives.
Somebody (I am not paying attention) mentioned conscription in cases of war. Well you know what, wars are also started by gov't. So the 'solution' - conscription, is again, to a problem that the gov't starts in the first place, and it's not a good solution for the conscripts at all, especially if they get killed in the process.
You are going to put a bunch of people on your altar, their lives, so that you can feel good about your collective actions. Just don't get caught by them.
This is ridiculous, isn't it? A patent system, that gov't introduces supposedly to encourage more innovation and invention is now being routed around because of the damage that it is causing.
It's damage that gov't involvement in the market is causing with all laws and this case is a good example even to the most staunch defenders of government intervention that it is damaging the clients, the end users, the consumers, because it can prevent you from having more choices (and thus from lower prices).
As always it is with all gov't regulations, laws, the actual effect is the exact opposite of the supposedly desired one, and it's always negative for the people.
As a sign of times, FBI should be renamed as iFB.
Come on, iFB, now on your iPad, iPod, iPhone and everything else.
Did I mention the universe doesn't care about dollar bills either?
- dollars, gold, whatever, it's expression of our effort, our human time on this rock. It's our lives and no collective can force an individual to spend his time on doing things the way the collective wants. The outcome will always be the opposite of what the supposed solution is going to take care of.
Individuals route around the damage caused by the collective in their lives, they look out for themselves, as they should.
Dollar bills? It's life years.
Like I answered to the other guy in this thread (it's my second account, the first is maxed out on comments today): where do you see any 'denial' of science in my comment? What is it with /. posters, the logic circuits are shorted or what?
I said that the government has no authority to limit individual freedoms regardless of what our predicament on this planet is. The individual is above the collective, that's all. The collective cannot force an individual to do what it wants, and when it tries, it always backfires, because individuals change their behavior accordingly, to repair the damage done by the collective and the collective always gets the exact opposite result of what it is supposedly aiming for.
Was gov't ever successful at programs that are this abstract? What? War on poverty? War on drugs? War on terror? Did the Patriot Act do it?
it's all war on freedom.