First is that gold bugs hate inflation. They see it as the ultimate evil. They like deflation.
- how about we rephrase that this way: people hate it when the governments and banks destroy the value of the money that they are making.
Are you enjoying it when the government reduces the value of your paycheck or value of a return on your investment or value of your savings simply by diluting the fiat currency that you are holding?
Seems you are in the camp maintaining that savings are bad and only bad people have savings. You believe that savings should be removed from people, you believe that stable and falling prices are bad, you believe that it is good when the government destroys the value of your paycheck and ensures that you can buy less with it over time instead of being able to buy more.
And you are marked 'insightful' no less while proclaiming that people who hate having money stolen from them as people who 'know shit about money'. Of-course if they 'know shit about money' while being 'gold bugs' it follows that they keep their savings in gold.
So when you are looking at somebody who was saving in gold instead of saving in dollars over the last 25 years for example, would you still maintain that they 'know shit about money' when in fact they ensured over that time period to avoid the inflation.
I am going to skip over the 'big amounts = good' nonsense.
Of-course you finish with 'gold and bitcoin have been on a run of late' showing that you don't know history of gold and you also place gold and bitcoins on the same level, which is maybe funny but not insightful.
These are government courts, so no. The courts need to be private, with competition among them, then it would be a private decision. As it stands today - no.
Don't ask me how I know about this, but weblogic (now oracle) process integration ide allows some code to be generated from flowcharts. It is horrendous code and the usefulness of what it can do is very low, but it can do some of it.
Obviously I do, if these are the only doctors in the vicinity then nobody else wants to be there. Remove these doctors from that area and there wouldn't be any doctors left there at all. But that is beside the point that in some areas there are only doctors who would cater to a subset of the population. The main point is that nobody should be oppressed by the government, including people who choose to discriminate for any reason and they happen to decide to start a business.
Individual discretion is the only sane system, government has no authority to prevent individuals from discriminating nor should government be allowed to have that authority. Individual rights must extend to property rights and property is what we are talking about here.
Any business is ran by individuals and has property, consequently government has no authority to take away individual rights and property rights and to oppress people because they are doing business in a way that government does not approve of.
Government shouldn't be monitoring and reporting and suing and providing legal framework for suing individuals and businesses that discriminate.
However individuals in the market have the right and ability to share information and rate businesses (just like people rate other people today). There is enough exchange of the information but nobody is looking for a utopia. Instead we have a distopian government system today that oppresses individuals just because they dared to start a business to provide products and services to the market segments they understand and want to work in.
There shouldn't be any government 'supporting' anybody in the first place. Infrastructure is not a government authority, it shouldn't be involved in it, there shouldn't be public roads, public grids, public anything.
As to what exists today: get back to me when you stop discriminating against all those people you didn't date, all those businesses you didn't frequent, all those rental properties you didn't live in, etc. Then talk about how *OTHERS* must be forced not to discriminate but it's Ok for you, though you are actually using the same roads, the same utilities, etc.
All businesses should be private, pharmacies, stores, utilities. Of-course businesses are owned by people (businesses are people) and people have the right to discriminate. You have the right to discriminate.
The right is protection against government oppression, you are free not to be oppressed by the government even though you discriminate on daily basis. You discriminated against all those people you didn't date, all those businesses you didn't deal with, all those landlord you didn't rent from, etc.
One day you decide to start your own business and aim your business at a particular segment of the population because that's where the money is for you. Then the government oppresses you and says: you must provide everybody with whatever it is you are doing, not just those people that you believe are the best market for the output of your work.
AFAIC government has no business licensing anybody, including doctors.
Of-course the patients should be shopping for doctors (regardless of the reason) and doctors should have their absolute right to discriminate against you for any reason at all. That's their business, go to a different doctor.
Without government licensing doctors there would be more doctors and it would be up to the market to decide what doctors are better than others and people with little money would have access to doctors that are cheaper than those who have more money and that's how it should be.
Let's just stop being the devil and admit that ADA and all other similar regulations are impediment to individual rights. We are all born with the right to discriminate, then we discriminate in our daily lives and nobody bothers us. But god forbid should we decide to start a business and help some people we actually *can* help the government prevents us unless we take it upon ourselves not to discriminate against everybody else.
This is complete nonsense, a person has the right to discriminate (if not, then you should be sued by every business that you discriminated against, by every person you didn't offer a date, by every landlord whose residence you skipped, etc.)
This was the best advertising for moving to Houston that I have ever read. No zoning by laws so everything is more convenient, no state income tax. Thank you, I will go to visit this August.
It is interesting, you are not advocating for the free market yet you admit that in a free market there wouldn't be the type of theft by some of the wealthy you are complaining about.
I never deny that in presence of government interfering with the market there is abuse by some of those who can buy the power, that's because the power is for sale. Clearly the solution is to ensure that there is no power that could be sold.
Your solution is to increase the amount of power allocated to the government and then somehow hope that for some reason there would be less theft? I don't see how you can hold these opposing views simultaneously.
Kochs would do fine in any market, but if it is the free market that you are after then you cannot simultaneously advocate for any form of income and property taxation and redistribution. Income and wealth taxation is the opposite of the free market, incompatible with it. Government ability to tax income and wealth is what destroys the concept of the free market.
Wrong, they didn't steal any money, the collective is stealing from them all the time and they do fight back of course.
Your comparison of a wage earner against money that a business makes is invalid. You can only sell your own time and labour, a business serves millions (in case of Kochs it sells to billions) and the owner is not paid a wage, he is getting a return on the investment.
Same user, backup account. Cannot comment from the first account for another 12 hours or so.
You managed to miss the entire point of my comment, of course this is unsurprising, it is impossible for you not to miss it, you are rationalizing the theft, you are gaining from it.
The point is (again) that the theft leads to government growth that collapses the economy, you are not a super wealthy, so you need a functioning economy, yet you will destroy it with the policies that inevitably lead to borrowing and printing of the money by the ever growing government to pay for the unsustainable growth.
As to the wealthy who are tied to the government and can use those connections to steal through the government - your policies create them.
The last few decades are the result of the collectivist policies backfiring, we are at the end of this cycle, you are not the lucky one to squeeze your life between the beginning and the end points of the gain received from the theft.
Silicon Valley has a problem, the problem is that California is full of socialists. San Jose is a beautiful place, really, I walked from Castro street to Google HQ and from Google HQ to Castro street two weeks ago, it is nice, nobody else was walking interestingly enough. I have been all over the world, California is similar to many other southern vacation destinations, more or less clean, green, sunny. Unfortunately it is also choke full of people who are under the impression they both know it best how other people should live and they are willing to impose their ideology upon others. This of-course inevitably means and requires more government (centralized) oppression of everybody. The authoritarians within the the collectivists are so transparent, they are practically their only defining feature. Can these people come up with ideas that do not require mass oppression and repression or is this completely impossible?
shit, I hope every cop gets replaced by a robot. Cops are robots already, at least a metal robot doesn't have a really good excuse to use lethal force when unnecessary.
code to throw the switch of a railroad track with an unstoppable locomotive barrelling down towards a group of three deaf people who could not hear it coming, while there is an invalid in a wheelchair on the side track who could not get out even if he could hear it coming
- I think this example is a hardware problem, there are no ethical issues to consider here, just throw an exception, catch it and send an email notification to all of the participants.
Here is a hint for you, use whatever is available at the time.
GPS is available so use it, whether or not GPS is available without government intervention. Without government destroying lives and wealth on wars (wars being large part of the reason for GPS deployment) the private industry would just as well provide GPS or similar solutions at the pace of private industry untouched by government caused conflicts and destruction.
By the way positioning systems can be built without space based GPS altogether, junior.
"Libertarian groupthink"? - I am not part of any group. What *I* think is that it is completely unnecessary, is a waste of money and as such is another power grab. Government is not needed to map areas and roads, this is done privately every day by phones, GPS navigators installed in vehicles, will be done with drones, with other personal devices. But as I said I am not part of any group, sure thing you will get your oppressive desire granted, governments do not need encouragement where it comes to such power grabs.
Well your head is broken. Inflation by government and central banks is what destroys the economy by stealing value of savings and spending that value on consumables and on growing the government at the expense of savings and of the productive economy. Savings is what actually allocates money in the free market, fiat and inflation are policies of theft and misallocation of scarce resources.
I don't wish death to people but i do drive satisfaction reading certain obituaries. All socialists, all fascists fall into the category of giving me that pleasure.
This is why products are overpriced for everyone, because the idiotic courts and governments meddle with businesses to offer this idiotic idea of so called 'fairness'.
How do these politicians and courts reconcile this idiotic power grab with another idiotic power grab - the so called progressive tax schemes? The government steals money from people (in form of taxes) at different *rates* depending on the level of income. Not the same rate, which at least would *be* fair even for a thief, but at different marginal rates.
So it is good enough for government to discriminate against people while stealing but not good enough for businesses to discriminate to allow the poorer people to get the advantage of buying at lower prices.
i don't think it is EVER a crime to share ANY information.
- how about your health data, purchasing habits, passwords to your online accounts, banking data? Just asking if you would keep that opinion if someone 'shared' all that on your behalf without consulting you first.
Slashdot Mirror
First is that gold bugs hate inflation. They see it as the ultimate evil. They like deflation.
- how about we rephrase that this way: people hate it when the governments and banks destroy the value of the money that they are making.
Are you enjoying it when the government reduces the value of your paycheck or value of a return on your investment or value of your savings simply by diluting the fiat currency that you are holding?
Seems you are in the camp maintaining that savings are bad and only bad people have savings. You believe that savings should be removed from people, you believe that stable and falling prices are bad, you believe that it is good when the government destroys the value of your paycheck and ensures that you can buy less with it over time instead of being able to buy more.
And you are marked 'insightful' no less while proclaiming that people who hate having money stolen from them as people who 'know shit about money'. Of-course if they 'know shit about money' while being 'gold bugs' it follows that they keep their savings in gold.
So when you are looking at somebody who was saving in gold instead of saving in dollars over the last 25 years for example, would you still maintain that they 'know shit about money' when in fact they ensured over that time period to avoid the inflation.
I am going to skip over the 'big amounts = good' nonsense.
Of-course you finish with 'gold and bitcoin have been on a run of late' showing that you don't know history of gold and you also place gold and bitcoins on the same level, which is maybe funny but not insightful.
I'll create a GUI interface using Visual Basic to see if I can track an IP address.
These are government courts, so no. The courts need to be private, with competition among them, then it would be a private decision. As it stands today - no.
Don't ask me how I know about this, but weblogic (now oracle) process integration ide allows some code to be generated from flowcharts. It is horrendous code and the usefulness of what it can do is very low, but it can do some of it.
Obviously I do, if these are the only doctors in the vicinity then nobody else wants to be there. Remove these doctors from that area and there wouldn't be any doctors left there at all. But that is beside the point that in some areas there are only doctors who would cater to a subset of the population. The main point is that nobody should be oppressed by the government, including people who choose to discriminate for any reason and they happen to decide to start a business.
Individual discretion is the only sane system, government has no authority to prevent individuals from discriminating nor should government be allowed to have that authority. Individual rights must extend to property rights and property is what we are talking about here.
Any business is ran by individuals and has property, consequently government has no authority to take away individual rights and property rights and to oppress people because they are doing business in a way that government does not approve of.
Government shouldn't be monitoring and reporting and suing and providing legal framework for suing individuals and businesses that discriminate.
However individuals in the market have the right and ability to share information and rate businesses (just like people rate other people today). There is enough exchange of the information but nobody is looking for a utopia. Instead we have a distopian government system today that oppresses individuals just because they dared to start a business to provide products and services to the market segments they understand and want to work in.
There shouldn't be any government 'supporting' anybody in the first place. Infrastructure is not a government authority, it shouldn't be involved in it, there shouldn't be public roads, public grids, public anything.
As to what exists today: get back to me when you stop discriminating against all those people you didn't date, all those businesses you didn't frequent, all those rental properties you didn't live in, etc. Then talk about how *OTHERS* must be forced not to discriminate but it's Ok for you, though you are actually using the same roads, the same utilities, etc.
All businesses should be private, pharmacies, stores, utilities. Of-course businesses are owned by people (businesses are people) and people have the right to discriminate. You have the right to discriminate.
The right is protection against government oppression, you are free not to be oppressed by the government even though you discriminate on daily basis. You discriminated against all those people you didn't date, all those businesses you didn't deal with, all those landlord you didn't rent from, etc.
One day you decide to start your own business and aim your business at a particular segment of the population because that's where the money is for you. Then the government oppresses you and says: you must provide everybody with whatever it is you are doing, not just those people that you believe are the best market for the output of your work.
AFAIC government has no business licensing anybody, including doctors.
Of-course the patients should be shopping for doctors (regardless of the reason) and doctors should have their absolute right to discriminate against you for any reason at all. That's their business, go to a different doctor.
Without government licensing doctors there would be more doctors and it would be up to the market to decide what doctors are better than others and people with little money would have access to doctors that are cheaper than those who have more money and that's how it should be.
Let's just stop being the devil and admit that ADA and all other similar regulations are impediment to individual rights. We are all born with the right to discriminate, then we discriminate in our daily lives and nobody bothers us. But god forbid should we decide to start a business and help some people we actually *can* help the government prevents us unless we take it upon ourselves not to discriminate against everybody else.
This is complete nonsense, a person has the right to discriminate (if not, then you should be sued by every business that you discriminated against, by every person you didn't offer a date, by every landlord whose residence you skipped, etc.)
This was the best advertising for moving to Houston that I have ever read. No zoning by laws so everything is more convenient, no state income tax. Thank you, I will go to visit this August.
It is interesting, you are not advocating for the free market yet you admit that in a free market there wouldn't be the type of theft by some of the wealthy you are complaining about.
I never deny that in presence of government interfering with the market there is abuse by some of those who can buy the power, that's because the power is for sale. Clearly the solution is to ensure that there is no power that could be sold.
Your solution is to increase the amount of power allocated to the government and then somehow hope that for some reason there would be less theft? I don't see how you can hold these opposing views simultaneously.
Kochs would do fine in any market, but if it is the free market that you are after then you cannot simultaneously advocate for any form of income and property taxation and redistribution. Income and wealth taxation is the opposite of the free market, incompatible with it. Government ability to tax income and wealth is what destroys the concept of the free market.
Wrong, they didn't steal any money, the collective is stealing from them all the time and they do fight back of course.
Your comparison of a wage earner against money that a business makes is invalid. You can only sell your own time and labour, a business serves millions (in case of Kochs it sells to billions) and the owner is not paid a wage, he is getting a return on the investment.
Same user, backup account. Cannot comment from the first account for another 12 hours or so.
You managed to miss the entire point of my comment, of course this is unsurprising, it is impossible for you not to miss it, you are rationalizing the theft, you are gaining from it.
The point is (again) that the theft leads to government growth that collapses the economy, you are not a super wealthy, so you need a functioning economy, yet you will destroy it with the policies that inevitably lead to borrowing and printing of the money by the ever growing government to pay for the unsustainable growth.
As to the wealthy who are tied to the government and can use those connections to steal through the government - your policies create them.
The last few decades are the result of the collectivist policies backfiring, we are at the end of this cycle, you are not the lucky one to squeeze your life between the beginning and the end points of the gain received from the theft.
Silicon Valley has a problem, the problem is that California is full of socialists. San Jose is a beautiful place, really, I walked from Castro street to Google HQ and from Google HQ to Castro street two weeks ago, it is nice, nobody else was walking interestingly enough. I have been all over the world, California is similar to many other southern vacation destinations, more or less clean, green, sunny. Unfortunately it is also choke full of people who are under the impression they both know it best how other people should live and they are willing to impose their ideology upon others. This of-course inevitably means and requires more government (centralized) oppression of everybody. The authoritarians within the the collectivists are so transparent, they are practically their only defining feature. Can these people come up with ideas that do not require mass oppression and repression or is this completely impossible?
shit, I hope every cop gets replaced by a robot. Cops are robots already, at least a metal robot doesn't have a really good excuse to use lethal force when unnecessary.
code to throw the switch of a railroad track with an unstoppable locomotive barrelling down towards a group of three deaf people who could not hear it coming, while there is an invalid in a wheelchair on the side track who could not get out even if he could hear it coming
- I think this example is a hardware problem, there are no ethical issues to consider here, just throw an exception, catch it and send an email notification to all of the participants.
Here is a hint for you, use whatever is available at the time.
GPS is available so use it, whether or not GPS is available without government intervention. Without government destroying lives and wealth on wars (wars being large part of the reason for GPS deployment) the private industry would just as well provide GPS or similar solutions at the pace of private industry untouched by government caused conflicts and destruction.
By the way positioning systems can be built without space based GPS altogether, junior.
"Libertarian groupthink"? - I am not part of any group. What *I* think is that it is completely unnecessary, is a waste of money and as such is another power grab. Government is not needed to map areas and roads, this is done privately every day by phones, GPS navigators installed in vehicles, will be done with drones, with other personal devices. But as I said I am not part of any group, sure thing you will get your oppressive desire granted, governments do not need encouragement where it comes to such power grabs.
Well your head is broken. Inflation by government and central banks is what destroys the economy by stealing value of savings and spending that value on consumables and on growing the government at the expense of savings and of the productive economy. Savings is what actually allocates money in the free market, fiat and inflation are policies of theft and misallocation of scarce resources.
I don't wish death to people but i do drive satisfaction reading certain obituaries. All socialists, all fascists fall into the category of giving me that pleasure.
This is why products are overpriced for everyone, because the idiotic courts and governments meddle with businesses to offer this idiotic idea of so called 'fairness'.
How do these politicians and courts reconcile this idiotic power grab with another idiotic power grab - the so called progressive tax schemes? The government steals money from people (in form of taxes) at different *rates* depending on the level of income. Not the same rate, which at least would *be* fair even for a thief, but at different marginal rates.
So it is good enough for government to discriminate against people while stealing but not good enough for businesses to discriminate to allow the poorer people to get the advantage of buying at lower prices.
This is good stuff, uber is doing something good here. They are actually innovating and opening more space to competition. I like it.
Well, families are not that different today, marriage is a contract and often it is terminated (by one side or sometimes mutually).
i don't think it is EVER a crime to share ANY information.
- how about your health data, purchasing habits, passwords to your online accounts, banking data? Just asking if you would keep that opinion if someone 'shared' all that on your behalf without consulting you first.