The space elevator is the answer to the *launch* cost problem, not nuclear power. [cough]
A space elevator makes no economic sense. If by the answer to the launch cost problem you mean "government subsidy for ever". Then yes it might be, otherwise not.
You can't own land, but you can occupy it and use it. If you don't want someone else using it, then you have to get there first and start using it yourself. But you don't own it, you have no right to stop them using it, whether you're there first or not.
It's not nice, but capitalism seldom is nice unless the government steps in and makes some rule Actually what happens is that the employer making unreasonable requests loses their best employees who simply go to a competitor, taking their knowledge, experience, contacts with them.
no employer has the right to treat their employees as cattle. Nicely emotive, but requesting the implantation of an RFID chip isn't treating an employee as a cow. Unlike a cow, an employee can tell the employer to go and take a running jump, as any sane person would.
Where is your "choice" now? Your choice is to change field and do something else.
Having said that... What if the President of the US personally transports a nuclear weapon to your house, keys in the activation codes and blows it up with you standing there beside it? What would you do then?
I appreciate your correction of my grammar mistakes "grammatical"
You are much better than than the rest grammar nazis I've met on slash dot. "of the" and "slashdot".
Locks make no sense, at least not for consumers/customers. I can see how it could work to their benefit The reason locking came about is that telcos were subsidising phones. That $30 locked phone you've got? Cost $45 and would retail for $90. They make their money back over the years on call charges.
Classical liberalism specified a goal, not a means. Libertarianism is a means without a goal No, the means and the goal are very similar.
From the libertarian Party Web Site
"Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission of electing Libertarians to public office.
Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.
In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom." From the Wikipedia entry for Classical Liberalism:
"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3], Montesquieu, Voltaire [4] and others." The difference is one of marketing, and perhaps your perception.
Libertarians just tend to take these essential ideas to an extreme and use them in ways and cases that would make most people cringe I disagree. It's simply that the more extreme the libertarians the more "air time" they get.
I can attest that libertarians (or ultra-liberals as we tend to call them where I live) are considered only a few pennies short of insane, but I can easily understand why they are prevalent in the American (USA) society. Actually. Libertarianism is very similar to classical liberalism. Most of those who call themselves liberal today are in fact social democrats, not liberal at all.
"To put it succinctly, the libertarian believes in the freedom of individuals to pursue their lives as they see fit, as long as they cause no harm to others, with minimal governmental interference."
If I want to rape someone, that desire may well overcome any perceived benefit to the 'flock' of not raping someone, without further preventative measures in place. Libertarians basically believe that the individual should generally be free to do as they wish as long as it doesn't harm others. Clearly your example is one of harming others... Is that really such a difficult concept to understand?
I have no idea where the good of the flock appeared in my original post. The flock, or society is the result of emergent behaviour of many individuals. The mistake that both socialists and conservatives make is to believe "society" is an entity in it's own right and that it must be shaped and directed.
They are imposing their view of how the world must work on everyone, whether they want it or not. The inevitable result for both socialists and conservatives is the inevitable removal of freedom and an authoritarian state.
Geeks and nerds from other countries turn into lefties No. They are liberals.
Now, liberalism and libertarianism are very similar, almost identical. However the word liberal has been corrupted to mean left. Which is why you're so confused. Sweden's been privatising like good Thatcherites because they couldn't afford the soaring costs. Heading towards a liberal democracy rather than a social democracy.
How anyone can think the private sector is a panacea is beyond me. I don't think anyone but you think anyone actually believes that.
The fundamental concept of it is simple, and easily understood, but the the effects of it are complex, profound and clearly difficult to understand.
Lets take a flock of birds as an example. The flock itself is a complex, dynamic and extremely confusing system but the rules which govern that behaviour are very simple.
It's a similar principle with libertarianism, the result is emergent behaviour. The difference between socialists, conservatives and libertarians is that socialists and conservatives think the best way to run things is to put the flock into a box.
While at the same time ignoring human nature and the fact that people aren't rational actors motivated solely to maximise profit. Liberalism, libertarianism and free markets make no such assumptions.
They simply decide that it's generally better to allow people to do as they wish, as long as they aren't harming the rights of others.
There's a difference between socialism and social democrats. Your typical socialists would have everything nationalised, under the control of politicians. Typical social democrats will see that it makes sense to nationalise a few things here or there but leave the rest pretty much alone.
There are no socialist governments left in Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
A space elevator makes no economic sense. If by the answer to the launch cost problem you mean "government subsidy for ever". Then yes it might be, otherwise not.
Yes. War is about ownership...
On the other hand we've had 30 years of stagnation.
First and foremost, it has to go. Nothing is going to happen in space until that moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
It essentially bans property in space and therefore there is little incentive to bother going there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_based_monetary_s ystem
Personal choice.
Having said that... What if the President of the US personally transports a nuclear weapon to your house, keys in the activation codes and blows it up with you standing there beside it? What would you do then?
http://lowery.tamu.edu/Teaming/Morgan1/sld023.htm
See if technology will allow you to move down the pyramid.
You're welcome.
I have no idea if the iPhone is subsidised.
And very influential.
From the libertarian Party Web Site "Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission of electing Libertarians to public office.
Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.
In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom." From the Wikipedia entry for Classical Liberalism: "Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3], Montesquieu, Voltaire [4] and others." The difference is one of marketing, and perhaps your perception.
"To put it succinctly, the libertarian believes in the freedom of individuals to pursue their lives as they see fit, as long as they cause no harm to others, with minimal governmental interference."
Quoted from
I have no idea where the good of the flock appeared in my original post. The flock, or society is the result of emergent behaviour of many individuals. The mistake that both socialists and conservatives make is to believe "society" is an entity in it's own right and that it must be shaped and directed.
They are imposing their view of how the world must work on everyone, whether they want it or not. The inevitable result for both socialists and conservatives is the inevitable removal of freedom and an authoritarian state.
Now, liberalism and libertarianism are very similar, almost identical. However the word liberal has been corrupted to mean left. Which is why you're so confused. Sweden's been privatising like good Thatcherites because they couldn't afford the soaring costs. Heading towards a liberal democracy rather than a social democracy. How anyone can think the private sector is a panacea is beyond me. I don't think anyone but you think anyone actually believes that.
The fundamental concept of it is simple, and easily understood, but the the effects of it are complex, profound and clearly difficult to understand.
Lets take a flock of birds as an example. The flock itself is a complex, dynamic and extremely confusing system but the rules which govern that behaviour are very simple.
http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/
It's a similar principle with libertarianism, the result is emergent behaviour. The difference between socialists, conservatives and libertarians is that socialists and conservatives think the best way to run things is to put the flock into a box.
They simply decide that it's generally better to allow people to do as they wish, as long as they aren't harming the rights of others.
What's a "true" libertarian?
Or are told what to do by someone else.
You know your own agenda and motives. You only have someone else's word about theirs.
There's a difference between socialism and social democrats. Your typical socialists would have everything nationalised, under the control of politicians. Typical social democrats will see that it makes sense to nationalise a few things here or there but leave the rest pretty much alone.
There are no socialist governments left in Europe.