By somehow, I'm betting that it still won't be what Napster was in the glory days: a way to get old niche music that was out of publication and liked by me but not that many other people.
Should online journalists receive the same rights as traditional reporters?
That's easy. Journalists should receive no special rights at all that other people don't have. There should be no statutory distinction at all between a journalist and a person. And then it becomes clear that bloggers are just people, with the same rights as everyone.
And what rights does a person have in this kind of case? Well, unless you and I have some kind of agreement to the contrary, I don't owe you anything other than to respect your rights. If you want me to keep something secret, require me to sign a non-disclosure as a condition of knowing it.
I'm a libertarian and I get mod points about once a week. Not only that, I'm an anarchist, a conservative, and a fundamentalist, and I don't shy away from expressing those views when it's on topic. Somehow I haven't been hit by any such thing. I really do think it has a lot to do with the amount of reading you do... I first started getting mod points after I took week long vacations. But I think it's been tinkered with since then.
Price gouging is not "responding to market forces", it's intentionally eliminating the market by leveraging your resources (cash reserves) against the weaker competition.
Quick question: how many of the links off that Google search that I linked to did you read before responding? Read this one and tell me if Jason McBride managed to eliminate any markets. Can you provide for me a mathematically rigorous definition that distinguishes price gouging from responding to market forces?
Anyway, this thread is days old, and I'm pretty much done unless you have something spectacularly new and interesting to offer me. I'm sure we'll cross paths again with another chance to discuss the same subject.
Did you provide a mathematically rigorous criterion that can distinguish "price gouging" from "responding to market forces"?
In a time of crisis, price gouging weighs survival towards the economically fit. Which is an inherently un-Christlike thing to do. What if price gouging means that somebody can't afford necessary goods to survive? Price gouging for necessary items during crisis means that the poor die and the wealthy survive. If you feel that this is somehow compatible with Christ's teachings, then I guess we'll both find out at the pearly gates, won't we?
I guarantee that Christ's teachings do not require me to use force on the wealthy to make them do right toward their poor neighbors. I'm ordered to do certain things, and given zero authority at all to make other people do those things.
Oh how I love being lectured about the Bible by a man named Heretik.
You provide for your own by working, and by not taking from others. (II Thessalonians 3:7-10). When you interfere with people responding to market forces through prices, YOU are actually stealing from both them and from their customers. Maximum prices cause shortages. Always.
Thanks for sharing. I love receiving lectures on Scripture from people who don't believe it. (Assuming this is the case here, because you're anonymous and so I can't check your history, and because that is usually a safe bet on Slashdot.)
Jesus also said "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." (I Timothy 5:8) If you'd actually go read some of the articles I linked to, you'd see why in some circumstances what is called "price gouging" (and there is no mathematically rigorous criterion that can distinguish "price gouging" from "responding to market forces") is sometimes necessary in order for a man to provide for his family... for example, the case when a man runs a gas station and suddenly has no idea whether or not he'll receive a shipment of gas tomorrow, or for the foreseeable future.
The exact balance between what a man should own and keep from his income and what he should give is a matter of personal choice for which he is accountable only to God: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God." (Acts 5:4, where a man loses his life not for giving all but for lying about how much he gave; the apostle Peter affirms that it had been up to the dead man what to do with the money and he could have kept it) "Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver." (II Corinthians 9:7)
And interfering with a voluntary transaction between individuals is completely unChristian. It's one thing to run up and say, "Hey, didn't you know you can get gas at a cheaper price around the block?" It's another to restrict a man's liberty to pay more in order to obtain the gas he needs when the market cannot otherwise provide it. You have no idea how much he needs it, and it's none of your business. Christians are nowhere in Scripture empowered to exercise that kind of force over other people. And when such maximum prices are imposed, shortages are ALWAYS the result. Always.
The important thing is for a man to work to feed his family: "For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat." (II Thessalonians 3:10) Such infringements of liberty prevent some men from working in order to eat and provide for their own, and permit other people to obtain something for nothing, without having to work for it.
Okay, sorry to hear about that, but it still seems counterproductive to hold to the idea that the man meant 1.80% of minimum wage when he's stated that he meant minimum wage + 80% of profit.
Been reading dada21's stuff since January now. Every single post. He's discussed this before... trust me, he means a bonus consisting of 80% of the profits. And I even pointed out to him that most people seemed to be misunderstanding, which he hadn't realized until then. So yeah, go on telling yourself he pays 1.8 x minimum wage if you want. If you think that, then why you should care so strongly is beyond me... economics would definitely take care of him, if that were the case.
You know, I occasionally get the opportunity to preach, and I've actually preached about the evil covetousness that causes people to make up false "crimes" like "gouging." I explain the true economics of the situation, and explain that such "gougers" are doing exactly what they should do in order to follow Biblical commands such as providing for their own (I Timothy 5:8). At least two churches have heard me do this. So far, I have yet to hear any complaints.
This piece of understanding was passed on to me by another Christian, long ago (even before I was an anarcho-capitalist).
I have seen posts from dada21 on how he pays employees etc.
Be aware that almost everybody misunderstood what he meant when he was talking about that the other day. Everybody thought he meant minimum wage plus 80% of minimum wage as a bonus, but what he actually said was minimum wage plus 80% of the PROFIT. In other words, work for Adam Dada, complete a $200K project, and get minimum wage plus 80 percent of $200K!! (I dunno if he has any projects that big, and of course he means net profit, not gross.) You might want to go back and reread some of those posts, in that light.
Last night for my birthday I received an Atari Flashback 2 from my wife, and it's one of the best gifts I can think of. (And it only cost $15 on ebay.) And there's a secret code to enable two paddle games, which I could never play on my old Atari because there was a problem with the jacks that kept them from working with paddles. We had a blast playing, with the baby crawling all over the place getting in the way.:)
In all seriousness I can't think at the moment what Sony's machine was called. Was it Dreamcast? I like older stuff... Atari 2600, 5200, Nintendo, early Super Nintendo, Epyx games on my Apple II. I just don't like what people call a "game" today for the most part. (I enjoy Freeciv. Does that count?)
Ahh, I see now why some people were flabbergasted.
Well, that and some people just want to be jerks, or just want to assume that you are a jerk. Anyway, I saw it as a common thread in several responses, and I wasn't sure you saw it. Thought it might help refine your comments for next time; spell it out, they WANT to miss what you have to say...
I'm just now catching up on this discussion, and it looks like an enormous number of people who hear you say "minimum wage plus 80% project bonus" think you mean "minimum wage plus 80% of minimum wage bonus." Even when you say it's a project bonus. I think you should spell out for them that you mean they get a minimum wage plus 80% of whatever the payment for the project is.
We're kind of in an uncertain state. In terms of what most slashdotters think of as a fundamentalist by belief, I am one. And most Protestants would probably regard me that way, until they look really closely at my church, which adheres to a couple of doctrines that are more Catholic than Protestant (hey, I can't help it; they're simply right on such things) and then they start viewing us as not fundamentalist at all, and probably not even saved. (And to a slashdotter I think I'm really surprising because I'm just not interested in coercion, nor do I regard it as a big deal to say, "Well, maybe the theistic evolution model could be true, but I just don't think so.")
In terms of personal labels, I do consider myself a fundamentalist. And the online religious circles I run in are very decidedly fundamentalist.
Slashdot Mirror
By somehow, I'm betting that it still won't be what Napster was in the glory days: a way to get old niche music that was out of publication and liked by me but not that many other people.
Should online journalists receive the same rights as traditional reporters?
That's easy. Journalists should receive no special rights at all that other people don't have. There should be no statutory distinction at all between a journalist and a person. And then it becomes clear that bloggers are just people, with the same rights as everyone.
And what rights does a person have in this kind of case? Well, unless you and I have some kind of agreement to the contrary, I don't owe you anything other than to respect your rights. If you want me to keep something secret, require me to sign a non-disclosure as a condition of knowing it.
I don't know why, but that made me laugh louder than anything on slashdot has in a long time. Thanks, AC!
I'm a libertarian and I get mod points about once a week. Not only that, I'm an anarchist, a conservative, and a fundamentalist, and I don't shy away from expressing those views when it's on topic. Somehow I haven't been hit by any such thing. I really do think it has a lot to do with the amount of reading you do ... I first started getting mod points after I took week long vacations. But I think it's been tinkered with since then.
Price gouging is not "responding to market forces", it's intentionally eliminating the market by leveraging your resources (cash reserves) against the weaker competition.
Quick question: how many of the links off that Google search that I linked to did you read before responding? Read this one and tell me if Jason McBride managed to eliminate any markets. Can you provide for me a mathematically rigorous definition that distinguishes price gouging from responding to market forces?
Anyway, this thread is days old, and I'm pretty much done unless you have something spectacularly new and interesting to offer me. I'm sure we'll cross paths again with another chance to discuss the same subject.
I don't think you really have an interest in Christ's teachings.
Then I imagine when you came to that conclusion you were glad to realize we had something in common.
Did you provide a mathematically rigorous criterion that can distinguish "price gouging" from "responding to market forces"?
In a time of crisis, price gouging weighs survival towards the economically fit. Which is an inherently un-Christlike thing to do. What if price gouging means that somebody can't afford necessary goods to survive? Price gouging for necessary items during crisis means that the poor die and the wealthy survive. If you feel that this is somehow compatible with Christ's teachings, then I guess we'll both find out at the pearly gates, won't we?
I guarantee that Christ's teachings do not require me to use force on the wealthy to make them do right toward their poor neighbors. I'm ordered to do certain things, and given zero authority at all to make other people do those things.
You're right. There oughtta be a law!
Oh how I love being lectured about the Bible by a man named Heretik.
You provide for your own by working, and by not taking from others. (II Thessalonians 3:7-10). When you interfere with people responding to market forces through prices, YOU are actually stealing from both them and from their customers. Maximum prices cause shortages. Always.
Thanks for sharing. I love receiving lectures on Scripture from people who don't believe it. (Assuming this is the case here, because you're anonymous and so I can't check your history, and because that is usually a safe bet on Slashdot.)
Jesus also said "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." (I Timothy 5:8) If you'd actually go read some of the articles I linked to, you'd see why in some circumstances what is called "price gouging" (and there is no mathematically rigorous criterion that can distinguish "price gouging" from "responding to market forces") is sometimes necessary in order for a man to provide for his family ... for example, the case when a man runs a gas station and suddenly has no idea whether or not he'll receive a shipment of gas tomorrow, or for the foreseeable future.
The exact balance between what a man should own and keep from his income and what he should give is a matter of personal choice for which he is accountable only to God: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God." (Acts 5:4, where a man loses his life not for giving all but for lying about how much he gave; the apostle Peter affirms that it had been up to the dead man what to do with the money and he could have kept it) "Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver." (II Corinthians 9:7)
And interfering with a voluntary transaction between individuals is completely unChristian. It's one thing to run up and say, "Hey, didn't you know you can get gas at a cheaper price around the block?" It's another to restrict a man's liberty to pay more in order to obtain the gas he needs when the market cannot otherwise provide it. You have no idea how much he needs it, and it's none of your business. Christians are nowhere in Scripture empowered to exercise that kind of force over other people. And when such maximum prices are imposed, shortages are ALWAYS the result. Always.
The important thing is for a man to work to feed his family: "For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat." (II Thessalonians 3:10) Such infringements of liberty prevent some men from working in order to eat and provide for their own, and permit other people to obtain something for nothing, without having to work for it.
Okay, sorry to hear about that, but it still seems counterproductive to hold to the idea that the man meant 1.80% of minimum wage when he's stated that he meant minimum wage + 80% of profit.
Learn economics.
Been reading dada21's stuff since January now. Every single post. He's discussed this before ... trust me, he means a bonus consisting of 80% of the profits. And I even pointed out to him that most people seemed to be misunderstanding, which he hadn't realized until then. So yeah, go on telling yourself he pays 1.8 x minimum wage if you want. If you think that, then why you should care so strongly is beyond me ... economics would definitely take care of him, if that were the case.
You know, I occasionally get the opportunity to preach, and I've actually preached about the evil covetousness that causes people to make up false "crimes" like "gouging." I explain the true economics of the situation, and explain that such "gougers" are doing exactly what they should do in order to follow Biblical commands such as providing for their own (I Timothy 5:8). At least two churches have heard me do this. So far, I have yet to hear any complaints.
This piece of understanding was passed on to me by another Christian, long ago (even before I was an anarcho-capitalist).
I have seen posts from dada21 on how he pays employees etc.
Be aware that almost everybody misunderstood what he meant when he was talking about that the other day. Everybody thought he meant minimum wage plus 80% of minimum wage as a bonus, but what he actually said was minimum wage plus 80% of the PROFIT. In other words, work for Adam Dada, complete a $200K project, and get minimum wage plus 80 percent of $200K!! (I dunno if he has any projects that big, and of course he means net profit, not gross.) You might want to go back and reread some of those posts, in that light.
Last night for my birthday I received an Atari Flashback 2 from my wife, and it's one of the best gifts I can think of. (And it only cost $15 on ebay.) And there's a secret code to enable two paddle games, which I could never play on my old Atari because there was a problem with the jacks that kept them from working with paddles. We had a blast playing, with the baby crawling all over the place getting in the way. :)
In all seriousness I can't think at the moment what Sony's machine was called. Was it Dreamcast? I like older stuff ... Atari 2600, 5200, Nintendo, early Super Nintendo, Epyx games on my Apple II. I just don't like what people call a "game" today for the most part. (I enjoy Freeciv. Does that count?)
Ahh, I see now why some people were flabbergasted.
Well, that and some people just want to be jerks, or just want to assume that you are a jerk. Anyway, I saw it as a common thread in several responses, and I wasn't sure you saw it. Thought it might help refine your comments for next time; spell it out, they WANT to miss what you have to say...
I'm just now catching up on this discussion, and it looks like an enormous number of people who hear you say "minimum wage plus 80% project bonus" think you mean "minimum wage plus 80% of minimum wage bonus." Even when you say it's a project bonus. I think you should spell out for them that you mean they get a minimum wage plus 80% of whatever the payment for the project is.
You pay minimum wage, plus a bonus of up to 80%. That's 9.25 an hour?
Huh? Minimum wage plus 80% of the profits, not 80% of minimum wage.
2. Give you show credits towards your subscribed shows for watching them as a separate batch.
Sounds like a good idea to me! I start the commercials downloading, take a bathroom break while they play, and come back to free show credits! :)
Heh. I should start referring to myself as a "fundamentalist hacker" and really make some heads spin.
If that fails to be entertaining enough, try "fundamentalist anarchist hacker" and see what happens. :)
Yeah, actually it was one message, moderated 10 times, according to my messages. Although that may not be over yet; you never know.
Thank you! That's so much more efficient! And a level above the discourse often employed by both sides of the discussion...
We're kind of in an uncertain state. In terms of what most slashdotters think of as a fundamentalist by belief, I am one. And most Protestants would probably regard me that way, until they look really closely at my church, which adheres to a couple of doctrines that are more Catholic than Protestant (hey, I can't help it; they're simply right on such things) and then they start viewing us as not fundamentalist at all, and probably not even saved. (And to a slashdotter I think I'm really surprising because I'm just not interested in coercion, nor do I regard it as a big deal to say, "Well, maybe the theistic evolution model could be true, but I just don't think so.")
In terms of personal labels, I do consider myself a fundamentalist. And the online religious circles I run in are very decidedly fundamentalist.