The problem is when [AOL] decides that they can extort money out of [YouTube], by throttling the traffic between [You] and [YouTube] unless [YouTube] pays them some money - regardless of the fact that [AOL] doesn't actually provide any service to [YouTube]. They try to use the justification that with there being so much high bandwidth content around that they can't handle the load anymore, so someone has to pay. But they gloss over the fact that someone _IS_ paying: [You], the customer that actually requested the content from [YouTube] in the first place.
No, the problem is that Net Neutrality would prevent [YouTube] from make a deal with [AOL] to bundle faster or more reliable access between [You] and [YouTube] with their service (without also subsidizing their competitors). A dedicated link to a single content provider can be cheaper than a fast link to the Internet at large, and forcing Internet users to pay for fast access to every site through their ISP (as opposed to just those sites they wish to access, funded through a subscription to the content provider) penalizes popular sites and subsidizes unpopular ones. Just like cable channel bundling, it's nice for people who like the unpopular channels, since they don't have to pay full price, but it raises costs for everyone else.
I was a little unsure what exactly you were advocating in the original post, and now I know. While your arguments highlight the theoretical positive effects of deflation, the empirical evidence of the negative effects of deflation on an economy tends to sway me towards the side of inflationary policies. Most notably, Japan's ~15 years of deflation, during which their economy has not done terribly well.
How about the United States? The second example on your source links to "The Great Deflation":
The Great Deflation refers to the period from 1870 until 1890 in which world prices of goods, materials and labor decreased. This had a negative effect on established industrial economies such as Great Britain while simultaneously allowing incredible growth in the United States which was just beginning to industrialize.
I'd say that counts as "deflation working to boost a country's economy." The "negative effect" in Great Britain was probably the result of a less downwardly-flexible price structure, resulting from merchantilist policies and stubborn labor unions.[1] Also, as it's described in the linked Wikipedia page, I'd say that the falling price levels in Japan were the result of (prior) inflationary policies (leading to the equity and real-estate bubbles) and centralized fractional-reserve banking. In fact, this case sounds a lot like the Great Depression: it followed an inflationary boom, which the government and central bank attempted (and failed) to prolong by further inflating the money supply and cutting interest rates. There were two opposing forces active simultaneously: the deflationary correction to the prior inflationary boom economy, and the attempts if their government and central bank to counter the deflation through further inflation. You are blaming the former influence for their economic troubles; I would blame the latter.
Hong Kong appears to have been very similar, with deflation following extensive prior inflationary policies: "In October 1997, the Hong Kong dollar, which was pegged at 7.8 to the US dollar, came under speculative pressure since Hong Kong's inflation rate was significantly higher than that of the US for years" (emphasis added). Whenever any commodity or currency becomes overvalued (through inflation, for example) the eventual result is a downward correction in its price (i.e. deflation). The downward price correction is the cure, not the disease. Furthermore, the effects of falling prices in an undistorted economy, in which there is no overvaluation, cannot be directly compared with the effects of corrective deflation. The former need not have any ill effect, real or perceived, whereas the latter inevitably exposes the malinvestments made during the inflationary boom.
[1] Downwardly-inflexible wage rates were also the reason given to justify later inflation in the United States. It was thought that inflation would fool the labor union into accepting falling real wages as long as monetary wages did not decrease. It didn't take long, however, for the unions to notice the discrepency and institute inflation-indexed wages, thus nullifying any advantage this approach may have offered.
Stock speculation is certainly gambling..but INVESTING is not gambling. Yes I know this is off topic, sorry.
Technically even gambling isn't "gambling" (in the sense of the parent post) if you do it professionally, estimating the odds and betting consistently based on the probabilities. It becomes a simple matter of class-based risk, just like an investment or insurance policy.
I think another factor to consider is the investment effect of deflation vs. inflation. Inflation encourages investment and creation of value in the economy (if you don't do anything with your money, it loses value), while deflation discourages investment (the real value increases with nothing done on your part - you can stuff it in a mattress).
I think that's why deflation scares a lot of economists...you could reach a point in a deflationary economy where people start saving/not investing too much and your economy starts a downward slide.
You've described the common fear fairly well, but that's not how things would actually work out. For one thing, inflation does encourage investment: malinvestment, investment in unprofitable lines of production. The extra money creates a boom economy in the short term by distorting the normal market signals that would reflect the social rate of time preference. Later, when the inflation slows or ends, as it eventually must, at risk of sparking hyperinflation, the malinvestment is revealed: the increased demand for capital goods (projected on the basis of the lowered interest rates) simply doesn't exist. Too much has been invested in the earlier stages of the production process (capital good production) and nothing remains for the later stages (as prices have risen to offset the artificially low interest rates). The resulting readjustment can be short and sharp (a depression) or long and slow (a recession), depending on whether the inflationary policies are abandoned or simply reduced. The shortest and least painful way through the readjustment period is to end the inflation, accept the falling prices (including falling wages), and move on. Trying to cushion the blow with additional inflation (or, worse, minimum prices/wages) can only drag things out and add to the overall cost of recovery.
As for deflation inhibiting investment: yes, deflation means you don't have to invest money to gain value over time. Your savings are safe, you don't have to risk your retirement money on the stock market to avoid devaluation. On the other hand, the return from investment is even better in a deflationary economy; you can put your money in a mattress at +2% adjusted returns, or you can invest it for +7% adjusted returns (assuming a 5% increase in quantity). In a 2% inflationary economy the same investment would give you between +3% and +5% adjusted returns, depending on how well the company shields itself from the inflation, compared to a -2% adjusted return on cash holdings. The inflation does give up to 2% extra incentive to invest (just as widespread theft creates an incentive to store money in a bank), but even a deflationary economy will pay better returns for investment than for "hoarding". In fact, a deflationary economy would make investment in low-yield ventures reasonable, whereas inflationary policies makes any investment paying less than the going inflation rate an economic loss.
In the end, of course, the balance of consumption vs. investment vs. cash holdings is a matter of time preferences and demand for money, and fooling people through money manipulation into investing (or consuming, or "hoarding") more or less than they wish to is not a viable long-term strategy.
Lots of people say they don't want this stuff. But on election day, 99% of them say they want government to address their concerns or solve their problems. Yes, 99%.
I'm sorry, but when have 99% of the people in this country ever shown up to vote on election day?
I include non-voters in the 99% figure. Not going to the polls is just a perverted form of voting: deferring to the people who bother to show up. To quote Rush: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Even if non-voting were somehow equivalent to voting (which is ridiculus BTW; it would make both voting and non-voting meaningless words), non-voting can hardly be considered equivalent to saying that "they want government to address their concerns or solve their problems." Choosing not to vote for a political candidate cannot imply support for the opposition, particularly where the goals of the opponent are nearly identical to those of the rejected candidate, so your objection doesn't help your argument at all; the petitioners for government involvement are still limited to no more than the two-thirds of the voting-age population that show up to vote.
There are plenty of reasons not to vote besides apathy, laziness, or support for a known majority position. Besides despair over lack of choices, the non-voter may be unable to justify the cost of voting (mainly time spent waiting, with all the attendant opportunity costs), or be in a position where their vote is relevant. All known-minority votes are wasted, since even taken together they can have no influence on the candidate chosen; most areas can be (and are) predicted with a fair degree of certainty well before the election. Excepting the rare contested region, the minority in each area might as well not vote at all. Even where the outcome is in doubt the anticipated cost to the average person of losing the election to an opponent (in new laws or tax increases) may not exceed the trouble of taking several hours out of a workday to show up to vote, particularly when similar costs would be present regardless of the party elected. Members of special-interest groups generally have much more to gain individually than the average person has to lose, as taxes are diffused over a large population whereas payouts are concentrated on a small fraction.
Alternately, the non-voter may be opposed to the entire democratic system (as I am), and thus have a moral objection to voting itself, in which case they cannot support their position except by not voting; voting against the system, even were there a candidate to represent that position, would undermine the position itself. A vote for a winning representative implies support and responsibility for whatever changes they might make while in office. As a libertarian, I will not, by voting or in any other way, force others to do as I desire, save to counter clear and immediate aggression against myself; I cannot appoint a representative to do so in my stead without abandoning my principles.
Lots of people say they don't want this stuff. But on election day, 99% of them say they want government to address their concerns or solve their problems. Yes, 99%.
I'm sorry, but when have 99% of the people in this country ever shown up to vote on election day? According to a government report on voting statistics in the 2004 elections, the highest percentage of voting-age citizens to turn up at the polls was 68% in 1992 (page 1) -- just over two-thirds of potential voters. At most your argument demonstrates that up to "99%" of those that vote recognize the power of government and want to influence that power for their own benefit. I say "up to" because a fair number of them might very well wish only to counter the influence of those who would try to enslave and rob them through new victimless-crime laws and higher taxes. Voting, by itself, does not and cannot demonstrate support for interventionalist policies.
People say that governments, taxation, etc. exist to correct externalities that supposedly cripple voluntary interaction, but what about the externalities inherent in voting? An individual's vote only counts for anything if a near-majority of other individuals vote the same way; the majority is represented completely and the minority not at all. All governments favor the majority, on whose aquiescence their continued existance depends, but only democracies draw such a sharp distinction between the ruling majority and the enslaved minorities. Luckily we do not live in a pure democracy -- the Constitution hasn't been completely nullified yet -- but it's only a matter of time before that last rights-equalizing barrier is overcome.
Government is all about the use of force. That's what government is, the only thing that it can do, and what it is good for. When you say you want government to do something, that means you want force.
I agree, which is why I oppose government influence in all its miriad forms, just as I would oppose any other aggressive individual or criminal organization.
I sure hope nobody tells my public library that "lending of sound recordings is specificially prohibited." I can find things there that even emule doesn't have!
Libraries (and academic institutions) are protected by special exceptions. I only quoted the parts applicable to the general public. It's all there if you just follow the links I provided.
As I said, IANAL. The relevant portion of the Act (Title 17 106(3)) reads as follows:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: . . . (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; . ..
109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. . ..
(b)(1)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. . ..
It appears that an exception was later introduced for direct sale; Congress probably realized that the original wording of the Act was far too restrictive in that area after a court case or two. However, lending of "sound recordings" is still specificially prohibited by the Act, and that was what the GGP poster referred to.
Perhaps a minor point, but it was always my impression that ANY of the Eldar could travel the straight path to Aman, not just exiled Noldor - so Celeborn and Legolas would be eligible to go West, the latter being strongly hinted at in Tolkien's writings.
Celeborn's precise ancestry is uncertain; the most plausable accounts seem to indicate that he was an exile, of sorts, but not one of the Noldor, having journeyed to Middle-Earth prior to the Kinslaying. You may be right about the priviledge being extended to more than just the Exiles, though; the Wikipedia page on the Akallabêth does indicate that the priviledge was extended to all Elves. (I don't have my copy of the Silmarrilion at the moment to verify that.)
Yeah, geesh, I guess it probably is NOW ILLEGAL TO LOAN a VCR tape, CD or DVD, and it can only get worse.
IANAL, but if you read over the Copyright Act (hereafter known as the Act) it appears that both resale and loan of copyrighted works are rights restricted to the copyright holder. Courts have typically classified these actions as "fair use" when applied non-commercially, but that interpretation doesn't (IMHO) appear to be supported directly by the wording of the Act. It's more like the courts decided that restricting private, non-commercial resale and loan couldn't possibly have been Congress's intention regardless of how clearly they stated so in the Act. (Perhaps this part was removed by some later amendment; does anyone have more up-to-date information?)
They were so powerful that they made war on [the Valar / Valinor], nearly made it, but then were cast down for their blasphemy.
It's interesting to note in this context that it wasn't the Valar that beat them. When the Númenóreans chose to make war on Valinor and claim it for their own the Valar set aside their delegated authority and called upon Eru (Ilúvatar), the Supreme Being. The result of their appeal was that the rebelleous Númenóreans were defeated at sea, Númenor itself was cast into the sea and thus destroyed, and the shape of the world itself was changed ("bent") such that mortal beings (non-Exiles) could no longer reach Valinor. Only the exiled High Elves were granted special dispensation to travel the "straight path" from the Havens back to the Undying Lands and thus leave Middle-Earth forever.
The full account can be found in The Silmarillion (specifically the Akallabêth) along with several other intriguing stories of the Elder Days.
I agree, we have a lot in common. The differences seem to mainly be semantic in nature.
Employers are looking for something more than rote memorization, true, but they don't (usually) need "educated" workers in the sense that a college professor would use it ("well-rounded", academic skills); they need reliable people with both theoretical and practical experience in their particular field(s). The easiest way to check for such experience in the absence of an established job history is through certifications (and interviews, of course). Of course, the certifications have to actually mean something for this to work, and part of making sure they stay that way is not requiring them when the skills they attest to aren't actually needed. If employers require unnecessary certifications the certifiers will eventually realize that they can make the certification process easier (increasing their clientel, and thus their revenue) without endangering their ratings (since the skills will never actually be tested). On the other hand, colleges are traditionally dedicated to theoretical studies much more than practical ones, and a college degree, while highly sought after by employers, is a fairly poor indication of expertise in any given practical position (which make up the majority of jobs). Even where a college degrees does indicate the required practical expertise the student will probably be burdened with more theoretical and "foundational" courses than are necessary.
I'm not trying to argue against an "academic" education -- I was a college student myself, after all -- but rather the expectation that a full college degree (and not simply a technical certification) should be required for entry-level or technical positions, or that only those positions which actually require such a degree are worth seeking. Many students attend a four-year college and then go into a line of work that they could have handled better and more cost-effectively with a two-year technical program (a role that once would have been filled by "high school"...). A prime example of this is Computer Science graduates that take jobs in Information Technology; IT is barely related to CS, and even the practical courses taken as part of the CS degree will contribute almost nothing to the work environment in the majority of cases. If they want to expend the time and money required for a college education, fine. It's a good thing, provided it's their choice and not a general expectation. Most students, though, would rather just go straight into industry by the most expedient route, which is almost never a four-year degree.
Clearly for you "passing exams" is a significant part of your definition of "being educated". Sounds like your college needs to carefully examine its teaching methods, it could be in danger of turning out a bunch of trained monkeys.
I think there's a serious difference of opinion over what "college" ought to be that's fundamental to this discussion. Traditionally, college has meant what you described: cultural exposure, including interaction with peers and professors, combined with in-depth study of a broad range of topics, culminating (generally) in some kind of paid academic position. Most professors, being more traditional, arrange their courses around this model, and thus the emphasis on attending lectures. This model works quite well for those with primarily academic aspirations -- which mainly correspond to post-graduate students today, as the undergraduate programs have nearly sunk to the level of mere job training under the pressure of widespread attempts by parents, schools, and employers to get every high-school graduate into a "four-year" college.
The point of job training, of course, is to turn out "a bunch of trained monkeys" as you put it, and job training is really all that most people need or are capable of completing. Only a rare few are truly capable of the level of abstract thinking required for the traditional university approach, and even those who are capable of such thinking must be willing to accept an academic position afterward to make the cost of a proper academic education worthwhile. The rest just want to be made into the sort of "trained monkeys" employers are looking for with a minimum of actual work, which is the role that undergraduate schools are gradually moving to fill (over the objections of the professors, who obviously chose the academic path themselves and generally feel their students should do the same, whatever their actual abilities or ambitions). For job training, from the future employee's, certification ("passing exams") is all that's really necessary; all the rest is unwanted overhead.
I was speaking sarcastically; I don't actually believe economics to be a religion, of course. The point was that the world cannot be cleanly divided into "science" and "religion" -- not everything not classified as science is necessarily religion, and vice-versa. Nonetheless, the point about not getting involved is just as true if economics is, as you claim, a matter of beliefs without possibility of proof as it would be if economics were truly a religion. How can any interference be justified (or claimed to bring about an improvement) if the outcome of such policies cannot be accurately predicted in advance?
I have a feeling you've never looked into praxeology -- the logical study of human action, and the basis for the Austrian school of economics -- since its theories are both provable and falsifiable, and not based on the beliefs of individuals any more than the validity of mathematics or logic, or the scientific method, are based on such beliefs. Its conclusions are not based purely on "persuasive arguments" but rather on logical deduction from first principles. If you wish to examine these claims, I recommend Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (particularly pages 46-59 on "empiricism-positivism"), and finally either Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard or Human Action by Ludwig von Mises (all titles listed in ascending order by my assessment of difficulty and detail).
In any event, you didn't address my second (more important) point: as long as democratic (republican) governments insist on meddling in economics, voters should take it upon themselves to learn something of economics and employ that understanding in choosing their representatives, for themselves and for the other individuals their choices will affect.
Like I said, I'm no economist, but I've simply never been convinced that economics is anything close to a science. So I'm sure your paper might be persuasive, but I simply view economic theories as religion.
If it's a religion, then why is the (U.S.) government interfering in it? Isn't the government prohibited by the 1st Amendment from interfering in matters of religion? Wouldn't the implementation of economic policies then be the establishment of an offical State religion, a violation of the separation of Church and State? If economics is a religion, the only choice the government can make is laisse-faire, to have nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of any economic policy.
On the other hand, religion or not, if they're going to implement some sort of economic policy it might be a good idea to become familiar with the subject before showing up at the polls. Applications of such policies presently account for more than half of all government expenditures (and thus more than half of all taxes); voting without a sound understanding of economics is thus highly irresponsible. To do otherwise hurts everyone, not just yourself.
You'll forgive me if I simply choose to observer a far longer period of prosperity off the gold standard than on it and deduce my conclusions from there. No offense, but economic theories are a dime a dozen and each of them has a diametric opposite which refutes it. It's more art than science, as far as I can tell.
Which "far longer period" are you referring to? The gold standard (gold as commodity currency) has existed in most of the world for millenia (particularly including some of the most prosperous times in human history, such as the Industrial Revolution), and was only supplanted by widespread (i.e. international) fiat currency in the last century or so -- a time period known for its scientific and technological advancements, but also for its fiscal uncertainty even in the absence of external disruptive influences: hardly the mark of a sound currency.
If you know of an "diametric opposite" to the ABCT capable of refuting it, feel free to point it out rather than just vaguely alluding to its inevitable existance. There's just as much "science" in the ABCT as there is in the fields of logic and mathematics, as they are based on the same underlying principles. If you have a problem with one of the axioms or propositions please say so more clearly, and indicate which one you disagree with.
There's one problem with your idea. As soon as the game world is offloaded to the client you are going to have huge problems with hackers. You would need a whole application layer of checks and balances to ensure that the servants were serving up legit content.
The GP mentioned this in his own comment:
The main problem is that the server needs to prevent cheating somehow; the easiest ways of doing this include using DRM or simply offloading the task to several clients at once and comparing the results.
I favor the latter approach myself. Another check would be to have each servlet record and cryptographically sign each state transformation (change in position/status, item received, etc.) along with a reference to the source of the information. Other servlets ("witnesses") could then check this information against the official rules; any change in character or item state that the rules didn't allow would be ignored by the remaining servlets. This would, of course, necessitate a distributed database of public keys, one for each client; besides servlet functions, clients would have to sign input events so that the client can't claim the servlet invented the input. It also presumes that there aren't enough hacked servlets to create a danger of true fragmentation; some kind of blacklist for known-bad systems would probably still be necessary.
I'm no economist, but they moved off it for a reason. From what I understand, it stifled inflation at the cost of dramatic boom/bust swings. A little constant inflation is better than cyclic depressions.
Sure, that was the theory at the time. However, the repudiation of the Treasury's liabilities (failure to redeem the existing paper receipts in gold as promised), the policy of institutionalized inflation, and theories of "underconsumption" and "hoarding" resulted directly in the Great Depression and have contributed to evey other "business cycle" since. Keynesian economics, the supposed justification for eliminating commodity money, are no longer considered sound even among those "economists" who advocate interventionalism; the only economic theory in existance that has adequitely explained each and every one of the cyclic booms and depressions (which are very recent phenomena to begin with, the major ones dating from the creation of the Federal Reserve) is the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (explained in the book referenced below), which clearly concludes that the "dramatic boom/bust swings" were due to inflation itself; further inflation can only delay the inevitable correction (the depression), making it even more severe. Unfortunately, unwilling to admit that the problem is intervention itself and not just Keynesian policies, and yet unable to come up with any consistent theory to their liking, they have allowed the existing policies to continue rather than admit that the "laisse-faire" proponents were right all along.
An economic/historical analysis of the Great Depression is available for further reference: America's Great Depression, by Murray N. Rothbard.
Only by using private VPNs . . . or by using additional software higher up the network stack like Tor can basic anonymity be enabled.
Or lower down the network stack if you are not standing on your head
Actually, since VPNs are in the Network layer (packet-level) and Tor falls somewhere between the Session and Presentation layers (stream-level), Tor is higher in the stack than VPNs:
The difference between a recording made with pen and paper and one made by a video-recorder or a blackbox is one of degree, not kind.
This I absolutely agree with. Which is why I suggest that the data collected by black boxes is yours, but it can be subpoenaed with a proper warrant. I question why you think that evidence that someone created should not be able to be used against them, it is their stupid fault for creating it in the first place. The Fifth Amendment provides protection against being "compelled... to be a witness against [one]self." Your crux of your argument seems to be that the "black boxes" are an "electronic memory" and the Fifth Amendment should apply. Here I think there is a pretty serious difference in kind. Just because you carry an evidence-collecting box with you while committing a crime doesn't mean that you are testifying against yourself.
Before this part is carried any further, I think we need to answer the question of just what self-recrimination is, and why it's considered a violation of "due process." My definition would be that self-recrimination is the employment of ones' own property, including but not limited to ones' own memories of the event, against oneself in a trial. Simply (voluntarily) carrying the "evidence-collecting box" would not constitute self-recrimination; entering it into evidence would, provided that the defendant owned the recording. (If others owned the recording, or otherwise had the rights to use it, then they could of course enter it into evidence themselves and no conflict would result.) As for the rest, I am not so worried about "due process" as I am about the rights of individuals not yet proven guilty, which is a rather higher standard.
If a bank robber videotapes a crime should that be protected material?
It's not a question of "protected material"; not having demonstrated that the person in question was actually the robber, what right does the plaintiff have to take the tape from him/her (a presumably innocent third party), particularly without compensation? And why wasn't the bank making its own security recordings, which it would be free to enter into the evidence on its own side?
You also seem to advocate a very fundamental change in due process.
Glad you picked up on that.
I am opposed to compulsory testimony, or to trespass or theft against those not declared guilty
How are we to collect evidence in support of a trial if this is the case? Or do we do away with the notion of presumed innocence? IMO warrants and probable cause are fundamental to pursuit of justice, without them we wouldn't only be unable to convict anyone, we wouldn't even be able to arrest and try anyone who simply remains on their private property after commission of a crime.
I think you overestimate the difficulty that this would cause. Not all material would be prohibited as evidence; any material submitted willingly by its owner (the plaintiff or a supportive third party, presumably) would be admissible. One reason why information critical to a trial is hard to come by now is that individuals are not comfortable with recording their own conversations out of fear that such recordings may be used against them. Case in point: companies often have policies of destroying business documents (not those involved in a current lawsuit, of course) as soon as possible out of fear that they may later be used against them in a trial. If self-recrimination were truly prohibited such information would no longer be scarce; it could be acquired from third parties more easily than from the defendant. I would probably install cameras in my car if I could be sure the recordings could only be used as evidence with my permission; it would help in proving my side were I eve
I'm on the fence on this one - but your argument is unconvincing to me.
If any unpublished data is the property of the person who made it, you would have a hard time convincing me that the data the car records was made by you. Sure you might own the car, but just because you own your house doesn't mean the police can't collect evidence against you there. Same story with your computer. If I committed a crime, and recorded it in my (paper) journal, and the police found it you know as well as I that it would be used against me. The only think that makes this driving data different is that it is made without your effort (I think that we can both agree that you should be notified - which means that it was not made without your knowledge.)
There are two separate arguments here: the question of whether a person "made" the data recorded by the blackbox, and the undisputed fact that given our current legal code and history the police would (rightly or wrongly) collect evidence from the defendant's private records. On the former question, I simply ask this: if you write a letter, did you make the letter, or did the pen do so? If you own the blackbox (meaning that you could drive a car on private roads without it, but choose to use it anyway; mandantory "ownership" doesn't count), then anything it records was recorded by your own choice; the recording is the product of your own actions. The difference between a recording made with pen and paper and one made by a video-recorder or a blackbox is one of degree, not kind. If you could write quickly enough you could capture just as much information with the former as with the latter. If you had a photographic memory you would require none of these tools, and the evidence would then be inadmissible. Why discriminate against those with less efficient memories? Allow people to record each other (in public) and submit such evidence at will, but do not require them to enter their own electronic memories into evidence against themselves.
As for the latter, I am not disputing current legal practice; my argument was that such evidence should count as self-recrimination, and thus be inadmissible, the more so if they are not readable to strangers at a glance. I would also tend to oppose the idea of the police entering the defendant's house without permission and collecting evidence there; the house is private property, and belongs to someone who had not been convicted of any crime. Entering it without permission should be considered trespass. That is not to say that it couldn't be done, but the police had better be certain that the defendant will actually be proved guilty of a crime equal to or greater than trespass; if that not determined to be the case, the police should be held responsible for their trespass and required to pay damages to the victim.
Compare the car data to a video camera in a public place, or a red light camera, or a policeman's radar gun. All that data can be used against you. I think that what is important is that due process be preserved in these cases. If you committed a crime (speeding, reckless driving, etc.) and the police have reason to believe that they will be able to gather evidence against you they should be allowed to seek a warrant and obtain that information.
I agree that data recorded with devices owned by the police, or other private citizens, should be admissible evidence should they choose to submit it. I am opposed to compulsory testimony, or to trespass or theft against those not declared guilty. If the police want to violate someone's rights to prove their case, they must risk the consequences should they prove to be in the wrong. In any event something like speeding or reckless driving, absent any actual accident or other damage, would not require a court case to settle were the roads not "public property"; access to the roads is granted at the will of their owners, ostensibly the government at this point, and can be r
I was talking about economy as a singular entity. I agree a _part_ of the economy might grow or shrink because of whatever. As a whole, the economy will not just grow for whatever reason; creating something that is highly in demand, will not suddenly make more money appear. People buying it will not be able to spend that money on another article. Rising demand in one article will lower demand in other articles. The only way to raise demand on a global scale, is by an increasing population.
For the most part you're correct. In particular, creating additional capital or consumer's goods cannot increase the amount of money in existance, nor does it need to do so. However, it is important to keep in mind the fact that variations in the money relation may allow the same amount of money (which is zero-sum, ignoring inflation) to purchase more or better goods (which are not zero-sum). Slow deflation is the rule in a progressing society with a static population, as the productivity of labour gradually increases and the same quantity of money is set against an ever-increasing supply of goods. Demand, as the quantity of money available to be spent, remains constant, as you have said. However, the wealth of the society, measured in terms of what that money can buy, increases. This can be channeled into either an increase in population with the same standard of living, or into a greater standard of living for the same population, or some mix of the two.
Also, an increasing population does not automatically increase demand; it "will not suddenly make more money appear" any more than creating a new product would. It would tend to increase the supply of labour, which is a net benefit so long as the population remains below the optimum point, with labour relatively scarce compared to natural resources. It would stretch the supply of money over a larger number of individuals, increasing the demand for cash balances (again reducing prices), and the relative demand for basic necessities (water, food, shelter) would increase. However, as long as labour is relatively scarce, the increase in population should cause prices to fall faster than wages, resulting in a net improvement for everyone.
This may sound like news to you, but your "rights" are granted to you by the same government that can revoke them. They're merely social conventions, susceptible to change when there's a compelling enough need.
This is false. Governments cannot grant rights, nor can they revoke them; rights are the basis of human society, and no individual or group of individuals within society can dictate them. Rights are recognized, not given; they exist whether recognized or infringed. The choice is between recognition of rights applicable to every human being (though sometimes deplorably infringed upon by individual humans acting against society), or the desolution of human society into asocial survival-of-the-fittest. As a race we chose the former long ago, as cooperation and nonaggression were (and still are) clearly beneficial to the species as a whole.
Governments are a stubborn artifact of the asocial minority; they create the illusion of legitimacy that asocial and antisocial individuals require to violate the rights of social individuals without incurring the wrath of society itself. If they serve any purpose at all, it is to give marginally constructive work to those members of the human race which appear to be unfit for civilized society -- turning the members asocial element against each other in hopes that both sides might leave society itself in peace for a time. It's a dangerous game, and, in my opinion, an unnecessary one, for I do not believe that the asocial element would be large enough now to justify a government were the government not around to continually undermine the rewards of social behavior.
i don't think that argument would fly, but if it's a unique expression of the owner would it not also be self-incrimination?
I would argue that any unpublished recording or document should be considered equivilent to the memory of the person who made it; just as one cannot be forced to testify against oneself (divulge one's memories as evidence against oneself), one should not be forced to divulge private (audio, video, data) recordings that one has made. Such will undoubtably become even more important as we begin to develop ever more effective electronic (and possibly cybernetic) aids to memory, and as our technology for decoding the neural patterns in the human mind improves.
Perhaps one day we might discover a way to read a person's memory directly; will this technology be used to circumvent our laws against self-incrimination? What if the memories are encoded, not in human neural tissue, but rather in an electronic implant? Why should there be any difference? And if reading an electronic implant is considered self-recrimination, then why would an external memory device be any different? On the other hand, if one can subpoena the blackbox in the defendent's car, or the contents of the defendent's PDA or laptop, then what makes the defendent's biological memories special? Had we the technology, would it be right to submit the defendent's own memories as evidence? That would make a mockery of our laws against self-recrimination -- and yet we do the same today by seizing and entering into evidence the private documents and recordings of the defendant.
No offence is truly committed when the defendant is demonstrated guilty, provided that the infringement of the defendant's rights does not exceed the crime itself. However, should the defendant not be demonstrated guilty, then the infringement is entirely unjustified, and those responsible should be open to countersuit by the (presumably innocent) former defendant. This would go a long way toward curbing abuse of power in carrying out justice -- as would the addition of a requirement that the prosecutor be the victim of the crime (or the victim's appointed representative, but not the government), with clear (though not necessarily precisely measurable) damage as the basis for restitution (and possibly retribution; this is rather more controversial).
but if anyone comes up with an example of what C++ is best at...
[Annoying] academic language purists?
And for my next trick, note that C is more widely recognized and used than any other programming language, C is found in the kernels of nearly all modern operating systems, the display interface now known as Xorg, and pervasively throughout GNOME the Desktop.
Now how exactly is C an academic language?
I believe the GP meant (academic (language purists)), not ((academic language) purists). I agree, C is hardly an academic language. Besides all the real-world uses, it doesn't have the theoretical elegance (or the inherent impracticality) necessary to qualify as "academic."
Slashdot Mirror
No, the problem is that Net Neutrality would prevent [YouTube] from make a deal with [AOL] to bundle faster or more reliable access between [You] and [YouTube] with their service (without also subsidizing their competitors). A dedicated link to a single content provider can be cheaper than a fast link to the Internet at large, and forcing Internet users to pay for fast access to every site through their ISP (as opposed to just those sites they wish to access, funded through a subscription to the content provider) penalizes popular sites and subsidizes unpopular ones. Just like cable channel bundling, it's nice for people who like the unpopular channels, since they don't have to pay full price, but it raises costs for everyone else.
How about the United States? The second example on your source links to "The Great Deflation":
I'd say that counts as "deflation working to boost a country's economy." The "negative effect" in Great Britain was probably the result of a less downwardly-flexible price structure, resulting from merchantilist policies and stubborn labor unions.[1] Also, as it's described in the linked Wikipedia page, I'd say that the falling price levels in Japan were the result of (prior) inflationary policies (leading to the equity and real-estate bubbles) and centralized fractional-reserve banking. In fact, this case sounds a lot like the Great Depression: it followed an inflationary boom, which the government and central bank attempted (and failed) to prolong by further inflating the money supply and cutting interest rates. There were two opposing forces active simultaneously: the deflationary correction to the prior inflationary boom economy, and the attempts if their government and central bank to counter the deflation through further inflation. You are blaming the former influence for their economic troubles; I would blame the latter.
Hong Kong appears to have been very similar, with deflation following extensive prior inflationary policies: "In October 1997, the Hong Kong dollar, which was pegged at 7.8 to the US dollar, came under speculative pressure since Hong Kong's inflation rate was significantly higher than that of the US for years" (emphasis added). Whenever any commodity or currency becomes overvalued (through inflation, for example) the eventual result is a downward correction in its price (i.e. deflation). The downward price correction is the cure, not the disease. Furthermore, the effects of falling prices in an undistorted economy, in which there is no overvaluation, cannot be directly compared with the effects of corrective deflation. The former need not have any ill effect, real or perceived, whereas the latter inevitably exposes the malinvestments made during the inflationary boom.
Further reading:
[1] Downwardly-inflexible wage rates were also the reason given to justify later inflation in the United States. It was thought that inflation would fool the labor union into accepting falling real wages as long as monetary wages did not decrease. It didn't take long, however, for the unions to notice the discrepency and institute inflation-indexed wages, thus nullifying any advantage this approach may have offered.
Technically even gambling isn't "gambling" (in the sense of the parent post) if you do it professionally, estimating the odds and betting consistently based on the probabilities. It becomes a simple matter of class-based risk, just like an investment or insurance policy.
You've described the common fear fairly well, but that's not how things would actually work out. For one thing, inflation does encourage investment: malinvestment, investment in unprofitable lines of production. The extra money creates a boom economy in the short term by distorting the normal market signals that would reflect the social rate of time preference. Later, when the inflation slows or ends, as it eventually must, at risk of sparking hyperinflation, the malinvestment is revealed: the increased demand for capital goods (projected on the basis of the lowered interest rates) simply doesn't exist. Too much has been invested in the earlier stages of the production process (capital good production) and nothing remains for the later stages (as prices have risen to offset the artificially low interest rates). The resulting readjustment can be short and sharp (a depression) or long and slow (a recession), depending on whether the inflationary policies are abandoned or simply reduced. The shortest and least painful way through the readjustment period is to end the inflation, accept the falling prices (including falling wages), and move on. Trying to cushion the blow with additional inflation (or, worse, minimum prices/wages) can only drag things out and add to the overall cost of recovery.
As for deflation inhibiting investment: yes, deflation means you don't have to invest money to gain value over time. Your savings are safe, you don't have to risk your retirement money on the stock market to avoid devaluation. On the other hand, the return from investment is even better in a deflationary economy; you can put your money in a mattress at +2% adjusted returns, or you can invest it for +7% adjusted returns (assuming a 5% increase in quantity). In a 2% inflationary economy the same investment would give you between +3% and +5% adjusted returns, depending on how well the company shields itself from the inflation, compared to a -2% adjusted return on cash holdings. The inflation does give up to 2% extra incentive to invest (just as widespread theft creates an incentive to store money in a bank), but even a deflationary economy will pay better returns for investment than for "hoarding". In fact, a deflationary economy would make investment in low-yield ventures reasonable, whereas inflationary policies makes any investment paying less than the going inflation rate an economic loss.
In the end, of course, the balance of consumption vs. investment vs. cash holdings is a matter of time preferences and demand for money, and fooling people through money manipulation into investing (or consuming, or "hoarding") more or less than they wish to is not a viable long-term strategy.
Even if non-voting were somehow equivalent to voting (which is ridiculus BTW; it would make both voting and non-voting meaningless words), non-voting can hardly be considered equivalent to saying that "they want government to address their concerns or solve their problems." Choosing not to vote for a political candidate cannot imply support for the opposition, particularly where the goals of the opponent are nearly identical to those of the rejected candidate, so your objection doesn't help your argument at all; the petitioners for government involvement are still limited to no more than the two-thirds of the voting-age population that show up to vote.
There are plenty of reasons not to vote besides apathy, laziness, or support for a known majority position. Besides despair over lack of choices, the non-voter may be unable to justify the cost of voting (mainly time spent waiting, with all the attendant opportunity costs), or be in a position where their vote is relevant. All known-minority votes are wasted, since even taken together they can have no influence on the candidate chosen; most areas can be (and are) predicted with a fair degree of certainty well before the election. Excepting the rare contested region, the minority in each area might as well not vote at all. Even where the outcome is in doubt the anticipated cost to the average person of losing the election to an opponent (in new laws or tax increases) may not exceed the trouble of taking several hours out of a workday to show up to vote, particularly when similar costs would be present regardless of the party elected. Members of special-interest groups generally have much more to gain individually than the average person has to lose, as taxes are diffused over a large population whereas payouts are concentrated on a small fraction.
Alternately, the non-voter may be opposed to the entire democratic system (as I am), and thus have a moral objection to voting itself, in which case they cannot support their position except by not voting; voting against the system, even were there a candidate to represent that position, would undermine the position itself. A vote for a winning representative implies support and responsibility for whatever changes they might make while in office. As a libertarian, I will not, by voting or in any other way, force others to do as I desire, save to counter clear and immediate aggression against myself; I cannot appoint a representative to do so in my stead without abandoning my principles.
I'm sorry, but when have 99% of the people in this country ever shown up to vote on election day? According to a government report on voting statistics in the 2004 elections, the highest percentage of voting-age citizens to turn up at the polls was 68% in 1992 (page 1) -- just over two-thirds of potential voters. At most your argument demonstrates that up to "99%" of those that vote recognize the power of government and want to influence that power for their own benefit. I say "up to" because a fair number of them might very well wish only to counter the influence of those who would try to enslave and rob them through new victimless-crime laws and higher taxes. Voting, by itself, does not and cannot demonstrate support for interventionalist policies.
People say that governments, taxation, etc. exist to correct externalities that supposedly cripple voluntary interaction, but what about the externalities inherent in voting? An individual's vote only counts for anything if a near-majority of other individuals vote the same way; the majority is represented completely and the minority not at all. All governments favor the majority, on whose aquiescence their continued existance depends, but only democracies draw such a sharp distinction between the ruling majority and the enslaved minorities. Luckily we do not live in a pure democracy -- the Constitution hasn't been completely nullified yet -- but it's only a matter of time before that last rights-equalizing barrier is overcome.
I agree, which is why I oppose government influence in all its miriad forms, just as I would oppose any other aggressive individual or criminal organization.
Libraries (and academic institutions) are protected by special exceptions. I only quoted the parts applicable to the general public. It's all there if you just follow the links I provided.
As I said, IANAL. The relevant portion of the Act (Title 17 106(3)) reads as follows:
This is modified somewhat by a later section:
It appears that an exception was later introduced for direct sale; Congress probably realized that the original wording of the Act was far too restrictive in that area after a court case or two. However, lending of "sound recordings" is still specificially prohibited by the Act, and that was what the GGP poster referred to.
Celeborn's precise ancestry is uncertain; the most plausable accounts seem to indicate that he was an exile, of sorts, but not one of the Noldor, having journeyed to Middle-Earth prior to the Kinslaying. You may be right about the priviledge being extended to more than just the Exiles, though; the Wikipedia page on the Akallabêth does indicate that the priviledge was extended to all Elves. (I don't have my copy of the Silmarrilion at the moment to verify that.)
IANAL, but if you read over the Copyright Act (hereafter known as the Act) it appears that both resale and loan of copyrighted works are rights restricted to the copyright holder. Courts have typically classified these actions as "fair use" when applied non-commercially, but that interpretation doesn't (IMHO) appear to be supported directly by the wording of the Act. It's more like the courts decided that restricting private, non-commercial resale and loan couldn't possibly have been Congress's intention regardless of how clearly they stated so in the Act. (Perhaps this part was removed by some later amendment; does anyone have more up-to-date information?)
It's interesting to note in this context that it wasn't the Valar that beat them. When the Númenóreans chose to make war on Valinor and claim it for their own the Valar set aside their delegated authority and called upon Eru (Ilúvatar), the Supreme Being. The result of their appeal was that the rebelleous Númenóreans were defeated at sea, Númenor itself was cast into the sea and thus destroyed, and the shape of the world itself was changed ("bent") such that mortal beings (non-Exiles) could no longer reach Valinor. Only the exiled High Elves were granted special dispensation to travel the "straight path" from the Havens back to the Undying Lands and thus leave Middle-Earth forever.
The full account can be found in The Silmarillion (specifically the Akallabêth) along with several other intriguing stories of the Elder Days.
I agree, we have a lot in common. The differences seem to mainly be semantic in nature.
Employers are looking for something more than rote memorization, true, but they don't (usually) need "educated" workers in the sense that a college professor would use it ("well-rounded", academic skills); they need reliable people with both theoretical and practical experience in their particular field(s). The easiest way to check for such experience in the absence of an established job history is through certifications (and interviews, of course). Of course, the certifications have to actually mean something for this to work, and part of making sure they stay that way is not requiring them when the skills they attest to aren't actually needed. If employers require unnecessary certifications the certifiers will eventually realize that they can make the certification process easier (increasing their clientel, and thus their revenue) without endangering their ratings (since the skills will never actually be tested). On the other hand, colleges are traditionally dedicated to theoretical studies much more than practical ones, and a college degree, while highly sought after by employers, is a fairly poor indication of expertise in any given practical position (which make up the majority of jobs). Even where a college degrees does indicate the required practical expertise the student will probably be burdened with more theoretical and "foundational" courses than are necessary.
I'm not trying to argue against an "academic" education -- I was a college student myself, after all -- but rather the expectation that a full college degree (and not simply a technical certification) should be required for entry-level or technical positions, or that only those positions which actually require such a degree are worth seeking. Many students attend a four-year college and then go into a line of work that they could have handled better and more cost-effectively with a two-year technical program (a role that once would have been filled by "high school"...). A prime example of this is Computer Science graduates that take jobs in Information Technology; IT is barely related to CS, and even the practical courses taken as part of the CS degree will contribute almost nothing to the work environment in the majority of cases. If they want to expend the time and money required for a college education, fine. It's a good thing, provided it's their choice and not a general expectation. Most students, though, would rather just go straight into industry by the most expedient route, which is almost never a four-year degree.
I think there's a serious difference of opinion over what "college" ought to be that's fundamental to this discussion. Traditionally, college has meant what you described: cultural exposure, including interaction with peers and professors, combined with in-depth study of a broad range of topics, culminating (generally) in some kind of paid academic position. Most professors, being more traditional, arrange their courses around this model, and thus the emphasis on attending lectures. This model works quite well for those with primarily academic aspirations -- which mainly correspond to post-graduate students today, as the undergraduate programs have nearly sunk to the level of mere job training under the pressure of widespread attempts by parents, schools, and employers to get every high-school graduate into a "four-year" college.
The point of job training, of course, is to turn out "a bunch of trained monkeys" as you put it, and job training is really all that most people need or are capable of completing. Only a rare few are truly capable of the level of abstract thinking required for the traditional university approach, and even those who are capable of such thinking must be willing to accept an academic position afterward to make the cost of a proper academic education worthwhile. The rest just want to be made into the sort of "trained monkeys" employers are looking for with a minimum of actual work, which is the role that undergraduate schools are gradually moving to fill (over the objections of the professors, who obviously chose the academic path themselves and generally feel their students should do the same, whatever their actual abilities or ambitions). For job training, from the future employee's, certification ("passing exams") is all that's really necessary; all the rest is unwanted overhead.
I was speaking sarcastically; I don't actually believe economics to be a religion, of course. The point was that the world cannot be cleanly divided into "science" and "religion" -- not everything not classified as science is necessarily religion, and vice-versa. Nonetheless, the point about not getting involved is just as true if economics is, as you claim, a matter of beliefs without possibility of proof as it would be if economics were truly a religion. How can any interference be justified (or claimed to bring about an improvement) if the outcome of such policies cannot be accurately predicted in advance?
I have a feeling you've never looked into praxeology -- the logical study of human action, and the basis for the Austrian school of economics -- since its theories are both provable and falsifiable, and not based on the beliefs of individuals any more than the validity of mathematics or logic, or the scientific method, are based on such beliefs. Its conclusions are not based purely on "persuasive arguments" but rather on logical deduction from first principles. If you wish to examine these claims, I recommend Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (particularly pages 46-59 on "empiricism-positivism"), and finally either Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard or Human Action by Ludwig von Mises (all titles listed in ascending order by my assessment of difficulty and detail).
In any event, you didn't address my second (more important) point: as long as democratic (republican) governments insist on meddling in economics, voters should take it upon themselves to learn something of economics and employ that understanding in choosing their representatives, for themselves and for the other individuals their choices will affect.
If it's a religion, then why is the (U.S.) government interfering in it? Isn't the government prohibited by the 1st Amendment from interfering in matters of religion? Wouldn't the implementation of economic policies then be the establishment of an offical State religion, a violation of the separation of Church and State? If economics is a religion, the only choice the government can make is laisse-faire, to have nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of any economic policy.
On the other hand, religion or not, if they're going to implement some sort of economic policy it might be a good idea to become familiar with the subject before showing up at the polls. Applications of such policies presently account for more than half of all government expenditures (and thus more than half of all taxes); voting without a sound understanding of economics is thus highly irresponsible. To do otherwise hurts everyone, not just yourself.
Which "far longer period" are you referring to? The gold standard (gold as commodity currency) has existed in most of the world for millenia (particularly including some of the most prosperous times in human history, such as the Industrial Revolution), and was only supplanted by widespread (i.e. international) fiat currency in the last century or so -- a time period known for its scientific and technological advancements, but also for its fiscal uncertainty even in the absence of external disruptive influences: hardly the mark of a sound currency.
If you know of an "diametric opposite" to the ABCT capable of refuting it, feel free to point it out rather than just vaguely alluding to its inevitable existance. There's just as much "science" in the ABCT as there is in the fields of logic and mathematics, as they are based on the same underlying principles. If you have a problem with one of the axioms or propositions please say so more clearly, and indicate which one you disagree with.
The GP mentioned this in his own comment:
I favor the latter approach myself. Another check would be to have each servlet record and cryptographically sign each state transformation (change in position/status, item received, etc.) along with a reference to the source of the information. Other servlets ("witnesses") could then check this information against the official rules; any change in character or item state that the rules didn't allow would be ignored by the remaining servlets. This would, of course, necessitate a distributed database of public keys, one for each client; besides servlet functions, clients would have to sign input events so that the client can't claim the servlet invented the input. It also presumes that there aren't enough hacked servlets to create a danger of true fragmentation; some kind of blacklist for known-bad systems would probably still be necessary.
Sure, that was the theory at the time. However, the repudiation of the Treasury's liabilities (failure to redeem the existing paper receipts in gold as promised), the policy of institutionalized inflation, and theories of "underconsumption" and "hoarding" resulted directly in the Great Depression and have contributed to evey other "business cycle" since. Keynesian economics, the supposed justification for eliminating commodity money, are no longer considered sound even among those "economists" who advocate interventionalism; the only economic theory in existance that has adequitely explained each and every one of the cyclic booms and depressions (which are very recent phenomena to begin with, the major ones dating from the creation of the Federal Reserve) is the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (explained in the book referenced below), which clearly concludes that the "dramatic boom/bust swings" were due to inflation itself; further inflation can only delay the inevitable correction (the depression), making it even more severe. Unfortunately, unwilling to admit that the problem is intervention itself and not just Keynesian policies, and yet unable to come up with any consistent theory to their liking, they have allowed the existing policies to continue rather than admit that the "laisse-faire" proponents were right all along.
An economic/historical analysis of the Great Depression is available for further reference: America's Great Depression, by Murray N. Rothbard.
Actually, since VPNs are in the Network layer (packet-level) and Tor falls somewhere between the Session and Presentation layers (stream-level), Tor is higher in the stack than VPNs:
Before this part is carried any further, I think we need to answer the question of just what self-recrimination is, and why it's considered a violation of "due process." My definition would be that self-recrimination is the employment of ones' own property, including but not limited to ones' own memories of the event, against oneself in a trial. Simply (voluntarily) carrying the "evidence-collecting box" would not constitute self-recrimination; entering it into evidence would, provided that the defendant owned the recording. (If others owned the recording, or otherwise had the rights to use it, then they could of course enter it into evidence themselves and no conflict would result.) As for the rest, I am not so worried about "due process" as I am about the rights of individuals not yet proven guilty, which is a rather higher standard.
It's not a question of "protected material"; not having demonstrated that the person in question was actually the robber, what right does the plaintiff have to take the tape from him/her (a presumably innocent third party), particularly without compensation? And why wasn't the bank making its own security recordings, which it would be free to enter into the evidence on its own side?
Glad you picked up on that.
I think you overestimate the difficulty that this would cause. Not all material would be prohibited as evidence; any material submitted willingly by its owner (the plaintiff or a supportive third party, presumably) would be admissible. One reason why information critical to a trial is hard to come by now is that individuals are not comfortable with recording their own conversations out of fear that such recordings may be used against them. Case in point: companies often have policies of destroying business documents (not those involved in a current lawsuit, of course) as soon as possible out of fear that they may later be used against them in a trial. If self-recrimination were truly prohibited such information would no longer be scarce; it could be acquired from third parties more easily than from the defendant. I would probably install cameras in my car if I could be sure the recordings could only be used as evidence with my permission; it would help in proving my side were I eve
There are two separate arguments here: the question of whether a person "made" the data recorded by the blackbox, and the undisputed fact that given our current legal code and history the police would (rightly or wrongly) collect evidence from the defendant's private records. On the former question, I simply ask this: if you write a letter, did you make the letter, or did the pen do so? If you own the blackbox (meaning that you could drive a car on private roads without it, but choose to use it anyway; mandantory "ownership" doesn't count), then anything it records was recorded by your own choice; the recording is the product of your own actions. The difference between a recording made with pen and paper and one made by a video-recorder or a blackbox is one of degree, not kind. If you could write quickly enough you could capture just as much information with the former as with the latter. If you had a photographic memory you would require none of these tools, and the evidence would then be inadmissible. Why discriminate against those with less efficient memories? Allow people to record each other (in public) and submit such evidence at will, but do not require them to enter their own electronic memories into evidence against themselves.
As for the latter, I am not disputing current legal practice; my argument was that such evidence should count as self-recrimination, and thus be inadmissible, the more so if they are not readable to strangers at a glance. I would also tend to oppose the idea of the police entering the defendant's house without permission and collecting evidence there; the house is private property, and belongs to someone who had not been convicted of any crime. Entering it without permission should be considered trespass. That is not to say that it couldn't be done, but the police had better be certain that the defendant will actually be proved guilty of a crime equal to or greater than trespass; if that not determined to be the case, the police should be held responsible for their trespass and required to pay damages to the victim.
I agree that data recorded with devices owned by the police, or other private citizens, should be admissible evidence should they choose to submit it. I am opposed to compulsory testimony, or to trespass or theft against those not declared guilty. If the police want to violate someone's rights to prove their case, they must risk the consequences should they prove to be in the wrong. In any event something like speeding or reckless driving, absent any actual accident or other damage, would not require a court case to settle were the roads not "public property"; access to the roads is granted at the will of their owners, ostensibly the government at this point, and can be r
For the most part you're correct. In particular, creating additional capital or consumer's goods cannot increase the amount of money in existance, nor does it need to do so. However, it is important to keep in mind the fact that variations in the money relation may allow the same amount of money (which is zero-sum, ignoring inflation) to purchase more or better goods (which are not zero-sum). Slow deflation is the rule in a progressing society with a static population, as the productivity of labour gradually increases and the same quantity of money is set against an ever-increasing supply of goods. Demand, as the quantity of money available to be spent, remains constant, as you have said. However, the wealth of the society, measured in terms of what that money can buy, increases. This can be channeled into either an increase in population with the same standard of living, or into a greater standard of living for the same population, or some mix of the two.
Also, an increasing population does not automatically increase demand; it "will not suddenly make more money appear" any more than creating a new product would. It would tend to increase the supply of labour, which is a net benefit so long as the population remains below the optimum point, with labour relatively scarce compared to natural resources. It would stretch the supply of money over a larger number of individuals, increasing the demand for cash balances (again reducing prices), and the relative demand for basic necessities (water, food, shelter) would increase. However, as long as labour is relatively scarce, the increase in population should cause prices to fall faster than wages, resulting in a net improvement for everyone.
To quote the trollish AC:
This is false. Governments cannot grant rights, nor can they revoke them; rights are the basis of human society, and no individual or group of individuals within society can dictate them. Rights are recognized, not given; they exist whether recognized or infringed. The choice is between recognition of rights applicable to every human being (though sometimes deplorably infringed upon by individual humans acting against society), or the desolution of human society into asocial survival-of-the-fittest. As a race we chose the former long ago, as cooperation and nonaggression were (and still are) clearly beneficial to the species as a whole.
Governments are a stubborn artifact of the asocial minority; they create the illusion of legitimacy that asocial and antisocial individuals require to violate the rights of social individuals without incurring the wrath of society itself. If they serve any purpose at all, it is to give marginally constructive work to those members of the human race which appear to be unfit for civilized society -- turning the members asocial element against each other in hopes that both sides might leave society itself in peace for a time. It's a dangerous game, and, in my opinion, an unnecessary one, for I do not believe that the asocial element would be large enough now to justify a government were the government not around to continually undermine the rewards of social behavior.
I would argue that any unpublished recording or document should be considered equivilent to the memory of the person who made it; just as one cannot be forced to testify against oneself (divulge one's memories as evidence against oneself), one should not be forced to divulge private (audio, video, data) recordings that one has made. Such will undoubtably become even more important as we begin to develop ever more effective electronic (and possibly cybernetic) aids to memory, and as our technology for decoding the neural patterns in the human mind improves.
Perhaps one day we might discover a way to read a person's memory directly; will this technology be used to circumvent our laws against self-incrimination? What if the memories are encoded, not in human neural tissue, but rather in an electronic implant? Why should there be any difference? And if reading an electronic implant is considered self-recrimination, then why would an external memory device be any different? On the other hand, if one can subpoena the blackbox in the defendent's car, or the contents of the defendent's PDA or laptop, then what makes the defendent's biological memories special? Had we the technology, would it be right to submit the defendent's own memories as evidence? That would make a mockery of our laws against self-recrimination -- and yet we do the same today by seizing and entering into evidence the private documents and recordings of the defendant.
No offence is truly committed when the defendant is demonstrated guilty, provided that the infringement of the defendant's rights does not exceed the crime itself. However, should the defendant not be demonstrated guilty, then the infringement is entirely unjustified, and those responsible should be open to countersuit by the (presumably innocent) former defendant. This would go a long way toward curbing abuse of power in carrying out justice -- as would the addition of a requirement that the prosecutor be the victim of the crime (or the victim's appointed representative, but not the government), with clear (though not necessarily precisely measurable) damage as the basis for restitution (and possibly retribution; this is rather more controversial).
I believe the GP meant (academic (language purists)), not ((academic language) purists). I agree, C is hardly an academic language. Besides all the real-world uses, it doesn't have the theoretical elegance (or the inherent impracticality) necessary to qualify as "academic."