Anarcho-capitalism very quickly turns into mini-dictatorships of people with the most cash or most effective military force. For example, in colonial Virginia, plantation owners ran their plantations not significantly different from a feudal manor, acting as absolute ruler over slaves and indentured servants under their control and behaving very much like the nobility of Europe. Or to pick something more modern, in northern Mexico, with the government basically ineffective, the leaders of the drug cartels rule over their territory and personnel with an iron fist.
Minarchism means you have a government, and some body has to be in charge of managing the courts and the police and the army (otherwise, you just have anarchy, with all the drawbacks described in the previous paragraph). You have to pick that body somehow: If you hold an election, it's subject to all the democratic whims you're worried about. And if you don't include some variety of the governed consenting with the actions of the government, then you have an unaccountable person or group of people that will effectively operate as a dictatorship. (This one has to be theoretical, as there's no instance of anyone anywhere being able to create and keep a minarchist government for any significant length of time.)
"Libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron, since the fundamental belief of libertarianism is that the government should not force you to do things with your property that you don't want to do, while the fundamental belief of socialism is that the government should force the rich to use their property to support the poor.
Constitutional monarchy depends on whether the monarch has any real power. If the monarch has no real power (e.g. UK and Denmark), then it's a democracy really, and the views of the (theoretically more enlightened) monarch has no effect on policy, and thus all the problems you describe with democracy kick in. If the monarch has a real say in the functioning of government, then typically the monarch acts as an absolute ruler and any other political body serves to advise and carry out the wishes of the monarch.
I'm not so sure they're an example for everyone: China arguably does even better by combining the political freedoms enjoyed by northeastern Europeans for decades, the environmental and labor laws found in many nations in southeast Asia, and the economic opportunities common to Central America.
Whether Reagan is responsible for Iran-Contra, and Obama responsible for Fast and Furious, is an open historical question that will probably not be answered for a very long time.
The question in both cases is "What did the president know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it?" And in both cases, we don't know the answer to any of those questions because all the relevant documents are classified.
Let's see, the laws as they were 60 years ago, in 1952: - Pro-union regulations, and very strong labor unions - Big government projects like the Interstate Highway System - Upper income tax brackets at approximately 90% rather than the current 33% - A massive foreign aid package to help Europe rebuild after WWII - Not only were we entangled in the UN, the UN's very existence was the brainchild of then-president Harry Truman
About the only things that were different legally in 1952 that had the approval of most conservatives at the time were (1) the South had a bunch of laws and customs dramatically limiting the rights of black people, and (2) gun control laws were a lot more lax than they are now. Which is it that you really care about? Or do you have your timeline wrong, and want to go back to the halcyon days not of 1952 but of 1922?
If you don't believe in your position strongly enough to take a stand, then no one else will either.
My position is that this is bad behavior, regardless of who's doing it. By not identifying the responsible party, I keep the focus on the actions rather than the actor.
Also, anyone who's really interested can use Google to find it relatively easily.
Yes, I'm demanding that a musician who wants to be a professional be able to stand on a stage and do their thing. There's no genre in existence where this is impossible - for instance, Kraftwerk regularly performs their electronica live. Ditto for DJ's like Jazzy Jeff.
I'm not sure about videos, but the Federalist Papers point specifically explain how the US Constitution prevents a mob from taking control.
The basic problem, though, is that one man's group of motivated citizens voting for what they think is best for the republic is another man's unruly uneducated mob. If you truly believe that the citizens are incapable of electing not-terrible leaders (or, for that matter, weighing evidence fairly when seated on a jury), then what you're really advocating is some form of dictatorship.
Aside: Personally, I think the photo ID thing is a fine thing
I don't: 1. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist. The folks that have been pushing photo ID have been able to come up with approximately 10 cases of somebody pretending to be somebody else and casting a vote at the polls, having a significant impact on a grand total of 0 elections. If you want to cast fraudulent ballots, it's far easier to do so using absentee ballots.
2. If you require would-be voters to pay for their IDs, then this is a poll tax, which was ruled unconstitutional decades ago. If you don't, then this is an unnecessary (see point 1) expense, both for the government budget (and ultimately the people who pay taxes) and for the individuals who have to go get a free photo ID (which is only free if you don't count the transportation to the place to get it and the time to wait for it).
3. The party that pushed through these bills stated quite explicitly their purpose, namely to prevent people likely to vote for the other major party from voting. To quote a state government representative, "Voter ID, which is gonna allow ______________ to win the state of Pennsylvania, done". (I'm leaving the party name blank here to protect the guilty). Acts of these sorts are an anathema to democratic governance.
The tactic that's banned here is: 1. Fire a missile, killing and injuring a bunch of people. 2. Wait about 15 minutes (which is conveniently enough time for rescue personnel to show up). 3. Fire another missile at the same target.
Another example of this violation would be in the "Collateral Murder" video from Wikileaks: The US helicopter fired on some people in the street, and when a van with some civilians showed up to pick up a wounded man lying in the street the helicopter opened fire on them as well (killing the rescuers and severely wounding the two kids they had with them).
It's 5 people because 5 votes are all that's needed to create a 5-4 decision.
I'm not saying judges shouldn't have power, but the value of having to have somebody bring a case is that it allows them to only focus on those situations where there is a potential problem.
That would work if and only if there was a viable substitute to driving down the freeways. Right now, the only substitute I'm aware of in a lot of areas is taking the surface streets rather than the freeways, which would just make the problem worse.
Viable substitutes that might actually work include commuter rail systems combined with subway / light rail (Boston has had quite a bit of success with that), and for longer distances a high-speed auto train might work (e.g. you drive onto the train, which stops every 30 miles, drive off the train at the appropriate stop and continue on to where you're going). But most every option I can imagine involves significant infrastructure investments and cultural shifts.
Seems like laws and bills and crap should logically go through the Supreme Court *before* being enacted.
So you want to give veto power to 5 unelected people who have a lifetime term of office? I understand the instincts, but this seems like a really bad idea.
The best option at this point is to select "alternative screening" whenever you go through the airport. Refuse the private screening as this only benefits the TSA by allowing it to hide the dissent against this technology.
The best option is to not fly, let the airlines know exactly why, and encourage others who dissent against this policy to change their habits as well. If the airlines start losing big money because of the TSA's practices, they'll bribe^H lobby to change it.
After Dancing with the Stars, did you stick with dance as a way to have a good time, or did you decide that it took away energy better spent on jokes, technology, and teaching?
If I recall correctly, one of Woz's favorites involved placing fake brochures at a trade show to convince Jobs that there was another company with some fantastic tech gadgetry that could blow Apple out of the water. Jobs took the bait, including holding strategy sessions to figure out what Apple needed to do to defend itself against the competitor. He only figured it out several years later when Woz gave him the original as a birthday present.
Well, according to actual scientific research in the UK, this was the world's funniest joke:
Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy takes out his phone and calls the emergency services.
He gasps: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says: "Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what?"
In the US that means we'll "only" be able to eat about 40 pounds of pork products per person per year.
To use your example: Pork was at $0.80 / lb in May of this year. Now, if we can only eat 40 lbs per person per year, but we want to eat 50 lbs per person per year, then the way that capitalism demands that we handle this product is send the price to $1.00 / lb, which means people who want to eat 50 lbs of pork at $0.80 (for $40) now can only eat 40 lbs at $1.00 for the same price. Those who really really want pork and can afford it will pay that $1.00 / lb, those who don't will switch to cheaper substitute goods. Now, if you're somebody for whom that $10 price difference is a big deal, you're going to do without pork and instead eat something else. It's not a disaster, but it definitely means that you don't get the pork you want.
So the reasons you don't see it as similar to, say, the 1970's gas crisis: 1. The price difference doesn't appear to significantly affect you. If you were poor enough that $10 made the difference between making ends meet and not, then it would be a bigger deal. 2. There are viable substitutes for pork (e.g. poultry, beef, lamb, fish), and there's minimal barriers to switch: Just buy something else for dinner. By comparison, there aren't very many viable substitutes for gasoline, and switching away from it was extremely difficult and expensive. 3. There was a much greater shortage of gasoline in the 1970's than there is a shortage of pork now.
A shortage is a situation where the demand for a product at a particular price is higher than the supply of that product. Basic capitalism responds to that by raising the price of the product until demand matches supply (this goes back to at least Adam Smith, possibly earlier). Hence the price of the product reflects, in part, the scarcity of that product.
And in the case of bacon (or other forms of pig meat), there are plenty of substitute goods, so what will happen is that people who are willing and able to pay the higher price for it will get it, and those that aren't won't get it. It's that simple. And longer term, because the prices are higher some people who would have done other businesses will focus on producing hogs because that's where the money is, which means the problem will solve itself.
Isn't amazing when capitalism does what it's supposed to?
I'm not clear what an "open source artist" is: For artistic creations, there is no 'source code' to be open, only whatever sensory experience the artist has declared to be a work of art. Do you mean that you're an independent unsigned musician? Do you mean that you release your stuff under a Creative Commons license?
Here's the basic path to success for independent musicians: 1. Perform at any venue that will give you a chance to do so, so you can create some fans. If you don't get fans, then sorry mate, but you probably just aren't that good, keep your day job and enjoy making music as an amateur. 2. Start getting paid gigs. These will likely start out in venues you will hate, for not-very-large crowds and not a lot of money. You're trying to continue building your fan base, and also to create a good reputation among those who are responsible for booking musicians to play at venues in the area. 3. Make an album of your music and bring it to the paid gigs. Sell them for $10 a pop. 4. Any online presence is about building a fan base who will come to your live gigs. The goal is to be enough of a draw that you can start demanding higher prices and better working conditions from people who want to pay you to perform.
If you don't have at least a few people actively cheering you on, expressing interest in hiring you, or wanting to pay you for recordings, you just aren't professional grade. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the fault of music piracy.
And I say this as somebody who's good enough to earn a very low 4 figures for my musical work.
FYI, that's not normally how this works. For instance, the Harvard School of Education has a masters program aimed specifically at people who have been professionals in mathematics and science fields who want to switch to teaching.
Right, but the people his question asked to motivate were not those kind of people, they were: " Sometimes it is easy to say that there isn't too much work on and goof off and read Slashdot all day."
If you've given people everything they could reasonably ask for, including profit share, and they still aren't performing, then chances are they're just lazy. Solution: 1. Make it clear (privately) that they are underperforming, 2. if they are still underperforming 3-6 months later, let them know that their job is at stake, and 3. if they're still underperforming 3-6 months after that, fire them.
There are some people who will want to contribute and provide useful effort with the appropriate carrot. But if that doesn't work, use the stick.
Slashdot Mirror
Anarcho-capitalism very quickly turns into mini-dictatorships of people with the most cash or most effective military force. For example, in colonial Virginia, plantation owners ran their plantations not significantly different from a feudal manor, acting as absolute ruler over slaves and indentured servants under their control and behaving very much like the nobility of Europe. Or to pick something more modern, in northern Mexico, with the government basically ineffective, the leaders of the drug cartels rule over their territory and personnel with an iron fist.
Minarchism means you have a government, and some body has to be in charge of managing the courts and the police and the army (otherwise, you just have anarchy, with all the drawbacks described in the previous paragraph). You have to pick that body somehow: If you hold an election, it's subject to all the democratic whims you're worried about. And if you don't include some variety of the governed consenting with the actions of the government, then you have an unaccountable person or group of people that will effectively operate as a dictatorship. (This one has to be theoretical, as there's no instance of anyone anywhere being able to create and keep a minarchist government for any significant length of time.)
"Libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron, since the fundamental belief of libertarianism is that the government should not force you to do things with your property that you don't want to do, while the fundamental belief of socialism is that the government should force the rich to use their property to support the poor.
Constitutional monarchy depends on whether the monarch has any real power. If the monarch has no real power (e.g. UK and Denmark), then it's a democracy really, and the views of the (theoretically more enlightened) monarch has no effect on policy, and thus all the problems you describe with democracy kick in. If the monarch has a real say in the functioning of government, then typically the monarch acts as an absolute ruler and any other political body serves to advise and carry out the wishes of the monarch.
I'm not so sure they're an example for everyone: China arguably does even better by combining the political freedoms enjoyed by northeastern Europeans for decades, the environmental and labor laws found in many nations in southeast Asia, and the economic opportunities common to Central America.
Whether Reagan is responsible for Iran-Contra, and Obama responsible for Fast and Furious, is an open historical question that will probably not be answered for a very long time.
The question in both cases is "What did the president know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it?" And in both cases, we don't know the answer to any of those questions because all the relevant documents are classified.
Let's see, the laws as they were 60 years ago, in 1952:
- Pro-union regulations, and very strong labor unions
- Big government projects like the Interstate Highway System
- Upper income tax brackets at approximately 90% rather than the current 33%
- A massive foreign aid package to help Europe rebuild after WWII
- Not only were we entangled in the UN, the UN's very existence was the brainchild of then-president Harry Truman
About the only things that were different legally in 1952 that had the approval of most conservatives at the time were (1) the South had a bunch of laws and customs dramatically limiting the rights of black people, and (2) gun control laws were a lot more lax than they are now. Which is it that you really care about? Or do you have your timeline wrong, and want to go back to the halcyon days not of 1952 but of 1922?
If you don't believe in your position strongly enough to take a stand, then no one else will either.
My position is that this is bad behavior, regardless of who's doing it. By not identifying the responsible party, I keep the focus on the actions rather than the actor.
Also, anyone who's really interested can use Google to find it relatively easily.
Yes, I'm demanding that a musician who wants to be a professional be able to stand on a stage and do their thing. There's no genre in existence where this is impossible - for instance, Kraftwerk regularly performs their electronica live. Ditto for DJ's like Jazzy Jeff.
The look on Jobs' face was priceless?
I'm not sure about videos, but the Federalist Papers point specifically explain how the US Constitution prevents a mob from taking control.
The basic problem, though, is that one man's group of motivated citizens voting for what they think is best for the republic is another man's unruly uneducated mob. If you truly believe that the citizens are incapable of electing not-terrible leaders (or, for that matter, weighing evidence fairly when seated on a jury), then what you're really advocating is some form of dictatorship.
Aside: Personally, I think the photo ID thing is a fine thing
I don't:
1. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist. The folks that have been pushing photo ID have been able to come up with approximately 10 cases of somebody pretending to be somebody else and casting a vote at the polls, having a significant impact on a grand total of 0 elections. If you want to cast fraudulent ballots, it's far easier to do so using absentee ballots.
2. If you require would-be voters to pay for their IDs, then this is a poll tax, which was ruled unconstitutional decades ago. If you don't, then this is an unnecessary (see point 1) expense, both for the government budget (and ultimately the people who pay taxes) and for the individuals who have to go get a free photo ID (which is only free if you don't count the transportation to the place to get it and the time to wait for it).
3. The party that pushed through these bills stated quite explicitly their purpose, namely to prevent people likely to vote for the other major party from voting. To quote a state government representative, "Voter ID, which is gonna allow ______________ to win the state of Pennsylvania, done". (I'm leaving the party name blank here to protect the guilty). Acts of these sorts are an anathema to democratic governance.
The tactic that's banned here is:
1. Fire a missile, killing and injuring a bunch of people.
2. Wait about 15 minutes (which is conveniently enough time for rescue personnel to show up).
3. Fire another missile at the same target.
Another example of this violation would be in the "Collateral Murder" video from Wikileaks: The US helicopter fired on some people in the street, and when a van with some civilians showed up to pick up a wounded man lying in the street the helicopter opened fire on them as well (killing the rescuers and severely wounding the two kids they had with them).
It's 5 people because 5 votes are all that's needed to create a 5-4 decision.
I'm not saying judges shouldn't have power, but the value of having to have somebody bring a case is that it allows them to only focus on those situations where there is a potential problem.
That would work if and only if there was a viable substitute to driving down the freeways. Right now, the only substitute I'm aware of in a lot of areas is taking the surface streets rather than the freeways, which would just make the problem worse.
Viable substitutes that might actually work include commuter rail systems combined with subway / light rail (Boston has had quite a bit of success with that), and for longer distances a high-speed auto train might work (e.g. you drive onto the train, which stops every 30 miles, drive off the train at the appropriate stop and continue on to where you're going). But most every option I can imagine involves significant infrastructure investments and cultural shifts.
Seems like laws and bills and crap should logically go through the Supreme Court *before* being enacted.
So you want to give veto power to 5 unelected people who have a lifetime term of office? I understand the instincts, but this seems like a really bad idea.
The best option at this point is to select "alternative screening" whenever you go through the airport. Refuse the private screening as this only benefits the TSA by allowing it to hide the dissent against this technology.
The best option is to not fly, let the airlines know exactly why, and encourage others who dissent against this policy to change their habits as well. If the airlines start losing big money because of the TSA's practices, they'll bribe^H lobby to change it.
After Dancing with the Stars, did you stick with dance as a way to have a good time, or did you decide that it took away energy better spent on jokes, technology, and teaching?
If I recall correctly, one of Woz's favorites involved placing fake brochures at a trade show to convince Jobs that there was another company with some fantastic tech gadgetry that could blow Apple out of the water. Jobs took the bait, including holding strategy sessions to figure out what Apple needed to do to defend itself against the competitor. He only figured it out several years later when Woz gave him the original as a birthday present.
Well, according to actual scientific research in the UK, this was the world's funniest joke:
Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy takes out his phone and calls the emergency services.
He gasps: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says: "Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what?"
In the US that means we'll "only" be able to eat about 40 pounds of pork products per person per year.
To use your example: Pork was at $0.80 / lb in May of this year. Now, if we can only eat 40 lbs per person per year, but we want to eat 50 lbs per person per year, then the way that capitalism demands that we handle this product is send the price to $1.00 / lb, which means people who want to eat 50 lbs of pork at $0.80 (for $40) now can only eat 40 lbs at $1.00 for the same price. Those who really really want pork and can afford it will pay that $1.00 / lb, those who don't will switch to cheaper substitute goods. Now, if you're somebody for whom that $10 price difference is a big deal, you're going to do without pork and instead eat something else. It's not a disaster, but it definitely means that you don't get the pork you want.
So the reasons you don't see it as similar to, say, the 1970's gas crisis:
1. The price difference doesn't appear to significantly affect you. If you were poor enough that $10 made the difference between making ends meet and not, then it would be a bigger deal.
2. There are viable substitutes for pork (e.g. poultry, beef, lamb, fish), and there's minimal barriers to switch: Just buy something else for dinner. By comparison, there aren't very many viable substitutes for gasoline, and switching away from it was extremely difficult and expensive.
3. There was a much greater shortage of gasoline in the 1970's than there is a shortage of pork now.
The difference is not of kind, but of degree.
They make great places to stash the bodies.
A shortage is a situation where the demand for a product at a particular price is higher than the supply of that product. Basic capitalism responds to that by raising the price of the product until demand matches supply (this goes back to at least Adam Smith, possibly earlier). Hence the price of the product reflects, in part, the scarcity of that product.
And in the case of bacon (or other forms of pig meat), there are plenty of substitute goods, so what will happen is that people who are willing and able to pay the higher price for it will get it, and those that aren't won't get it. It's that simple. And longer term, because the prices are higher some people who would have done other businesses will focus on producing hogs because that's where the money is, which means the problem will solve itself.
Isn't amazing when capitalism does what it's supposed to?
I'm not clear what an "open source artist" is: For artistic creations, there is no 'source code' to be open, only whatever sensory experience the artist has declared to be a work of art. Do you mean that you're an independent unsigned musician? Do you mean that you release your stuff under a Creative Commons license?
Here's the basic path to success for independent musicians:
1. Perform at any venue that will give you a chance to do so, so you can create some fans. If you don't get fans, then sorry mate, but you probably just aren't that good, keep your day job and enjoy making music as an amateur.
2. Start getting paid gigs. These will likely start out in venues you will hate, for not-very-large crowds and not a lot of money. You're trying to continue building your fan base, and also to create a good reputation among those who are responsible for booking musicians to play at venues in the area.
3. Make an album of your music and bring it to the paid gigs. Sell them for $10 a pop.
4. Any online presence is about building a fan base who will come to your live gigs. The goal is to be enough of a draw that you can start demanding higher prices and better working conditions from people who want to pay you to perform.
If you don't have at least a few people actively cheering you on, expressing interest in hiring you, or wanting to pay you for recordings, you just aren't professional grade. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the fault of music piracy.
And I say this as somebody who's good enough to earn a very low 4 figures for my musical work.
FYI, that's not normally how this works. For instance, the Harvard School of Education has a masters program aimed specifically at people who have been professionals in mathematics and science fields who want to switch to teaching.
3 obvious points about that: /. is dying when Netcraft confirms it.
1. I'll believe
2. Your preferred $EDITOR sucks. Mine rocks.
3. I want Natalie Portman naked and petrified in hot grits.
Right, but the people his question asked to motivate were not those kind of people, they were:
" Sometimes it is easy to say that there isn't too much work on and goof off and read Slashdot all day."
Hence my response.
If you've given people everything they could reasonably ask for, including profit share, and they still aren't performing, then chances are they're just lazy. Solution: 1. Make it clear (privately) that they are underperforming, 2. if they are still underperforming 3-6 months later, let them know that their job is at stake, and 3. if they're still underperforming 3-6 months after that, fire them.
There are some people who will want to contribute and provide useful effort with the appropriate carrot. But if that doesn't work, use the stick.