Of the things you mention, only military protection and Investigation of and punishment of crimes are the necessary and proper realm of government. All else is better off in private hands.
Water supply is a particular laugher. Tell me about the farmer 20 miles from the nearest farm, who insists that that town provide him with a supply of water.
Ending up murdered by representatives of the government for not paying taxes is not a single step process; but it is nonetheless the inevitable outcome of refusing to pay taxes and continuing to defend one's rights thereafter. Invariably some person will use the legal process to gain ownership of the property on which taxes were not paid, and that person will used the armed force of government to separate the non-payer from the property. If the non-payer uses force to maintain possession of the property (which is the only way he can maintain it), he will end up dead or serving life in prison.
That you wish to pretend that the non-payer isn't being executed for non-payment of taxes because it isn't a single step process, is evidence of nothing but your willingness to turn a blind eye to the facts.
The libertarian movement does not aim only at decreasing government power, it aims at decreasing power: decreasing the ability of anyone to use force against another person, and get away with it.
There are people whose drive in life is not to have nice things or lots of money, but to push other people around. Among those the most successful we call "tyrants"; they are the people who "profit" from using the force of arbitrary laws against others.
You do not understand that a free market is based on property rights. Everybody has a right to reasonably clean air, as part of the property inherent to all humans on earth. People who pollute the air are damaging the property of those who breath it, and should be charged for doing it and prevented from repeating the pollution, as appropriate. Everyone has a right of access to reasonably clean water, whether pumped on your own property, or purchased from a privately owned or municipal water supplier. A polluter of a drinking water supply is damaging the property rights of a person, family, water company or municipality, and should be made to pay for damages and prevented from further pollution. The tragedy of the commons is not a failure of capitalism, it is a lack of capitalism, caused by a failure to identify, codify, and enforce property rights.
Step 1: I join the "Pretty Puppy" political party.
Step 2: The federal legislature passes, and the president signs, a retroactive law making membership in the Pretty Puppy party a mandatory death by torture offense. After several challenges, the Supreme Court rules the law Constitutional, not cruel and unusual punishment.
Step 3: At my trial, I'm asked "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Pretty Puppy party?"
Figure it out for yourself. And don't even try to tell me that there aren't laws as bad as the one I've just fantasized, because a.) there are, and b.) it's irrelevant.
What do we do went human labour is a product that no one needs to buy?
"Need" and "want" are different things. Some people will always want human labor or its results. "Hand crafted" always has its market.
Why worry about the big evil socialist government stealing the product of your labour when your labour isn't worth anything?
So many errors in one sentence! Labor will never be worthless. The underlying purpose of socialism is not to steal the product of your labor. It isn't even to steal your labor (slavery), although that's closer. It is to have total control over all aspects of everyone. Take a look at the trend of government education, where the goal is to control your mind.
Capitalism, more than any other system, makes possible the change of economic prosperity of worthy individuals, where "worthy" means "provides things other people want."
Without the poor and middle class, you can't have rich people
That's inflammatory and misleading language, which implies that the rich are suppressing the others. It assumes that rich and poor can only be used as relative terms; that there can be no absolute standard of rich and poor.
In a just, productive society, the accumulation of personal property over time assures that any reasonable, fixed standard of "poor" includes a steadily decreasing portion of people.
Many people, perhaps most, keep a lot of personal conveniences in their car; that would translate to having to lug a lot of things to the shared car for each trip. Nuisance.
Having to wait for a shared car is not convenient, and is a problem in emergencies.
The distance the shared car travels empty from its storage location to the user is wasteful of fuel.
Some people take pride in maintaining a clean, attractive car.
There is a class of people for whom the shared car technique works, some combination of low capital, low cash flow, infrequent travel, and/or expensive/inconvenient parking. Not for everybody.
If autonomous cars become standard, it should reverse the trend toward mandatory automobile insurance. What a wonderful blow against the horrid waste that is insurance. This should free up a lot of people to do actual productive work.
The relative abilities of eye/brain versus camera depends upon the particular quality being measured and the particular camera being used. The quality you mentioned, dynamic range, is a win for the eye, but the results you describe apply to P&S cameras with 8 bit converters, not 14 bit semipro models.
Cameras are expected to be fairly sharp edge-to-edge. Try to read small text 45 degrees off where your vision is directed and you'll find yourself defeated: not only won't you be able to focus on the letters, you'll find it difficult to even pay attention to it.
Saying that the eye/brain is "far, far better than the best camera ever made" is unjustifiable hyperbole.
Current silicon devices are pretty close to responding to each incident photon (say about 90%). Improving that by 1000 times is simply impossible; the limit is responding to each photon.
There are a number of factors in winning. One, alas, is showmanship. If you don't catch the judges' eyes and engage their interest, you lose to someone who does. Another is not offending a judge. If you discover a new, superior method of birth control, there's a good chance a judge will eliminate you immediately. Another is just randomness: if there are two projects close in worthiness, picking the best isn't easy or dependable.
Jews: This is how it is.
Christians: This is how it is, you other guys are wrong.
Mohammedans: This is how it is, you other guys are liars.
This difference in attitude runs throughout each religion, and illustrates a source of world problems today.
Slashdot Mirror
Of the things you mention, only military protection and Investigation of and punishment of crimes are the necessary and proper realm of government. All else is better off in private hands.
Water supply is a particular laugher. Tell me about the farmer 20 miles from the nearest farm, who insists that that town provide him with a supply of water.
You mean spaces that have been stolen from their rightful owners.
If you can't distinguish people from machines, your other comments come as no surprise.
Ending up murdered by representatives of the government for not paying taxes is not a single step process; but it is nonetheless the inevitable outcome of refusing to pay taxes and continuing to defend one's rights thereafter. Invariably some person will use the legal process to gain ownership of the property on which taxes were not paid, and that person will used the armed force of government to separate the non-payer from the property. If the non-payer uses force to maintain possession of the property (which is the only way he can maintain it), he will end up dead or serving life in prison.
That you wish to pretend that the non-payer isn't being executed for non-payment of taxes because it isn't a single step process, is evidence of nothing but your willingness to turn a blind eye to the facts.
Your (Hayek's) claim is refuted by continuing experience: privately owned and operated hospitals.
Yup. Blind people are sure an ethnic or cultural group.
The libertarian movement does not aim only at decreasing government power, it aims at decreasing power: decreasing the ability of anyone to use force against another person, and get away with it.
There are people whose drive in life is not to have nice things or lots of money, but to push other people around. Among those the most successful we call "tyrants"; they are the people who "profit" from using the force of arbitrary laws against others.
You do not understand that a free market is based on property rights. Everybody has a right to reasonably clean air, as part of the property inherent to all humans on earth. People who pollute the air are damaging the property of those who breath it, and should be charged for doing it and prevented from repeating the pollution, as appropriate. Everyone has a right of access to reasonably clean water, whether pumped on your own property, or purchased from a privately owned or municipal water supplier. A polluter of a drinking water supply is damaging the property rights of a person, family, water company or municipality, and should be made to pay for damages and prevented from further pollution. The tragedy of the commons is not a failure of capitalism, it is a lack of capitalism, caused by a failure to identify, codify, and enforce property rights.
5. Microsoft provides a free compiler. Find it, download it, install it.
Step 1: I join the "Pretty Puppy" political party.
Step 2: The federal legislature passes, and the president signs, a retroactive law making membership in the Pretty Puppy party a mandatory death by torture offense. After several challenges, the Supreme Court rules the law Constitutional, not cruel and unusual punishment.
Step 3: At my trial, I'm asked "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Pretty Puppy party?"
Figure it out for yourself. And don't even try to tell me that there aren't laws as bad as the one I've just fantasized, because a.) there are, and b.) it's irrelevant.
Raw data - unscaled, unaltered by any postprocessing - is more likely to have no holes than some sort of screwy post-processed score set.
"Need" and "want" are different things. Some people will always want human labor or its results. "Hand crafted" always has its market.
So many errors in one sentence! Labor will never be worthless. The underlying purpose of socialism is not to steal the product of your labor. It isn't even to steal your labor (slavery), although that's closer. It is to have total control over all aspects of everyone. Take a look at the trend of government education, where the goal is to control your mind.
Capitalism, more than any other system, makes possible the change of economic prosperity of worthy individuals, where "worthy" means "provides things other people want."
That's inflammatory and misleading language, which implies that the rich are suppressing the others. It assumes that rich and poor can only be used as relative terms; that there can be no absolute standard of rich and poor.
In a just, productive society, the accumulation of personal property over time assures that any reasonable, fixed standard of "poor" includes a steadily decreasing portion of people.
He's probably using a lead-acid battery.
Current density yes. Energy density no, it remains unchanged by combining cells in series.
Many people, perhaps most, keep a lot of personal conveniences in their car; that would translate to having to lug a lot of things to the shared car for each trip. Nuisance.
Having to wait for a shared car is not convenient, and is a problem in emergencies.
The distance the shared car travels empty from its storage location to the user is wasteful of fuel.
Some people take pride in maintaining a clean, attractive car.
There is a class of people for whom the shared car technique works, some combination of low capital, low cash flow, infrequent travel, and/or expensive/inconvenient parking. Not for everybody.
If autonomous cars become standard, it should reverse the trend toward mandatory automobile insurance. What a wonderful blow against the horrid waste that is insurance. This should free up a lot of people to do actual productive work.
The relative abilities of eye/brain versus camera depends upon the particular quality being measured and the particular camera being used. The quality you mentioned, dynamic range, is a win for the eye, but the results you describe apply to P&S cameras with 8 bit converters, not 14 bit semipro models.
Cameras are expected to be fairly sharp edge-to-edge. Try to read small text 45 degrees off where your vision is directed and you'll find yourself defeated: not only won't you be able to focus on the letters, you'll find it difficult to even pay attention to it.
Saying that the eye/brain is "far, far better than the best camera ever made" is unjustifiable hyperbole.
Current silicon devices are pretty close to responding to each incident photon (say about 90%). Improving that by 1000 times is simply impossible; the limit is responding to each photon.
I've seen code that takes different execution paths depending on what machine it's running on.
There are a number of factors in winning. One, alas, is showmanship. If you don't catch the judges' eyes and engage their interest, you lose to someone who does. Another is not offending a judge. If you discover a new, superior method of birth control, there's a good chance a judge will eliminate you immediately. Another is just randomness: if there are two projects close in worthiness, picking the best isn't easy or dependable.
<sarcasm> Yup, that's necessary to be a real scrientist. </sarcasm>
Jews: This is how it is.
Christians: This is how it is, you other guys are wrong.
Mohammedans: This is how it is, you other guys are liars.
This difference in attitude runs throughout each religion, and illustrates a source of world problems today.
Impossible. Liberals have no balls.