This article from eight years ago sure did a great job of predicting this whole thing. Is it any surprise that when a government (whether under Clinton or Bush) promotes "affordable housing" as an end in itself, by manipulating interest rates and bank regulations, that they're bound to create a bubble, and bubbles by definition cannot last?
The United States - and the people living here - could do with a reasonable push to the left.
Hilarious. You call it a "push", but that push would be at the point of a gun, no doubt. Your good intentions and your desire for reformation cannot justify the violation of individual rights that would come with the enactment of the projects you're implicitly proposing.
I've been screaming for the last 8 years, and I'm screaming twice as loud now. The fascism (yes, the word has a meaning, and I understand it) of administrations is getting more and more blatant.
Yes they can. Private industry can collude with others to prevent you getting a job.
You don't have a right to a job.
They can buy all the land around yours and refuse you access.
No, they couldn't. I would take them to court and win.
They can pollute your land
No, they couldn't. I would take them to court and win.
they can beat them with hundreds of lawyers.
So your argument against the free market is that the government is corrupt - ie, that the courts are non-objective and have made it extremely difficult for the little man to win without handing over his life savings. Yours is a bad argument.
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason.
Yes, instead of taking it from me, they take it from my future progeny.
Imagine if the opposite principle were accepted -- that websites and software vendors could do anything they wanted as long as they put the right disclaimer in the 23rd paragraph of their site's or program's "Terms of Service" that nobody reads.
Your whole argument for Net Neutrality hinges on this. Clearly there is a huge incentive for a company to read through these lengthy documents and bring this stuff to people's attention, so that people who don't have the time to read long contracts or ToS can know about it. If people choose not to read something before signing it, they are not being "defrauded" if and when the unexpected comes to pass. There is a free market solution to this. As VeriSign does for online security, and Underwriters Laboratories for product safety, and Consumer Reports for product quality, so goes for contracts. Companies would build up their name by providing the public with useful and accurate information at the lowest possible cost.
A trust is not inherently bad. So long as no individual rights are violated, there is no cause for concern, and certainly no reason for the government to get involved. Of course, service may degrade, but as it does, customers should be free to switch to alternatives, and other individuals/companies should be free to create and offer those alternatives.
The sooner this happens, the sooner an economic collapse could occur, and the sooner people might wake up to the idiocy of government intervention into the economy. Not likely, but a much better choice than this constant limping along that we get from bipartisanship and lip service to "freeing the market".
A right is a freedom of action. If you choose to live, it is right for you to use your mind to select values and goals in keeping with your choice, and to figure out how to support those values and achieve those goals. Someone who acts irrationally is acting contrary to his life. So someone who attacks another, for example, is acting irrationally, and is no different from a dog in that respect (psychologically). The purpose of a court is to determine if and when they will be capable of choosing life, choosing to act rationally in the future.
Under that line of thought, do you support having a military and police force, and how would you fund those things?
Of course. Governments are created among men to uphold and protect individual rights. The proper functions of government are present in the courts, police, and military.
Do you support public funding of those or voluntary payment?
Voluntary, of course. That is an ideal, so it should be reached, but any reduction/removal of the *improper* functions of government is a positive step in that direction, a step I would gladly see become reality.
I only ask that because a lot of libertarians
I am not a libertarian. I am consistent.
The problem is that those people are then advocating use of force and violation of rights of individuals in order to guarantee their own property rights.
That statement is nonsensical. The initiation of force is the violation or threat of violation of rights. Self-defense is not an initiation of force.
Humans have rights by their nature to their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. The right to property is the political application of the rights to life and the pursuit of happiness, as there's no possibility of pursuing rational values and goals if you have no right to the wealth you create with your mind.
I replied too quickly. My mistake for thinking you had read my posts. The government does have a proper function - a monopoly on force - through the courts, police and military. That would need funding. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want to fund such an effort, and if they didn't, I'd refuse to trade with them. In fact, I'd build a "tax" into everything I sell, so that I could make a nice donation to the government regularly.
That should be enough for you to figure out the rest. (Though I question whether you'll actually put in the effort - knee-jerk reactions are so much easier!)
And we see ourselves as slaves to their interests,thus all of the 'tea-party' fools who will be getting tax cuts protesting on behalf of the poor beleaguered CEOs who will see their taxes increase.
I went to two of those tea parties. I protested on behalf of the fools and of the successful. Neither extreme, nor anyone in between, should be forced to give up their property against their will.
No, it is the scientist, who does NOT generally benefit much from their own ingenuity, that we distrust.
Your own comment betrays itself. You demonize and distrust the successful business man.
No one wants to fund a gamble that might, if we are lucky, pay off in 30-40 years. Thus, basic scientific research is a kind of externality, a public good, and the free market is incapable of allotting the optimal amount of funding for public goods such as transportation, public education, and public health.
None of those should exist either. As for people's focus on the short-term, it should be no surprise that with a Federal Reserve capable of swaying the entire economy with the snap of the fingers of a Chairman, or political pressure from the Treasury, that people are forced to live day-to-day. Whatever happened to the 99-year-loans of a century ago?
That is econ 101.
No, actually, it is Policy 101. You are not simply talking about how the market works - that would be economics. You are promoting forced intervention into the market, ultimately driven by the whims of politicians. The same people who I see make this mistake also equivocate on the word "power" - economic power (success) is seen as equivalent to political power, simply because politicians put themselves up for hire to pass laws benefiting some at the expense of others. Who ever can pay the most wins. The true solution isn't to try to persuade politicians to pass laws in your favor, at the expense of others - that just continues the problem. The proper solution is to get the government - or any entity with a monopoly on force - out of the market. Then economic power will cease to have its political connotation.
More like their lives easier. Research is slow process - it takes years, maybe decades for an idea to progress from the sketching board to store shelves.
For you to have any argument, you'll have to show two things:
1. Show that such endeavors could not be done through private enterprise alone.
2. More importantly, show that the ends justify the means - that the various violations of individual rights that are inherent in government interventions into the economy are justified by your good intentions.
Seeing as the government does not make a damn thing, the only way they're getting that money is from taxes. Either by increasing our taxes now, or by increasing taxes on future generations.
The problem isn't so much the portrayal of scientists as nerdy. The problem is that such a portrayal is considered derogatory or negative. We really despise the men of ideas in this county. Smart, successful people are seen as slaves to the public's interests - what they produce is nice, but if they benefit from their ingenuity, to hell with them.
If you understand the value of such programs, you should donate whatever time, money, effort you can toward such causes, and personally persuade your friends, family, neighbors, etc, to do the same. What you should not do is persuade politicians to pass laws forcing everyone to fund your pet projects.
Imagine if other personal interests were run that way. "FOSS is good, therefore everyone should be required to fund it!"
Slashdot Mirror
Nice name. CWRU took all my money. Oh, and you're supposed to called it Case now. :)
This article from eight years ago sure did a great job of predicting this whole thing. Is it any surprise that when a government (whether under Clinton or Bush) promotes "affordable housing" as an end in itself, by manipulating interest rates and bank regulations, that they're bound to create a bubble, and bubbles by definition cannot last?
The United States - and the people living here - could do with a reasonable push to the left.
Hilarious. You call it a "push", but that push would be at the point of a gun, no doubt. Your good intentions and your desire for reformation cannot justify the violation of individual rights that would come with the enactment of the projects you're implicitly proposing.
I've been screaming for the last 8 years, and I'm screaming twice as loud now. The fascism (yes, the word has a meaning, and I understand it) of administrations is getting more and more blatant.
Perfect response.
Fail.
Yes they can. Private industry can collude with others to prevent you getting a job.
You don't have a right to a job.
They can buy all the land around yours and refuse you access.
No, they couldn't. I would take them to court and win.
They can pollute your land
No, they couldn't. I would take them to court and win.
they can beat them with hundreds of lawyers.
So your argument against the free market is that the government is corrupt - ie, that the courts are non-objective and have made it extremely difficult for the little man to win without handing over his life savings. Yours is a bad argument.
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason.
Yes, instead of taking it from me, they take it from my future progeny.
In related news, murderers aren't inherently bad as long as they don't kill anyone.
Then they wouldn't be murderers...
Imagine if the opposite principle were accepted -- that websites and software vendors could do anything they wanted as long as they put the right disclaimer in the 23rd paragraph of their site's or program's "Terms of Service" that nobody reads.
Your whole argument for Net Neutrality hinges on this. Clearly there is a huge incentive for a company to read through these lengthy documents and bring this stuff to people's attention, so that people who don't have the time to read long contracts or ToS can know about it. If people choose not to read something before signing it, they are not being "defrauded" if and when the unexpected comes to pass. There is a free market solution to this. As VeriSign does for online security, and Underwriters Laboratories for product safety, and Consumer Reports for product quality, so goes for contracts. Companies would build up their name by providing the public with useful and accurate information at the lowest possible cost.
A trust is not inherently bad. So long as no individual rights are violated, there is no cause for concern, and certainly no reason for the government to get involved. Of course, service may degrade, but as it does, customers should be free to switch to alternatives, and other individuals/companies should be free to create and offer those alternatives.
The sooner this happens, the sooner an economic collapse could occur, and the sooner people might wake up to the idiocy of government intervention into the economy. Not likely, but a much better choice than this constant limping along that we get from bipartisanship and lip service to "freeing the market".
...nothing of value was lost or gained.
Thanks for answering my questions in a reasonable manner.
Forgive me, but this is Slashdot, so I must assume this is sarcasm. :)
A right is a freedom of action. If you choose to live, it is right for you to use your mind to select values and goals in keeping with your choice, and to figure out how to support those values and achieve those goals. Someone who acts irrationally is acting contrary to his life. So someone who attacks another, for example, is acting irrationally, and is no different from a dog in that respect (psychologically). The purpose of a court is to determine if and when they will be capable of choosing life, choosing to act rationally in the future.
Under that line of thought, do you support having a military and police force, and how would you fund those things?
Of course. Governments are created among men to uphold and protect individual rights. The proper functions of government are present in the courts, police, and military.
Do you support public funding of those or voluntary payment?
Voluntary, of course. That is an ideal, so it should be reached, but any reduction/removal of the *improper* functions of government is a positive step in that direction, a step I would gladly see become reality.
I only ask that because a lot of libertarians
I am not a libertarian. I am consistent.
The problem is that those people are then advocating use of force and violation of rights of individuals in order to guarantee their own property rights.
That statement is nonsensical. The initiation of force is the violation or threat of violation of rights. Self-defense is not an initiation of force.
Humans have rights by their nature to their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. The right to property is the political application of the rights to life and the pursuit of happiness, as there's no possibility of pursuing rational values and goals if you have no right to the wealth you create with your mind.
Thomas Jefferson quotes are now flamebait? Defending an opinion with reason is flamebait?
1 is easy.
And it's also irrelevant. I put it there to get you to reply, hoping that you would try to take on #2, which is my only concern.
I replied too quickly. My mistake for thinking you had read my posts. The government does have a proper function - a monopoly on force - through the courts, police and military. That would need funding. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want to fund such an effort, and if they didn't, I'd refuse to trade with them. In fact, I'd build a "tax" into everything I sell, so that I could make a nice donation to the government regularly.
That should be enough for you to figure out the rest. (Though I question whether you'll actually put in the effort - knee-jerk reactions are so much easier!)
And I call myself a grammar nazi. :P
Right?
That is correct. What was your point? Was it supposed to illicit a sort-of *gag* response like those who oppose gay rights or abortion?
And we see ourselves as slaves to their interests,thus all of the 'tea-party' fools who will be getting tax cuts protesting on behalf of the poor beleaguered CEOs who will see their taxes increase.
I went to two of those tea parties. I protested on behalf of the fools and of the successful. Neither extreme, nor anyone in between, should be forced to give up their property against their will.
No, it is the scientist, who does NOT generally benefit much from their own ingenuity, that we distrust.
Your own comment betrays itself. You demonize and distrust the successful business man.
No one wants to fund a gamble that might, if we are lucky, pay off in 30-40 years. Thus, basic scientific research is a kind of externality, a public good, and the free market is incapable of allotting the optimal amount of funding for public goods such as transportation, public education, and public health.
None of those should exist either. As for people's focus on the short-term, it should be no surprise that with a Federal Reserve capable of swaying the entire economy with the snap of the fingers of a Chairman, or political pressure from the Treasury, that people are forced to live day-to-day. Whatever happened to the 99-year-loans of a century ago?
That is econ 101.
No, actually, it is Policy 101. You are not simply talking about how the market works - that would be economics. You are promoting forced intervention into the market, ultimately driven by the whims of politicians. The same people who I see make this mistake also equivocate on the word "power" - economic power (success) is seen as equivalent to political power, simply because politicians put themselves up for hire to pass laws benefiting some at the expense of others. Who ever can pay the most wins. The true solution isn't to try to persuade politicians to pass laws in your favor, at the expense of others - that just continues the problem. The proper solution is to get the government - or any entity with a monopoly on force - out of the market. Then economic power will cease to have its political connotation.
More like their lives easier. Research is slow process - it takes years, maybe decades for an idea to progress from the sketching board to store shelves.
For you to have any argument, you'll have to show two things:
1. Show that such endeavors could not be done through private enterprise alone.
2. More importantly, show that the ends justify the means - that the various violations of individual rights that are inherent in government interventions into the economy are justified by your good intentions.
Seeing as the government does not make a damn thing, the only way they're getting that money is from taxes. Either by increasing our taxes now, or by increasing taxes on future generations.
The problem isn't so much the portrayal of scientists as nerdy. The problem is that such a portrayal is considered derogatory or negative. We really despise the men of ideas in this county. Smart, successful people are seen as slaves to the public's interests - what they produce is nice, but if they benefit from their ingenuity, to hell with them.
If you understand the value of such programs, you should donate whatever time, money, effort you can toward such causes, and personally persuade your friends, family, neighbors, etc, to do the same. What you should not do is persuade politicians to pass laws forcing everyone to fund your pet projects.
Imagine if other personal interests were run that way. "FOSS is good, therefore everyone should be required to fund it!"