Property can be physical, or it can be anything that required someone to work and apply thought in order to make it useful or valuable to people. Whether or not a society chooses to uphold that right is only a reflection on that society, not on the existence of the right.
You have forgotten the natural right to property. Any government that redistributes is thus violating that right. There can be no right to healthcare because such a "right" who invariably violate the rights to liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. Likewise, any society that doesn't uphold and protect your right to your intellectual property is assisting in the violation of that right.
Wiki has a good article on it
Locke has some good books on that, too. Also check out Sidney, Paine, Price, Jefferson, etc. Their only problem is that they all ground rights in the Divine, probably to make their arguments more acceptable to their contemporaries (since people were regularly executed for treason, e.g. Sidney). The foundation for individual rights is in fact a natural one - it is a requirement for rational minds that want to live and pursue their values. Contrary to the long history of religious/subjective thought on the topic, morality is in fact not a list of commandments to follow, delivered on high by a deity or a government, but a personal guide to fulfilling your life's goals.
You have not responded to anything in my original post. Sure, you have quoted it, but you simply restate what I called into question. Your statements are without argument; they are simply bald assertions. No value can be gained from further discussion with you, as should be obvious to anyone who read your post.
He doesnt have the right to stop me from using modern copying technology to copy the book and to give it to someone else.
No, he does not have the right to stop you. The police do.
Thats censorship
According to what definition? I have never seen a definition of "censorship" that would back up your claim, and even if you could dig one up, you would still have to relate it back to individual rights without appealing to tradition or to what's most convenient to you.
Should I be able to duplicate those words and give them somebody with no profit in mind?
Of course not. There are plenty of rights violations that can and do occur without profit in mind. This is one of them.
It were my rights to use my computer and exchange information with other people that were extinguished in order to artificially create somebody else's so called "copyright" which he never ever would have gained in a free society.
So an author has no right to the words in his book? Should I be able to duplicate those words and sell them for my own profit? Of course not. You make a mockery of freedom when you assert that there's no thing as intellectual property rights.
Those rights were created so that society would benefit, not so the individuals would benefit.
First, rights are not created, or destroyed. They exist so long as rational minds exist and choose life as their standard of value. Second, those rights do not exist for the benefit of society (whatever that means), but for the benefit of the individual - namely, to protect individuals from eachother and to identify that which is necessary for people to make sound decisions that further their values.
I am particularly against paying money to encourage artists who are dead to make new works.
Then you are against agreeing to people on the terms they set. Why, then, should you expect other people to agree to your terms? For example, if you pay for gas with a card, why should you expect the gas station not to decide to take out another $10 from your account, without your permission? By refusing to stick to the terms of agreements in transactions, you only encourage your own terms to be disregarded.
If this study was meant to persuade the RIAA to change their policies, then so be it. But until those policies are changed, it remains true that rights are being violated. The ends do not justify the means.
Dear God read Economics in One Lesson. To think that the fed taking money from everyone in order to give it to some is somehow "good economics" is absurd. Your error is in only looking at the results with respect to one group in the short term, and not with respect to the whole community and in the long-run.
It was really nice, especially if you set it up so that one week you're paid, and the next you get the Friday off. They were also flexible about it and would let you switch occasionally, although that obviously depends on the company.
Well you know what they say... you never know how much you miss something until it's gone. For me, I find that is definitely the case here - I will truly miss the use of ohnoitsroland, boycottroland, and dierolanddie tags!
No sane economist would recommend abolishing inflation (nope, not even the libertarian God Friedman)
And why's that? Or were you hoping to making an axiom on the sanity of economists?
just as no sane economist would think economics could be resumed in one lesson (reference to the sig).
You have misrepresented the book I linked to. Congratulations. You should now try actually reading the "lesson", and the subsequent couple dozen chapters on "the lesson applied". Then you'll have learned why your 12-word bald assertion is not a sufficient rebuttal.
You want a bit of inflation though, exactly because it encourages people to invest instead of sit on their money. If money is constantly being sucked out of the system for savings so does economic activity.
Please do some research into exactly what happens when you put your money in the bank. Far from being "sucked out of the system" as you claim, your money is in fact continuously circulating through the market. The static number in your bank account is simply a promise on the part of the bank. It's a common misconception that bank savings are not investments... but they are.
Alright, so it diverts jobs from the private sector to the public sector, thus leaving private companies that worse off. Does it actually result in any wealth creation, or are we simply trading prosperity today for poverty tomorrow? An economy is not build on jobs, but on production.
The general answer is that most retired investors need their portfolio to generate a return at least equal to inflation
The clear response to that is to demand that the government overturn the inflationary laws that force retirees to continue to invest so late in their age just to break even.
Its impossible to do so, because a "truly private, laissez-faire system" is an incoherent concept, a jumble of words that doesn't actually mean anything coherent.
Really? What is incoherent about "everyone leaves everyone else alone, and anyone who tries to violate another's rights is subject to government force?" What "jumble of words" are you referring to? Certainly, for you to call it a "jumble of words" must mean that these words are written down somewhere, right? To what are you referring?
the best course to maximizing long-term results
Who individual has this as their goal? You're presuming the goals of central planning from the outset, when this entire debate is about the core of your presumption.
What "rights violations"?
Individuals, as human beings capable of reason, are confronted with ethical problems - ie, "what should I do?" -, and in order to rationally answer those questions must be free from coercion. Thus people who choose to live must morally have the right to their life and liberty, and the pursuit and attainment of their values. Rights are a fundamental result of a rational mind confronted with a choice between two alternatives. As for the "rights" in question - those would be the rights to the product of your mind, or the product of your labor, which are forcibly taken as taxes or through inflationary policies.
That's not true. They are outside the role of the US government, as stated by the Constitution.
Not really. Even the Constitution isn't perfect - it allows the government to tax the citizenry and manipulate the economy. There is only one proper role for a government, any government, although there is no shortage of societies proposing ill-defined governments with improper roles.
I wonder if the entire crisis could have been averted if the rating agencies had done their job properly and provided an accurate risk rating of mortgage-backed securities.
They were acting based on the implicit government backing that comes from dealing with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. That guarantee made these securities look like gold. Had they not had the government incentive to throw caution to the wind, they would have judged these securities for what they were.
Slashdot Mirror
Property can be physical, or it can be anything that required someone to work and apply thought in order to make it useful or valuable to people. Whether or not a society chooses to uphold that right is only a reflection on that society, not on the existence of the right.
Here's a great site with collected writings on the topic: http://classicliberal.tripod.com/
I highly recommend Price's two Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty (1776, 1777).
Wiki has a good article on it
Locke has some good books on that, too. Also check out Sidney, Paine, Price, Jefferson, etc. Their only problem is that they all ground rights in the Divine, probably to make their arguments more acceptable to their contemporaries (since people were regularly executed for treason, e.g. Sidney). The foundation for individual rights is in fact a natural one - it is a requirement for rational minds that want to live and pursue their values. Contrary to the long history of religious/subjective thought on the topic, morality is in fact not a list of commandments to follow, delivered on high by a deity or a government, but a personal guide to fulfilling your life's goals.
You have not responded to anything in my original post. Sure, you have quoted it, but you simply restate what I called into question. Your statements are without argument; they are simply bald assertions. No value can be gained from further discussion with you, as should be obvious to anyone who read your post.
information wants to be free
Information has no wants or needs.
People all around the world and since the beginning of time tend to share stuff they like.
So is your argument an appeal to tradition?
He doesnt have the right to stop me from using modern copying technology to copy the book and to give it to someone else.
No, he does not have the right to stop you. The police do.
Thats censorship
According to what definition? I have never seen a definition of "censorship" that would back up your claim, and even if you could dig one up, you would still have to relate it back to individual rights without appealing to tradition or to what's most convenient to you.
Should I be able to duplicate those words and give them somebody with no profit in mind?
Of course not. There are plenty of rights violations that can and do occur without profit in mind. This is one of them.
It were my rights to use my computer and exchange information with other people that were extinguished in order to artificially create somebody else's so called "copyright" which he never ever would have gained in a free society.
So an author has no right to the words in his book? Should I be able to duplicate those words and sell them for my own profit? Of course not. You make a mockery of freedom when you assert that there's no thing as intellectual property rights.
Those rights were created so that society would benefit, not so the individuals would benefit.
First, rights are not created, or destroyed. They exist so long as rational minds exist and choose life as their standard of value. Second, those rights do not exist for the benefit of society (whatever that means), but for the benefit of the individual - namely, to protect individuals from eachother and to identify that which is necessary for people to make sound decisions that further their values.
I am particularly against paying money to encourage artists who are dead to make new works.
Then you are against agreeing to people on the terms they set. Why, then, should you expect other people to agree to your terms? For example, if you pay for gas with a card, why should you expect the gas station not to decide to take out another $10 from your account, without your permission? By refusing to stick to the terms of agreements in transactions, you only encourage your own terms to be disregarded.
If this study was meant to persuade the RIAA to change their policies, then so be it. But until those policies are changed, it remains true that rights are being violated. The ends do not justify the means.
Dear God read Economics in One Lesson. To think that the fed taking money from everyone in order to give it to some is somehow "good economics" is absurd. Your error is in only looking at the results with respect to one group in the short term, and not with respect to the whole community and in the long-run.
Unlike my name, Vibber's is spelled BriOn.
Also, to answer your question, those off-days were always respected, and I never missed the lost hour each day.
It was really nice, especially if you set it up so that one week you're paid, and the next you get the Friday off. They were also flexible about it and would let you switch occasionally, although that obviously depends on the company.
This seems like the most likely explanation. Otherwise he's just throwing out random ideas.
When you submit a story, you get to pick what you want to display for your name.... yeeesh...
Let's not forget about the prophetic dierolanddie.
Well you know what they say... you never know how much you miss something until it's gone. For me, I find that is definitely the case here - I will truly miss the use of ohnoitsroland, boycottroland, and dierolanddie tags!
No sane economist would recommend abolishing inflation (nope, not even the libertarian God Friedman)
And why's that? Or were you hoping to making an axiom on the sanity of economists?
just as no sane economist would think economics could be resumed in one lesson (reference to the sig).
You have misrepresented the book I linked to. Congratulations. You should now try actually reading the "lesson", and the subsequent couple dozen chapters on "the lesson applied". Then you'll have learned why your 12-word bald assertion is not a sufficient rebuttal.
The disruption has already been put in place. It should now be removed.
You want a bit of inflation though, exactly because it encourages people to invest instead of sit on their money. If money is constantly being sucked out of the system for savings so does economic activity.
Please do some research into exactly what happens when you put your money in the bank. Far from being "sucked out of the system" as you claim, your money is in fact continuously circulating through the market. The static number in your bank account is simply a promise on the part of the bank. It's a common misconception that bank savings are not investments... but they are.
Alright, so it diverts jobs from the private sector to the public sector, thus leaving private companies that worse off. Does it actually result in any wealth creation, or are we simply trading prosperity today for poverty tomorrow? An economy is not build on jobs, but on production.
The general answer is that most retired investors need their portfolio to generate a return at least equal to inflation
The clear response to that is to demand that the government overturn the inflationary laws that force retirees to continue to invest so late in their age just to break even.
Its impossible to do so, because a "truly private, laissez-faire system" is an incoherent concept, a jumble of words that doesn't actually mean anything coherent.
Really? What is incoherent about "everyone leaves everyone else alone, and anyone who tries to violate another's rights is subject to government force?" What "jumble of words" are you referring to? Certainly, for you to call it a "jumble of words" must mean that these words are written down somewhere, right? To what are you referring?
the best course to maximizing long-term results
Who individual has this as their goal? You're presuming the goals of central planning from the outset, when this entire debate is about the core of your presumption.
What "rights violations"?
Individuals, as human beings capable of reason, are confronted with ethical problems - ie, "what should I do?" -, and in order to rationally answer those questions must be free from coercion. Thus people who choose to live must morally have the right to their life and liberty, and the pursuit and attainment of their values. Rights are a fundamental result of a rational mind confronted with a choice between two alternatives. As for the "rights" in question - those would be the rights to the product of your mind, or the product of your labor, which are forcibly taken as taxes or through inflationary policies.
That's not true. They are outside the role of the US government, as stated by the Constitution.
Not really. Even the Constitution isn't perfect - it allows the government to tax the citizenry and manipulate the economy. There is only one proper role for a government, any government, although there is no shortage of societies proposing ill-defined governments with improper roles.
Craig Biddle is a great writer. He's editor of The Objective Standard and wrote Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. The article you linked to appears in the most recent edition of TOS.
I wonder if the entire crisis could have been averted if the rating agencies had done their job properly and provided an accurate risk rating of mortgage-backed securities.
They were acting based on the implicit government backing that comes from dealing with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. That guarantee made these securities look like gold. Had they not had the government incentive to throw caution to the wind, they would have judged these securities for what they were.