You don't increase freedom by adding regulations on top of past failed regulations. The monopolies that local governments have given to cable companies should be undone.
Do you know how you increase knowledge? By sharing it.
I increase my knowledge by learning. I don't believe I have ever increased my knowledge by regurgitating what I already know.
The fact that more people could learn certain information if it was provided for free doesn't justify the theft of that information. Do you think creators will continue to create if they know their products will simply be stolen and "shared"? By wanting the unearned, you undermine the whole system.
Alright, you're getting to the actual issue - cable companies provide crappy service. So why don't people switch to alternative cable companies? Because there aren't any. Why is that? Because local governments grant monopolies to these cable companies, and prohibit competitors from laying their own lines.
Attempting to band-aid one regulation with another does not lead to freedom.
The EQUIPMENT that the "internet" resides on is not, the internet. "The internet" is like "speech" or "Writing" it's an intangible medium for relating information and it's owned by humanity as a whole.
Speech is made by a speaker. Writing is made by a writer. The fact that it is a concept does not mean it is not property. Property itself is an abstract concept. Investigate the source of that concept, and you will understand why intellectual property is property, and why "owned by humanity" is incoherent.
They don't have to support the bitcoin movement, but to claim they defend internet freedom when they purposely removing bitcoin transaction support in order to avoid appearing to support the bitcoin movement, is absurd.
Anyone who is surprised by this should have checked their premise that EFF is a defender of freedom. A simple glance at their position on net neutrality would have cleared that up.
I am not sure. Nobody can determine that ahead of time. That is why central planning never works. At most I can guess that we need more manufacturing jobs, simply because our trade deficits have skyrocketed due to bad policies driving labor overseas (e.g. minimum wage).
Patently wrong.
Feel free to explain why companies find it more profitable to have their products manufactured on the other side of the world, than to have them manufactured here.
Yeah, sure. Google: "robber barons".
If you have an argument, feel free to state it. "Yeah sure" is not an argument.
Those "robber barons" - at least, the ones not getting government assistance - offered customers better, cheaper products, benefiting everyone. The modern day monopolies - e.g. cable companies - are only monopolies because competition has been prohibited by local government mandate.
That's easy. Is one million dollars good for one man? Yes. Would it be good if EVERYONE got one million dollars? Certainly not. Here's one example for you.
That's not an example, because it is nonsensical rambling. What are you talking about? Demonstrate how interactions between individuals are different from interactions between groups of individuals, such that individual rights should be protected in the former, but not in the latter.
Which obviously is not good. By your token, we should increase unemployment because market 'wants' it.
Absolutely not. It is not simply a matter of "more jobs" and "less unemployment". People need to be working the *right* sort of jobs, as determined by the free market. Government stimulus has disincentivized manufacturing jobs, incentivized service/public sector jobs, and through various agencies and regulations, created huge bubbles in the housing and financial sector. Many of those jobs need to go away (not via govt mandate, mind you), and those people need to work where the market indicates they will be the most efficient. A recession/depression is the *cure*, not the disease. The actual disease was the cheap money policy on which our market has become so distorted.
Also, we shouldn't regulate monopolies - market also wants them.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up this tangent, but I will simply point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly. The reason monopolies have gotten a bad rap is because of the ones that have been able, through government-backed force, to maintain their monopolies despite offering worse and worse products/services. It is only through government backing that companies can lock in customers and prevent competition.
Can you fathom that different problems demand different solutions?
You have yet to demonstrate that *groups* of people interacting is a "different problem" from individual people interacting.
You have explained the Keynesian fantasy, which has little basis in reality. Spending does not drive the economy. If it did, why not print million dollar bills for everyone, and let them spend it all? Then manufacturers will see the increased income, build more factories, and produce more! What could possibly go wrong?! (*rolls eyes*)
If people are saving more, it is for a reason, and you should investigate what that reason is, rather than assume that it is irrational and advocate for policies that incentivize increased spending. Driving up spending when the market wants to save is simply going to undermine future wealth creation, as less investment capital is available due to decreased savings.
What are you talking about? Savings in the bank don't just sit there. The bank lends it back out for investment, often multiple times over. Savings is the bedrock of capital investment and wealth creation.
So the democracy has the advantage of a distributed power structure.
That is its only advantage. A government is only as good as its constitution, and only so long as that government adheres to the constitution. A government founded on a vague constitution referencing "domestic Tranquility", "general Welfare", and other anti-concepts, which can mean anything to anyone, leaves itself open to tyranny, regardless of the form of government.
He means that because government affects the lives of subjects, participation in directing government action is an essential component of determining one's own life.
So long as the government is acting properly, individuals have no need to involve themselves in government actions. Individuals who appeal to the government to violate the rights of others should rightly be ignored. Again it comes down to the actual actions of the individuals and the government.
If you are trying to construct a government safe against the possibility of totalitarian rights violations, I agree that individuals should have representation. But that can lead to rights violations of its own (e.g. death of Socrates, or ubiquitous examples in the US). That is why it is of greatest importance to define the proper role of government, and design government in such a way that it adheres to that definition.
A dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed. This is inherently bad.
There is no such thing as collective consent. There are only individuals, and only individuals can provide consent. Consent is also not a primary - if a society of individuals wishes to enslave themselves, or wishes to be able to enact revenge against other individuals without the government acting as an objective intermediary, and the dictator refuses to allow those wishes to be fulfilled, the dictator is in the right.
Any government, whether dictatorship or democracy, is only bad so long as its actions are bad. There is no such thing as inherent good/evil. Only actions are good or bad.
Again, moral judgment can only be judgment of actions. Inherent good/evil is a false concept. A non-elected ruler of a nation who, in every action, upholds and protects individual rights, is morally judged to be good. An elected senate who, in every action, violates those rights, is morally judged to be bad. No moral weight is assigned to an individual apart from the actions of that individual. Anyone who attempts to do so is simply trying to evade providing a rational argument.
Would you care to explain what you mean by your self-determined "right to self-determination"? In doing so, please explain how it restricts an individual from pursuing his own interests, the way a slavemaster prevents a slave from leaving his labor to pursue his own interests.
... 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system. The US is absolutely a constitutional republic with representative democracy - an attempt to avoid the common problems of both mob rule and dictatorships.
In the TED talk, he blames things like "we're living longer" for the shortage of organs. The much more obvious reason why there is a shortage of organs, and why organs are so expensive, is that it is illegal to sell one's own organs. An elderly person has no incentive to donate his organs on death, if his surviving loved ones do not profit from it.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't increase freedom by adding regulations on top of past failed regulations. The monopolies that local governments have given to cable companies should be undone.
Do you know how you increase knowledge? By sharing it.
I increase my knowledge by learning. I don't believe I have ever increased my knowledge by regurgitating what I already know.
The fact that more people could learn certain information if it was provided for free doesn't justify the theft of that information. Do you think creators will continue to create if they know their products will simply be stolen and "shared"? By wanting the unearned, you undermine the whole system.
Alright, you're getting to the actual issue - cable companies provide crappy service. So why don't people switch to alternative cable companies? Because there aren't any. Why is that? Because local governments grant monopolies to these cable companies, and prohibit competitors from laying their own lines.
Attempting to band-aid one regulation with another does not lead to freedom.
The EQUIPMENT that the "internet" resides on is not, the internet. "The internet" is like "speech" or "Writing" it's an intangible medium for relating information and it's owned by humanity as a whole.
Speech is made by a speaker. Writing is made by a writer. The fact that it is a concept does not mean it is not property. Property itself is an abstract concept. Investigate the source of that concept, and you will understand why intellectual property is property, and why "owned by humanity" is incoherent.
They don't have to support the bitcoin movement, but to claim they defend internet freedom when they purposely removing bitcoin transaction support in order to avoid appearing to support the bitcoin movement, is absurd.
In what way is mathematics (as realized in the form of bitcoin) a scam? Review the source code yourself.
Defending an unregulated alternative to government fiat currency is certainly defending freedom.
Anyone who is surprised by this should have checked their premise that EFF is a defender of freedom. A simple glance at their position on net neutrality would have cleared that up.
And these jobs are?
I am not sure. Nobody can determine that ahead of time. That is why central planning never works. At most I can guess that we need more manufacturing jobs, simply because our trade deficits have skyrocketed due to bad policies driving labor overseas (e.g. minimum wage).
Patently wrong.
Feel free to explain why companies find it more profitable to have their products manufactured on the other side of the world, than to have them manufactured here.
Yeah, sure. Google: "robber barons".
If you have an argument, feel free to state it. "Yeah sure" is not an argument.
Those "robber barons" - at least, the ones not getting government assistance - offered customers better, cheaper products, benefiting everyone. The modern day monopolies - e.g. cable companies - are only monopolies because competition has been prohibited by local government mandate.
That's easy. Is one million dollars good for one man? Yes. Would it be good if EVERYONE got one million dollars? Certainly not. Here's one example for you.
That's not an example, because it is nonsensical rambling. What are you talking about? Demonstrate how interactions between individuals are different from interactions between groups of individuals, such that individual rights should be protected in the former, but not in the latter.
Which obviously is not good. By your token, we should increase unemployment because market 'wants' it.
Absolutely not. It is not simply a matter of "more jobs" and "less unemployment". People need to be working the *right* sort of jobs, as determined by the free market. Government stimulus has disincentivized manufacturing jobs, incentivized service/public sector jobs, and through various agencies and regulations, created huge bubbles in the housing and financial sector. Many of those jobs need to go away (not via govt mandate, mind you), and those people need to work where the market indicates they will be the most efficient. A recession/depression is the *cure*, not the disease. The actual disease was the cheap money policy on which our market has become so distorted.
Also, we shouldn't regulate monopolies - market also wants them.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up this tangent, but I will simply point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly. The reason monopolies have gotten a bad rap is because of the ones that have been able, through government-backed force, to maintain their monopolies despite offering worse and worse products/services. It is only through government backing that companies can lock in customers and prevent competition.
Can you fathom that different problems demand different solutions?
You have yet to demonstrate that *groups* of people interacting is a "different problem" from individual people interacting.
You have explained the Keynesian fantasy, which has little basis in reality. Spending does not drive the economy. If it did, why not print million dollar bills for everyone, and let them spend it all? Then manufacturers will see the increased income, build more factories, and produce more! What could possibly go wrong?! (*rolls eyes*)
If people are saving more, it is for a reason, and you should investigate what that reason is, rather than assume that it is irrational and advocate for policies that incentivize increased spending. Driving up spending when the market wants to save is simply going to undermine future wealth creation, as less investment capital is available due to decreased savings.
What are you talking about? Savings in the bank don't just sit there. The bank lends it back out for investment, often multiple times over. Savings is the bedrock of capital investment and wealth creation.
They're not college students.
But they all will be soon enough. Then they'll be paying $50k a year to fold toilet paper.
What kind of knowledge was gained from this exercise? The proper method and means for wiping Godzilla's ass?
How appropriate that they would use toilet paper in a feat demonstrating how worthless college degrees have become.
Rychard Byschape in his stede Chosyn he wes concorditer And l33t twa yhere bad eftyr.
-- Andrew of Wyntoun, Ðe orygynale cronykil of Scotland c1425
That space represents the increasingly empty void of content and creativity. Expect to see their name get longer with time.
Thanks for reminding me to close my account!
So the democracy has the advantage of a distributed power structure.
That is its only advantage. A government is only as good as its constitution, and only so long as that government adheres to the constitution. A government founded on a vague constitution referencing "domestic Tranquility", "general Welfare", and other anti-concepts, which can mean anything to anyone, leaves itself open to tyranny, regardless of the form of government.
He means that because government affects the lives of subjects, participation in directing government action is an essential component of determining one's own life.
So long as the government is acting properly, individuals have no need to involve themselves in government actions. Individuals who appeal to the government to violate the rights of others should rightly be ignored. Again it comes down to the actual actions of the individuals and the government.
If you are trying to construct a government safe against the possibility of totalitarian rights violations, I agree that individuals should have representation. But that can lead to rights violations of its own (e.g. death of Socrates, or ubiquitous examples in the US). That is why it is of greatest importance to define the proper role of government, and design government in such a way that it adheres to that definition.
A dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed. This is inherently bad.
There is no such thing as collective consent. There are only individuals, and only individuals can provide consent. Consent is also not a primary - if a society of individuals wishes to enslave themselves, or wishes to be able to enact revenge against other individuals without the government acting as an objective intermediary, and the dictator refuses to allow those wishes to be fulfilled, the dictator is in the right.
Any government, whether dictatorship or democracy, is only bad so long as its actions are bad. There is no such thing as inherent good/evil. Only actions are good or bad.
Again, moral judgment can only be judgment of actions. Inherent good/evil is a false concept. A non-elected ruler of a nation who, in every action, upholds and protects individual rights, is morally judged to be good. An elected senate who, in every action, violates those rights, is morally judged to be bad. No moral weight is assigned to an individual apart from the actions of that individual. Anyone who attempts to do so is simply trying to evade providing a rational argument.
Would you care to explain what you mean by your self-determined "right to self-determination"? In doing so, please explain how it restricts an individual from pursuing his own interests, the way a slavemaster prevents a slave from leaving his labor to pursue his own interests.
... 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system. The US is absolutely a constitutional republic with representative democracy - an attempt to avoid the common problems of both mob rule and dictatorships.
In the TED talk, he blames things like "we're living longer" for the shortage of organs. The much more obvious reason why there is a shortage of organs, and why organs are so expensive, is that it is illegal to sell one's own organs. An elderly person has no incentive to donate his organs on death, if his surviving loved ones do not profit from it.
This shortage is contrived.
And eventually it will be referenced in the discovery process at a major case before the Supreme Court.