But in your latter solution, you enter a game of extreme government control again, and actually, perhaps, a degree of favoritism above what exists now.
Potentially. I see it as an issue of human rights.
Is there any decent (and relatively unbiased) book on the libertarian economics?
I'm not sure, but there are plenty of books, written by libertarians, explaining what they think and why, in economic terms. But then again there are different factions within libertarianism that differ economically.
Libertarianism is pretty anti-nationalist anyway--we aren't interested in countries competing with each other, we're interested in human rights and human welfare. That said, in terms of accomplishing productive work, countries that have a coercive state redistributing wealth to firms with political influence arguably won't do as well as countries that require firms to earn wealth.
However, in a competitive market, you have those problems, and you largely have that problem already with a heavily subsidized Airbus having an advantage over an unsubsidized Boeing. Perhaps a libertarian free market will provide an even bigger advantage for companies in a given country. On the other hand, perhaps a libertarian country should bar trade with corporations that rely upon government protection in order to profit.
"Communications, in this day and age, are as vital a resource as water and transportation. Leaving it in the hands of a few private organizations to implement when and where they see fit (e.g., when and where they can make a profit) is, to put it blundly, bullshit."
I don't know, the following things are just as important to our lives, and yet commonly provided to us by organizations other than government without negative consequences:
Food
Computers
Software
All forms of art and entertainment
Automobiles
Raw materials
"Libertarianism isn't a viable opertunity, since it allows corporations to be bigger bastards than they are now, with a complete lack of regulation."
On the contrary, libertarianism strips corporations of their greatest weapon--the power of the State. In fact, under libertarianism, corporations might not even exist as they do now--there are noted libertarian critiques of limited liability that not all libertarians necessarily agree with.
Imagine a world where the only people that have to work are those that WANT to work and the rest of us can sit and play games or read books or watch TV all day and not worry about where the food will come from or the housing will come from. It will be provided by the government.
Software will be GPL, toothbrushes and women will be public property, and we will be living in the communism!
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"
By that standard we can't get away with calling Elvis Presley "Elvis", because Elvis Costello, figure skater Elvis Stojko, and football quarterback Elvis Grbac are "well-known" (in certain circles). Nonetheless, I am certain that the most diehard fans of Costello, Stojko, and Grbac will concede that Elvis Presley is the man we are referring to when we say "Elvis".
Neither side in a criminal or civil case can make the argument that "since X pleaded the fifth amendment, X therefore committed heinous act Y." Such an argument cannot be used. However, the jury can draw whatever conclusions it wants to when someone pleads the fifth. This is a fine distinction that is important to make.
An enterprising judge may attempt to instruct the jury otherwise, but all he's doing is blowing hot air. Jurors are not legally liable for anything they do in the course of their service. For instance, throughout history, juries have acquitted people who were plainly guilty simply in protest of an unjust law or unjust enforcement of the law--this is called "jury nullification", and is also against the instructions a judge traditionally provides to a jury.
A judge's instructions to the jury have the legal power of a strongly worded suggestion, and nothing more.
I'm gonna dissent with the haters here and say you're part right. I'm sure that many well-meaning environmentalists only want to make sure that we don't make Earth uninhabitable for future generations. They love humanity and don't want to see it go extinct for some short-term gain. Insofar as they take that tack, they are rational and should be listened to. That said, there are also some environmentalists who will find something to complain about as long as human beings live at any non-primitive state. These environmentalists simply hate humanity, and see any change to the rest of the earth as bad, even if it would save human lives or even benefit non-human forms of life. They are, of course, fanatics who don't deserve being listened to.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, and related to the natural sciences.... It is notoriously difficult to define, but for purposes of briefly introducing it, it can be identified as the study of any of the most fundamental concepts and beliefs about the basic nature of reality..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/)
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
Linus merely said "not at this time," and gave his rationale. To me, this hardly qualifies as "pooh-poohing." Therefore, I'd say the article headline is misleading, and designed merely to stir up emotions rather than foster rational dialog.
This would be like George W. Bush trying to sue John Kerry for mentioning his name on his website or suing some random person for making the website "georgewbushsucks.com" (which probably does exist, haven't bothered to check).
He didn't sue, but Bush did complain vehemently when someone set up an anti-Bush website at http://www.gwbush.com/. It was in this context that he said the immortal words, "There ought to be limits to freedom."
Your right, September 11th did nothing to hurt the airline industry.
1. There's a difference between something being "unsafe" and being "taken over by terrorists and run into office buildings in the largest act of terrorism ever committed on US soil". Did TWA 800 hurt the airline industry substantially?
2. What's hurting the airline industry is the security hassles, needing to get to the airport 2 hours in advance, and the related annoyances. That, for the most part, started after September 11th. Yes, demand for air travel dropped after September 11th. Fear of terrorism is one factor. Other factors, I have mentioned above. Which is more responsible for the drop in demand? It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe it's being able to psychically flip the page
You can psychically flip pages? I didn't know telekinesis existed...
But in your latter solution, you enter a game of extreme government control again, and actually, perhaps, a degree of favoritism above what exists now.
Potentially. I see it as an issue of human rights.
Is there any decent (and relatively unbiased) book on the libertarian economics?
I'm not sure, but there are plenty of books, written by libertarians, explaining what they think and why, in economic terms. But then again there are different factions within libertarianism that differ economically.
Libertarianism is pretty anti-nationalist anyway--we aren't interested in countries competing with each other, we're interested in human rights and human welfare. That said, in terms of accomplishing productive work, countries that have a coercive state redistributing wealth to firms with political influence arguably won't do as well as countries that require firms to earn wealth.
However, in a competitive market, you have those problems, and you largely have that problem already with a heavily subsidized Airbus having an advantage over an unsubsidized Boeing. Perhaps a libertarian free market will provide an even bigger advantage for companies in a given country. On the other hand, perhaps a libertarian country should bar trade with corporations that rely upon government protection in order to profit.
"Communications, in this day and age, are as vital a resource as water and transportation. Leaving it in the hands of a few private organizations to implement when and where they see fit (e.g., when and where they can make a profit) is, to put it blundly, bullshit."
I don't know, the following things are just as important to our lives, and yet commonly provided to us by organizations other than government without negative consequences:
Food
Computers
Software
All forms of art and entertainment
Automobiles
Raw materials
You could probably think of more.
"Libertarianism isn't a viable opertunity, since it allows corporations to be bigger bastards than they are now, with a complete lack of regulation."
On the contrary, libertarianism strips corporations of their greatest weapon--the power of the State. In fact, under libertarianism, corporations might not even exist as they do now--there are noted libertarian critiques of limited liability that not all libertarians necessarily agree with.
Usually this kind of thing is voted for.. that's why.
Why should my neighbors (or possibly Diebold) under threat of the gun dictate that my money go to WiFi?
Imagine a world where the only people that have to work are those that WANT to work and the rest of us can sit and play games or read books or watch TV all day and not worry about where the food will come from or the housing will come from. It will be provided by the government.
Software will be GPL, toothbrushes and women will be public property, and we will be living in the communism!
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"
If you have an elderly relative, get them hooked on email.
Especially in Korea!
By that standard we can't get away with calling Elvis Presley "Elvis", because Elvis Costello, figure skater Elvis Stojko, and football quarterback Elvis Grbac are "well-known" (in certain circles). Nonetheless, I am certain that the most diehard fans of Costello, Stojko, and Grbac will concede that Elvis Presley is the man we are referring to when we say "Elvis".
Same for Leonardo Da Vinci.
You name another notable historical individual known as "Da Vinci" and I'll grant your point.
Technically, that's not true.
Neither side in a criminal or civil case can make the argument that "since X pleaded the fifth amendment, X therefore committed heinous act Y." Such an argument cannot be used. However, the jury can draw whatever conclusions it wants to when someone pleads the fifth. This is a fine distinction that is important to make.
An enterprising judge may attempt to instruct the jury otherwise, but all he's doing is blowing hot air. Jurors are not legally liable for anything they do in the course of their service. For instance, throughout history, juries have acquitted people who were plainly guilty simply in protest of an unjust law or unjust enforcement of the law--this is called "jury nullification", and is also against the instructions a judge traditionally provides to a jury.
A judge's instructions to the jury have the legal power of a strongly worded suggestion, and nothing more.
Thanks for fucking up the economy for your own amusement.
Sincerely,
The American people.
I'm gonna dissent with the haters here and say you're part right. I'm sure that many well-meaning environmentalists only want to make sure that we don't make Earth uninhabitable for future generations. They love humanity and don't want to see it go extinct for some short-term gain. Insofar as they take that tack, they are rational and should be listened to. That said, there are also some environmentalists who will find something to complain about as long as human beings live at any non-primitive state. These environmentalists simply hate humanity, and see any change to the rest of the earth as bad, even if it would save human lives or even benefit non-human forms of life. They are, of course, fanatics who don't deserve being listened to.
metaphysics
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, and related to the natural sciences.... It is notoriously difficult to define, but for purposes of briefly introducing it, it can be identified as the study of any of the most fundamental concepts and beliefs about the basic nature of reality..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/)
You're looking for "mysticism".
Every browser I've ever used does not have a spell checker.
Safari does.
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
Yes.
Linus merely said "not at this time," and gave his rationale. To me, this hardly qualifies as "pooh-poohing." Therefore, I'd say the article headline is misleading, and designed merely to stir up emotions rather than foster rational dialog.
Congratulations, you've defined "troll".
This would be like George W. Bush trying to sue John Kerry for mentioning his name on his website or suing some random person for making the website "georgewbushsucks.com" (which probably does exist, haven't bothered to check).
He didn't sue, but Bush did complain vehemently when someone set up an anti-Bush website at http://www.gwbush.com/. It was in this context that he said the immortal words, "There ought to be limits to freedom."
Speaking as a libertarian, I think lawsuits are the awesome. It's like being bitchslapped by the invisible hand.
We have hydroelectric power where I live, you insensitive clod!
I don't see why the oil companies would complain about ethanol. Ethanol comes from corn. Corn is harvested with diesel tractors, isn't it?
Your right, September 11th did nothing to hurt the airline industry.
1. There's a difference between something being "unsafe" and being "taken over by terrorists and run into office buildings in the largest act of terrorism ever committed on US soil". Did TWA 800 hurt the airline industry substantially?
2. What's hurting the airline industry is the security hassles, needing to get to the airport 2 hours in advance, and the related annoyances. That, for the most part, started after September 11th. Yes, demand for air travel dropped after September 11th. Fear of terrorism is one factor. Other factors, I have mentioned above. Which is more responsible for the drop in demand? It's not as simple as you make it out to be.