Sorry to dig in like this, but judging from your site, you're a primary powershell user, and most Microsoft sysadmins... aren't. You're projecting your own usage onto others.
Why, it's almost like isolationists didn't want the UN to have substantial power when they crafted it. And now neo-isolationists use that lack of power to justify ignoring the body.
Sorry Gabe, you're not allowed to see my DNS history. You aren't allowed to see GabeNewellNatiliePortmanHotGritsFanFiciton.net in my history. That's not allowed.
I made an actual argument, and you haven't defended the notion of axiomatic idiocy at all. Because guess what: sane economists, contrary to your delusions, don't use it.
Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion, and the libertarian crowd would be all for it.
What doesn't? When nothing short of people starving to death(as if that's the way people would choose to go out when crime is an option) will satisfy you, you aren't going to be satisfied in any society that works.
You're reaching. It comes off as "Consent is defined the exactly the set of things I need it to be for my world-view to be ideal, rather than the conventional definition"
You didn't address the actual point but used it as a jumping off point to change the subject and rant about your lack of education in economics.
Yeah, thinking Austrian school has no bearing on reality is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal "uneducated" of me. Yep.
an example of a fundamental flaw, for the pedantic and self-righteous: The fundamental "axiom"(note this bizzare and outlandish term used for hypotheses, that in science would be tested, not assumed) of action, which posits: "human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals."
Now... if you've ever met a person, you would no the frequently make no effort or action towards their personal goals. You might say "well that's just people being lazy, economics is for people who work," but almost every major praxology in the of Austrian economics takes the axiom of action as an assumption about the entire population.
Now people throw in post-hoc and ad-hoc justifications for why these things don't matter like the efficient market hypothesis, but in the end, the Austrian school has no empircal roots and can basically be considered bunk in a non-hypothetical world.
Well, Austrian economics is easy to take apart as pseudo-scientific bullshit based on fundamentally flawed assumptions rather than empiricism, so forgive my lack of concern over that quibble, especially since the neoliberal policies that are treated as the conclusion of the theory are fundamentally an anathema to altruism.
You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options(see modern human trafficking for details), or when you're compelling them in ways that don't happen to be illegal. The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism. I don't disagree with your implied premise that other systems such as fuedalism, Stalinism, or slavery exploited people in far worse ways, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a path where free-market capitalism is the ideal.
Please, the fact that a lack of immediate care from the first available source causes you to die is what stifles competition. You can't take your time and shop around when you're bleeding out on the floor. It doesn't work.
Hmm, I'm not sure the troll mod is appropriate. There's some superficial similarity there. Using a standing authority to push people around is a bit what beta seems like.
I could see a "flamebait" mod for being, you know, inflammatory, but it's at least relevant and interesting to me.
I'm opposed to food stamp cuts, but there are orders of magnitude difference in the costs here. NASA is incredibly cheap, as far as national programs are concerned, and years of budget cuts there haven't done anyone any good. I'd be willing to wager a fair amount that satellite imaging, communication, weather monitoring, and mapping have done more good with respect to helping starving people than the equivalent amount spent directly on food would have.
Did we have any idea of the possible benefits the space race would yield when we started it? I doubt it. Scientific knowledge doesn't go away when you acquire it, and it's literally impossible to say what utility this research could have.
Now... if you want to talk about the value of corporate crop subsidies versus food stamps, then we can be talking the same ballpark for prices and relative human cost.
I contest #1, because people make things crimes for all sorts of reasons, and not all of those are about minimizing harm(though I believe they should be). And even then sometimes things that meet the letter of the law(i.e. revealing classified documents) don't always match the spirit(preventing spying for another country).
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to dig in like this, but judging from your site, you're a primary powershell user, and most Microsoft sysadmins... aren't. You're projecting your own usage onto others.
Have you met most IIS developers?
Why, it's almost like isolationists didn't want the UN to have substantial power when they crafted it. And now neo-isolationists use that lack of power to justify ignoring the body.
Sorry Gabe, you're not allowed to see my DNS history. You aren't allowed to see GabeNewellNatiliePortmanHotGritsFanFiciton.net in my history. That's not allowed.
I made an actual argument, and you haven't defended the notion of axiomatic idiocy at all. Because guess what: sane economists, contrary to your delusions, don't use it.
Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion, and the libertarian crowd would be all for it.
They let people run multiuser blogs, with really terrible ajaxy UIs. So, clickbait is the natural use.
What doesn't? When nothing short of people starving to death(as if that's the way people would choose to go out when crime is an option) will satisfy you, you aren't going to be satisfied in any society that works.
You're reaching.
It comes off as "Consent is defined the exactly the set of things I need it to be for my world-view to be ideal, rather than the conventional definition"
Yeah, I had a feeling the phrase "econ 101" would come up, because that's as far as any Austrian dipshits ever seem to pay attention.
You didn't address the actual point but used it as a jumping off point to change the subject and rant about your lack of education in economics.
Yeah, thinking Austrian school has no bearing on reality is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal "uneducated" of me. Yep.
an example of a fundamental flaw, for the pedantic and self-righteous:
The fundamental "axiom"(note this bizzare and outlandish term used for hypotheses, that in science would be tested, not assumed) of action, which posits:
"human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals."
Now... if you've ever met a person, you would no the frequently make no effort or action towards their personal goals. You might say "well that's just people being lazy, economics is for people who work," but almost every major praxology in the of Austrian economics takes the axiom of action as an assumption about the entire population.
Now people throw in post-hoc and ad-hoc justifications for why these things don't matter like the efficient market hypothesis, but in the end, the Austrian school has no empircal roots and can basically be considered bunk in a non-hypothetical world.
Well, when you're as crazy as us Americans, you tend to draw everyone's attention.
Well, Austrian economics is easy to take apart as pseudo-scientific bullshit based on fundamentally flawed assumptions rather than empiricism, so forgive my lack of concern over that quibble, especially since the neoliberal policies that are treated as the conclusion of the theory are fundamentally an anathema to altruism.
You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options(see modern human trafficking for details), or when you're compelling them in ways that don't happen to be illegal. The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism. I don't disagree with your implied premise that other systems such as fuedalism, Stalinism, or slavery exploited people in far worse ways, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a path where free-market capitalism is the ideal.
I really detest beta, but "beta sucks" is quickly becoming a joke meme a la "beowulf cluster" in terms of no one taking the post seriously anymore.
(Imagine a beowulf cluster of beta.slashdot.org. *shudder*)
You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize.
I don't know. What kind of authority do owners have over those present? Not nearly as much as a government, but I can't buy into your "none" theory.
Except that it's more complicated than that, of course. Findings can occur in one system, be prosecuted in another, and enforced in a third.
Please, the fact that a lack of immediate care from the first available source causes you to die is what stifles competition. You can't take your time and shop around when you're bleeding out on the floor. It doesn't work.
Hmm, I'm not sure the troll mod is appropriate. There's some superficial similarity there. Using a standing authority to push people around is a bit what beta seems like.
I could see a "flamebait" mod for being, you know, inflammatory, but it's at least relevant and interesting to me.
The choices of who to invade not random. Thought the consequences almost always are.
I'm opposed to food stamp cuts, but there are orders of magnitude difference in the costs here. NASA is incredibly cheap, as far as national programs are concerned, and years of budget cuts there haven't done anyone any good. I'd be willing to wager a fair amount that satellite imaging, communication, weather monitoring, and mapping have done more good with respect to helping starving people than the equivalent amount spent directly on food would have.
Did we have any idea of the possible benefits the space race would yield when we started it? I doubt it. Scientific knowledge doesn't go away when you acquire it, and it's literally impossible to say what utility this research could have.
Now... if you want to talk about the value of corporate crop subsidies versus food stamps, then we can be talking the same ballpark for prices and relative human cost.
Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to expect that US and UK law enforcement aren't in cahoots. It's completely pragmatic that they would be.
I contest #1, because people make things crimes for all sorts of reasons, and not all of those are about minimizing harm(though I believe they should be). And even then sometimes things that meet the letter of the law(i.e. revealing classified documents) don't always match the spirit(preventing spying for another country).
2,3, and 4 don't apply.
I think you're mistaken. Thugs frequently tend to have quite a bit of authority. It makes them very good at being thugs.