They are legally obligated to maximize shareholders' value. This makes them care for my money and the only ways for them to get it is to offer me something I want
Right. And if only the pesky meddling government would stop interfering, they wouldn't be legally obligated. That's fixes things, right?
It isn't just semantics. Incorporation confers many actual functional differences from free forming groups, even excepting taxation, which free forming groups do not have. You can imagine a fantasy world where this is not true, just please don't confuse it with the actual one we live in.
For this to be true, Libertarians will need to back the dissolution of all corporations. Corporations are, after all, a charter granted by the government (which, in theory, is acting on behalf of the collective citizenry).
While I (vaguely) understand the notion that you are asserting, if the value of people can fluctuate (that is, human life has no intrinsic value), then what is the value standard in such a marketplace? Gold? dollars?
This also leads to a rather dismal world in which some murders are ok, and some are slightly more ok than others. Of the choices of available dystopias, this one sounds less appealing than average.
If an individual life has negative value, then the total number of lives worth saving is 0, and there's no reason to care whether a particular act causes an increase in suffering or not.
Let's say we transplant Bob's head onto Steve's body. After the surgery, will Bob say he has a new body, or will Steve say he has a new head? (Hint: don't believe anything Steve says. He's talking through his ass.)
And Congress passed a law saying that they aren't needed for military action.
This is exactly my point. They passed a law which is in violation of the Constitution. Congress can't just pass a law making it illegal to vote if you are under the age of 30. They can't just pass a law to make Presbyterianism the official state religion. These things would require an amendment to the Constitution. How is this different?
I know our news media do a poor job of covering important stories, but I totally missed hearing about the US Constitution being amended to allow this.
Prior to that amendment, only congress could declare war. Wait, there was no amendment? Congress should not be able to overrule this requirement without amending the constitution. Otherwise, what do we ever need amendments for? Just pass any law you want, any time you want.
Vitamin B-12 is water soluble. The supplement you take doesn't last anywhere near a week. If you take it with coffee, it probably remains in your body a couple of hours at most.
So the Cadillac driving welfare recipients that Ronald Reagan railed against didn't even receive welfare? Wow, Ronnie must have been senile even earlier than I thought.
Being wrongly convicted and dying in a gas chamber due to organ failure is different from being wrongly convicted and dying in a cell due to organ failure how, exactly?
If there is no difference, then surely we can remove the phrase "wrongly convicted" from this formula, and there is still no difference? In that case, why expend the extra effort and cost to create one? If you believe this, then by your own logic, there is never any reason to perform an execution.
It's too late. I have seen countless Windows users who have been trained to double click. As a result, they double items in the Windows task bar and links on web pages. Some of them take it in stride, and some of them get annoyed that their application or link opens twice or hangs and freezes trying to. This does not seem to cause them to unlearn this behavior.
“The British did not start the American revolution of 1964,” they say. The team say the data clearly shows the revolution underway before The Beatles arrived in the States in 1964...
The American music revolution of 1964 must have happened awfully quickly. The Beatles played the Ed Sullivan show on Feb 9th, three weeks after their first single hit the US charts.
Given that this ideal world is completely imaginary, and the things that the free market is supposed to do in it never actually happen in the real world, why imagine a world where it's specifically free markets that have these magical powers? Why not an imaginary world where these things happen without free markets? Why not one where elves come in the middle of the night and solve everything?
Or, if this ideal world you've imagined doesn't map to the real one, why not try to imagine one that does?
I keep skipping all these threads because of the one stupid underlying assumption that the arguments always center around. Why is it always assumed that an AI will be an artificially human intelligence?
This particular question shines a light on it in an interesting way. Why isn't the reverend proposing that all dogs be converted to Christianity? Or all dolphins, pigs, rats, or flatworms?
It far more frequently circumvents the system in the other direction. Innocent people who cannot afford the legal fees, etc., of a trial plead guilty to crimes more serious than any they are guilty of.
"It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory, or partner with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy us all."
Ok, nobody reads the linked article. But at least finish reading the summary maybe?
"I think that the willingness of people to pay for things that delight them will not go away."
That's an interesting theory.
Tell everyone that ad-supported hardware will be going away, and that new fancy cell phone will cost $900 on top of the contract.
T-Mobile, for one, already does this. They offer plans with no contracts and no subsidized phones. You can purchase any phone they sell through their stores and have the price divided up into monthly payments. If you don't like any of those phones, you can purchase any compatible phone with a sim card slot, from any seller you want. I've used prepaid monthly plan phones from Wal-mart, and at one time I was using a jailbroken iPhone 4 made for another carrier. I've got 5 phones on this plan, and I think the last contract subsidized phone I purchased was probably 4 or 5 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
They are legally obligated to maximize shareholders' value. This makes them care for my money and the only ways for them to get it is to offer me something I want
Right. And if only the pesky meddling government would stop interfering, they wouldn't be legally obligated. That's fixes things, right?
It isn't just semantics. Incorporation confers many actual functional differences from free forming groups, even excepting taxation, which free forming groups do not have. You can imagine a fantasy world where this is not true, just please don't confuse it with the actual one we live in.
For this to be true, Libertarians will need to back the dissolution of all corporations. Corporations are, after all, a charter granted by the government (which, in theory, is acting on behalf of the collective citizenry).
This is a provably false assertion. I know a large number of free citizens who do not own weapons.
It was corporate interests that sold Americans on the idea that Capitalism went hand in hand with Christianity. I love the irony of Christianity arguing back. (It isn't just the pope, there have been some fundamentalist groups making the same basic argument recently).
So you're saying there are no illegal aliens in the US?
I'm willing to throw in with the anti-meter spelling police if they will band together and join me in purging the internet of definately.
finite.definite.definitely.This has nothing to do with anyone named Nate.
While I (vaguely) understand the notion that you are asserting, if the value of people can fluctuate (that is, human life has no intrinsic value), then what is the value standard in such a marketplace? Gold? dollars?
This also leads to a rather dismal world in which some murders are ok, and some are slightly more ok than others. Of the choices of available dystopias, this one sounds less appealing than average.
If an individual life has negative value, then the total number of lives worth saving is 0, and there's no reason to care whether a particular act causes an increase in suffering or not.
Let's say we transplant Bob's head onto Steve's body. After the surgery, will Bob say he has a new body, or will Steve say he has a new head? (Hint: don't believe anything Steve says. He's talking through his ass.)
And Congress passed a law saying that they aren't needed for military action.
This is exactly my point. They passed a law which is in violation of the Constitution. Congress can't just pass a law making it illegal to vote if you are under the age of 30. They can't just pass a law to make Presbyterianism the official state religion. These things would require an amendment to the Constitution. How is this different?
I know our news media do a poor job of covering important stories, but I totally missed hearing about the US Constitution being amended to allow this.
Prior to that amendment, only congress could declare war. Wait, there was no amendment? Congress should not be able to overrule this requirement without amending the constitution. Otherwise, what do we ever need amendments for? Just pass any law you want, any time you want.
Vitamin B-12 is water soluble. The supplement you take doesn't last anywhere near a week. If you take it with coffee, it probably remains in your body a couple of hours at most.
So the Cadillac driving welfare recipients that Ronald Reagan railed against didn't even receive welfare? Wow, Ronnie must have been senile even earlier than I thought.
Let's count the number of each of these which prohibit nonmembers from attending or participating... Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero.
So, what was your point, exactly?
Being wrongly convicted and dying in a gas chamber due to organ failure is different from being wrongly convicted and dying in a cell due to organ failure how, exactly?
If there is no difference, then surely we can remove the phrase "wrongly convicted" from this formula, and there is still no difference? In that case, why expend the extra effort and cost to create one? If you believe this, then by your own logic, there is never any reason to perform an execution.
It's too late. I have seen countless Windows users who have been trained to double click. As a result, they double items in the Windows task bar and links on web pages. Some of them take it in stride, and some of them get annoyed that their application or link opens twice or hangs and freezes trying to. This does not seem to cause them to unlearn this behavior.
“The British did not start the American revolution of 1964,” they say.
The team say the data clearly shows the revolution underway before The Beatles arrived in the States in 1964...
The American music revolution of 1964 must have happened awfully quickly. The Beatles played the Ed Sullivan show on Feb 9th, three weeks after their first single hit the US charts.
Given that this ideal world is completely imaginary, and the things that the free market is supposed to do in it never actually happen in the real world, why imagine a world where it's specifically free markets that have these magical powers? Why not an imaginary world where these things happen without free markets? Why not one where elves come in the middle of the night and solve everything?
Or, if this ideal world you've imagined doesn't map to the real one, why not try to imagine one that does?
I keep skipping all these threads because of the one stupid underlying assumption that the arguments always center around. Why is it always assumed that an AI will be an artificially human intelligence?
This particular question shines a light on it in an interesting way. Why isn't the reverend proposing that all dogs be converted to Christianity? Or all dolphins, pigs, rats, or flatworms?
That depends. Can we take down the "job creation" straw man while we're at it?
It far more frequently circumvents the system in the other direction. Innocent people who cannot afford the legal fees, etc., of a trial plead guilty to crimes more serious than any they are guilty of.
"It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory, or partner with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy us all."
Ok, nobody reads the linked article. But at least finish reading the summary maybe?
Your logic has a very large hole in it. If there was no aggression, there would be no aggression to fail to stand up to.
"I think that the willingness of people to pay for things that delight them will not go away."
That's an interesting theory.
Tell everyone that ad-supported hardware will be going away, and that new fancy cell phone will cost $900 on top of the contract.
T-Mobile, for one, already does this. They offer plans with no contracts and no subsidized phones. You can purchase any phone they sell through their stores and have the price divided up into monthly payments. If you don't like any of those phones, you can purchase any compatible phone with a sim card slot, from any seller you want. I've used prepaid monthly plan phones from Wal-mart, and at one time I was using a jailbroken iPhone 4 made for another carrier. I've got 5 phones on this plan, and I think the last contract subsidized phone I purchased was probably 4 or 5 years ago.