I think I see your point. You are questionong the interpretation of the statistics - the original post implied that half the population was underemployed because they couldn't find work. You pointed out that they may not want more paying work. (they have plenty of non-paying work)
I believe the qoute about lies and statistics applies here.
WOW! what a twisted idea of property rights! Where on earth did that come from? (serious question BTW, I want to know.)
I am at the moment reading Two Treatises Of Government, by John Locke. He discusses the nature of property. Society did not provide my labor, I did. Society did not provide the raw materials. God (or nature) did. These are the two components of property. Society did not provide either.
Society is just a collection of people who interact with each other. The property of the society is nothing but the sum of the property owned by the individuals. However, each individual is capable of owning property independantly from society. This means that there is nothing that society can give, without taking from an individual, because society owns nothing independantly from any individual.
This means society cannot provide property. Only individuals can produce it, and society has no way of obtaining it, except by force (theft, or robbery). So, if society provided someone with some property, it is stolen goods,[1] and society has no rights to it. If someone expects society to provide him with propery, his expectations are wrong.
[1] Well, I guess it could also be donated by the individual, but usually such donation is from one individual to another, society is not a party to the transaction.
I recommend mass deployment of small cardboard boxes painted to look like cameras. If everyone had 3 or 4, and they all took TONS of pictures.... With a few real ones thrown in I guess.
The fact that venus has an air pressure some 90 times earth's has nothing to do with it either, right?
More to the point, since life formed here, there has never been a time when the temperatures haven't been suitable for life, and I am not talking about extreamophiles here.
Because, for an individual, an idea is not ownable.
Ownership requires some form of control. If you can't excercize this minimal amount of control, then you cannot own the thing in question. (disagree? answer this question then, what does it mean to own something that you have no control over?)
For an idea, once someone else gets that same idea, whether you told him, or they developed it independantly, you have lost control. Therefore ideas are not ownable for individuals. Since a government can prevent people from using some ideas, governments can own some ideas. (usually a bad idea, but...)
Should you give your idea away for free? Not unless you want to. But just be aware, once you give it to anyone else, they now own the idea as much as you do. (as much, not less, not 'under you' etc.) The complication to this idea is IP law. But that is not individual ownership. It is the government taking ownership of the idea, by force, and granting priveledges to others regarding that idea. Make no mistake though, this is the government owning the idea, not the copyright/patent holder.
I am not saying that owing ideas is wrong here. That is a separate argument. People can't own ideas, just like things falling down, not up, or water being wet. It is simply the way things are.
About a month ago I found a company that had supercaps with > 2000 farads. only 2.5V ratings, but if my quick math is right you would need 30 or so of them.
I don't have time to find it again. Sorry, no links this time.
So, it is an efficiency thing? A problem because some other way is more efficient?
If this is the case then it is a problem that economists should worry about, and for private business to try and find a profitable solution for, not a problem that government should consern itself with.
The Soviet Union tried to solve efficiency problems with government regulations and central planning, and we all know it was a failure. Government should never try to fix efficiency problems[1] because it is very bad at it, and because it usually results in restricting the liberty of the people. A legitimate governments role is first, to preserve liberty, not efficiency.
So, I don't really accept it. I can and will try to find solutions to it. But I would rather accept it than have the government try to solve the problem.
[1]An exception to this would be where the inefficiency is caused by government regulations. Then the government should try to find better regulations or repeal them altogether, subject to the primary goal of legitimate government of course.
The content DOES belong to be. It is sitting on my computer, under my control, and I obtained the copy legally, with the permission of the copyright holder no less. I do not own the original, (they still have it!) and I do not own the copyright. The website owner can control access to the content, they did, and they decided for whatever reason to give me a copy. And it is now MY copy. If I choose to excersize my fair use rights and transfer it to another mediun (paper) that is my sole option.
That said, If they choose to use quirks or features in the browser that I choose to use, to make things a pain in the neck for me, that is also their choice. Time to fix the browser. This is no different than blocking pop-ups.
This is why the solution should not be in the hands of any one person/group. (read government!) It should be solved by a free market. (which we do not have BTW)
I am not a Libertarian by party affiliation, though I agree with them on many subjects.
I am an individualist. (pdf file) This means, among other things that just because something is a problem, it does not follow that the government should take responsibility to fix the problem. how do Libertarians regulate the commons?" You skipped the question 'Should (and why should) the commons be regulated by government?' From the Tragedy of the Commons it is clear that an unregulated commons is a disaster. However a government regulated one is not much better. Most of the environmental problems in the western US are the direct result of bad mannagement by the federal government. Mining tailings, overgrazing clear-cut logging, etc. In short, it is still a commons, and there are many tragedies that the regulations have not prevented. Private regulation is almost always better. You hit on this. When possible the solution to the Tragedy of the Commons it to sell it. No commons, no tragedy.
This solution does not work for air polution. The question still needs to be answered though, should the government be the one to regulate it? Well, does the government own the air? Is it harmed by air polution? Is air polution the resopnsibility of the government? No. Those harmed by it should take the initiative. Class action lawsuits (as mentioned by another reply to your post) seem to be a better and more proper solution. (see my reply to that comment)
Last point
" Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take;
but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry
Individual liberty is more important than life, property, prosperity, or clean air. What good is life, if you can't live it as you choose, property, if can't use it, prosperity, if you are told how to use it, or clean air, if you are not allowed to enjoy it? None. Preserving individual rights usually results in more prosperity and less polution and waste. But if not, chains and slavery is still too high a price to pay.
First, I tend to agree with Badnarik on the air polution issue here. While it is not a perfect solution by far, it is superior to the current situation. For instance, why are diesel engines so popular in Europe and not in the US? Different air polution and fuel content regulations. I am sure that this results in worse air polution for one or the other, (if not both) and extra costs for all. The law of unintended consequences will always make a muck of government regulations.
Second, I am curious as to why you call the reverse-commons effect a 'problem'[1]. I have to do a lot of brainstorming to find any problems caused by this effect, and they are all fairly minor. Mabe you know something I don't?
[1] I do not consider bennifiting from something I did not pay for, or not getting all of the bennifits I expected from something I did pay for (barring fraudulent sellers/faulty item etc.) to be a problem. This is simply how reality works.
Did it ever occur to you that much of the trouble with corporate america is the corporate laws themselves?
If shareholders were liable for the actions of the corporation, for example, would corporations be so willing to ship faulty products, (knowing that they were faulty)? No, 'cause even a whiff of that would cause their stock price to plummet - the shareholders would run in droves.
throwing out all corporate law and regulations would do much more good than harm.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the qoute about lies and statistics applies here.
You have never tried to take care of kids, cook, do laundry, and keep the house clean. It is full time work.
I am at the moment reading Two Treatises Of Government, by John Locke. He discusses the nature of property. Society did not provide my labor, I did. Society did not provide the raw materials. God (or nature) did. These are the two components of property. Society did not provide either.
Society is just a collection of people who interact with each other. The property of the society is nothing but the sum of the property owned by the individuals. However, each individual is capable of owning property independantly from society. This means that there is nothing that society can give, without taking from an individual, because society owns nothing independantly from any individual.
This means society cannot provide property. Only individuals can produce it, and society has no way of obtaining it, except by force (theft, or robbery). So, if society provided someone with some property, it is stolen goods,[1] and society has no rights to it. If someone expects society to provide him with propery, his expectations are wrong.
[1] Well, I guess it could also be donated by the individual, but usually such donation is from one individual to another, society is not a party to the transaction.
I can't think of any reason why not. It sounds like a good idea to me. Just don't force me to do it, ok?
There is a huge difference between someone choosing to do something with his property, and someone else taking it from him and doing it.
I recommend mass deployment of small cardboard boxes painted to look like cameras. If everyone had 3 or 4, and they all took TONS of pictures.... With a few real ones thrown in I guess.
Just make the shareholders liable for the criminal actions of the corporation. Simple, easy to implement, and more than sufficient.
Bravo! You just gave a brilliant example of why democracy sucks!
Because for all practical purposes, they do not exist.
More to the point, since life formed here, there has never been a time when the temperatures haven't been suitable for life, and I am not talking about extreamophiles here.
Ownership requires some form of control. If you can't excercize this minimal amount of control, then you cannot own the thing in question. (disagree? answer this question then, what does it mean to own something that you have no control over?)
For an idea, once someone else gets that same idea, whether you told him, or they developed it independantly, you have lost control. Therefore ideas are not ownable for individuals. Since a government can prevent people from using some ideas, governments can own some ideas. (usually a bad idea, but...)
Should you give your idea away for free? Not unless you want to. But just be aware, once you give it to anyone else, they now own the idea as much as you do. (as much, not less, not 'under you' etc.) The complication to this idea is IP law. But that is not individual ownership. It is the government taking ownership of the idea, by force, and granting priveledges to others regarding that idea. Make no mistake though, this is the government owning the idea, not the copyright/patent holder.
I am not saying that owing ideas is wrong here. That is a separate argument. People can't own ideas, just like things falling down, not up, or water being wet. It is simply the way things are.
I don't have time to find it again. Sorry, no links this time.
Just letting people decide on their own what is murder and what is not won't work.
Yup. a 'dumbass' will change his actions if you teach him.
Until you know why we elected corruptable men to office, voting them out of office will probably result in different corrupt men in office.
If this is the case then it is a problem that economists should worry about, and for private business to try and find a profitable solution for, not a problem that government should consern itself with.
The Soviet Union tried to solve efficiency problems with government regulations and central planning, and we all know it was a failure. Government should never try to fix efficiency problems[1] because it is very bad at it, and because it usually results in restricting the liberty of the people. A legitimate governments role is first, to preserve liberty, not efficiency.
So, I don't really accept it. I can and will try to find solutions to it. But I would rather accept it than have the government try to solve the problem.
[1]An exception to this would be where the inefficiency is caused by government regulations. Then the government should try to find better regulations or repeal them altogether, subject to the primary goal of legitimate government of course.
The content DOES belong to be. It is sitting on my computer, under my control, and I obtained the copy legally, with the permission of the copyright holder no less. I do not own the original, (they still have it!) and I do not own the copyright. The website owner can control access to the content, they did, and they decided for whatever reason to give me a copy. And it is now MY copy. If I choose to excersize my fair use rights and transfer it to another mediun (paper) that is my sole option.
That said, If they choose to use quirks or features in the browser that I choose to use, to make things a pain in the neck for me, that is also their choice. Time to fix the browser. This is no different than blocking pop-ups.
This is why the solution should not be in the hands of any one person/group. (read government!) It should be solved by a free market. (which we do not have BTW)
My property.
I am an individualist. (pdf file) This means, among other things that just because something is a problem, it does not follow that the government should take responsibility to fix the problem. how do Libertarians regulate the commons?" You skipped the question 'Should (and why should) the commons be regulated by government?' From the Tragedy of the Commons it is clear that an unregulated commons is a disaster. However a government regulated one is not much better. Most of the environmental problems in the western US are the direct result of bad mannagement by the federal government. Mining tailings, overgrazing clear-cut logging, etc. In short, it is still a commons, and there are many tragedies that the regulations have not prevented. Private regulation is almost always better. You hit on this. When possible the solution to the Tragedy of the Commons it to sell it. No commons, no tragedy.
This solution does not work for air polution. The question still needs to be answered though, should the government be the one to regulate it? Well, does the government own the air? Is it harmed by air polution? Is air polution the resopnsibility of the government? No. Those harmed by it should take the initiative. Class action lawsuits (as mentioned by another reply to your post) seem to be a better and more proper solution. (see my reply to that comment)
Last point
" Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry
Individual liberty is more important than life, property, prosperity, or clean air. What good is life, if you can't live it as you choose, property, if can't use it, prosperity, if you are told how to use it, or clean air, if you are not allowed to enjoy it? None. Preserving individual rights usually results in more prosperity and less polution and waste. But if not, chains and slavery is still too high a price to pay.
Second, I am curious as to why you call the reverse-commons effect a 'problem'[1]. I have to do a lot of brainstorming to find any problems caused by this effect, and they are all fairly minor. Mabe you know something I don't?
[1] I do not consider bennifiting from something I did not pay for, or not getting all of the bennifits I expected from something I did pay for (barring fraudulent sellers/faulty item etc.) to be a problem. This is simply how reality works.
A little too bad, I would really have liked to have seen that research! Reading someone elses is so much easier that doing one's own.
If shareholders were liable for the actions of the corporation, for example, would corporations be so willing to ship faulty products, (knowing that they were faulty)? No, 'cause even a whiff of that would cause their stock price to plummet - the shareholders would run in droves.
throwing out all corporate law and regulations would do much more good than harm.
" I am 100% positive because I have not spent the time it would take to research it for certian."
So, are you sure because you have done the research, or not sure because you have not done the research? Please clarify.
Otherwise known as biodiesel.