The problem with IP is that it isn't scarce. The reason for property rights is to allocate scarce resources, so IP cannot be a property right in a real free market.
He is a libertarian (little l) I have seen him say this a few times in video clips. And, he's still in the Libertarian Party too. Though, he said he wasn't going to run for another party if he didn't get the Republican nomination. Sorry, I can't remember the sources.
If environmentally bad things like your example (toxic waste etc) happens then it is the law and courts who are not upholding the proper property rights. 150 years ago the courts started siding with the factory owners rather than the owners or orchids, or washing lines. So, there was no incentive to use cleaner coal or invent new ways of filtering out the dirt. So, if a state upheld property rights properly then it would be a plus.
He's shown how its possible to get elected on principles. For instance, he still has support in a farming district, although he doesn't support subsidies for them. I disagree with him on things but at least he's going to be reliable, unlike the others. His voting record shows that he sticks to the law (the constitution.)
A halfway argument is that if the fetus can be born early and kept alive then it shouldn't be aborted, but if it can't be kept alive then it can. I kind of like this one because it seems pretty fucked up aborting things when they could survive outside the womb (shouldn't the woman think of aborting before that time! though I'm not one to pass judgement.) As technology gets better the period that they could survive outside the womb increases.
He's personally against abortion, but he's also personally against drugs. This does not mean he is going to try and get the Federal government to ban it (or drugs,) he wants get the Federal government out of the abortion issue, so it is left up to the states (so it is consistent with the constitution.
I know it's not ideal but you could just fold the screen backwards so it's parallel to the desk. Or perhaps have the screen upside down and put the keyboard furthest away from you.
Whatsmore, the one thing I find interesting is that the typical environmentalist blames capitalism for pollution etc however it was government failing to uphold private property rights (and thus proper capitalism) 150 or so years ago that allowed companies to pollute. I can't remember the exact details but for example, allowing them to pollute public rivers, or writing laws ensuring that judges take the side of polluters. For instance, not upholding the property rights of the person who owns the orchid next to a polluting factory. So, from the start there was no incentive to use the cleaner type of coal or to invent new filtering methods.
The problem cannot be greed because that encourages competition, the problem is greed in combination with government. If people can lobby government for subsidies, guild type things, regulations---or anything to stop competition then the result of the greed is turned bad. Insurance companies are going to make sure prices are kept down in emergencies (I'm sure there are many other mechanisms too that's the first I thought of.) Food is needed by people too, shops don't charge massive prices, no one wants government to provide food for everyone. By saying that they will charge any price they want is not taking into account economic law at all, they will all want to charge an insane price but they will not be able to in real life. So, if there's greed about the last thing you want is government there.
They spend hundreds of billions on stuff to blow stuff up. There could be another massive number of amazingly talented people creating things that consumers want. It's completely absurd to say that bureaucrats spend other peoples money better than individuals. Yea sure the military make lots of important stuff like lasers but you are not looking at what we don't see---money taken out of the private sector and spent by other people, it is going to go down inefficient paths, lowering everyones wealth.
We could alternatively ask how can we use voluntarily means to provide these services, rather than services where funding comes from the threat of violence (tax.)
I think it was on Free to Choose where Milton Friedman pointed out that technology allowed government to expand to new levels sizes with technology. Of course as the article states there is a flip-side, and it will probably be really poor at adapting. It excels in expanding bureaucracy and diminishing individual liberty but not much else.
Democracy has shown itself to be pretty shit, and you would have to be pretty brainwashed to think democracy is freedom. A good example of it being shit is even the idea that these bureaucrats are talking about such a law this story is on.
By banning parties that do not share "democractic values" could on one hand it could stop a dictator, perhaps. But on the other hand, it doesn't support a continued decentralisation of government, so it might get the country stuck in the status quo.
Most or all of the problems you have "commented" on is a result of government meddling. So I hope the same organistion doesn't start rationing, that is just plain scary and freaky.
For example, smog is the government failing to care about property rights. Poor people in Africa: foreign aid and corrupt governments. Overfishing: no one can own the sea so it is tragedy of the commons, governments need to let people own it. Ground water: I dunno, but I guess governments own a lot of the water companies, they should have water meters so people can see the actual cost of water and don't waste it. Burning rain forests: I'd take a guess that they aren't allowed to own the forests so they have no incentive to replant or do something more rational.
I hope that capitalism topples democracy before it is too late.
I guess the major problem is the previous occurrence of telecoms monopolies and that has really messed up the market. Presumably it is still being messed about with, and this is just another thing that makes the problem worse. They should get to the root of the problem and stop subsidising telecoms and giving them favours (and same with all companies.) Using another law to fix a previous problem caused by a law is nonsensical. However, I think, if there is a massive chain of stupid laws then it is much easier, politically, to just make a new law and give it a fancy buzzword like this one.
Oh, they are in the naming business are they. That's pretty stupid. If they are gona name stuff they should do it properly, and name EVERYTHING. Otherwise it is pretty arbitrary.
People don't need government to name stuff for them, but I guess it is probably better those idiots do something pointless, like this, rather than fucking something else up.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with IP is that it isn't scarce. The reason for property rights is to allocate scarce resources, so IP cannot be a property right in a real free market.
He is a libertarian (little l) I have seen him say this a few times in video clips. And, he's still in the Libertarian Party too. Though, he said he wasn't going to run for another party if he didn't get the Republican nomination. Sorry, I can't remember the sources.
If environmentally bad things like your example (toxic waste etc) happens then it is the law and courts who are not upholding the proper property rights. 150 years ago the courts started siding with the factory owners rather than the owners or orchids, or washing lines. So, there was no incentive to use cleaner coal or invent new ways of filtering out the dirt. So, if a state upheld property rights properly then it would be a plus.
He's shown how its possible to get elected on principles. For instance, he still has support in a farming district, although he doesn't support subsidies for them. I disagree with him on things but at least he's going to be reliable, unlike the others. His voting record shows that he sticks to the law (the constitution.)
Not modded as funny?
No need for facts.
A halfway argument is that if the fetus can be born early and kept alive then it shouldn't be aborted, but if it can't be kept alive then it can. I kind of like this one because it seems pretty fucked up aborting things when they could survive outside the womb (shouldn't the woman think of aborting before that time! though I'm not one to pass judgement.) As technology gets better the period that they could survive outside the womb increases.
He's personally against abortion, but he's also personally against drugs. This does not mean he is going to try and get the Federal government to ban it (or drugs,) he wants get the Federal government out of the abortion issue, so it is left up to the states (so it is consistent with the constitution.
Ah, your right I've just tried it on my old IBM one. It goes further down than parallel, however, it definitely is putting strain on the hinges.
I know it's not ideal but you could just fold the screen backwards so it's parallel to the desk. Or perhaps have the screen upside down and put the keyboard furthest away from you.
Private jets and expensive salaries for their staff?
Whatsmore, the one thing I find interesting is that the typical environmentalist blames capitalism for pollution etc however it was government failing to uphold private property rights (and thus proper capitalism) 150 or so years ago that allowed companies to pollute. I can't remember the exact details but for example, allowing them to pollute public rivers, or writing laws ensuring that judges take the side of polluters. For instance, not upholding the property rights of the person who owns the orchid next to a polluting factory. So, from the start there was no incentive to use the cleaner type of coal or to invent new filtering methods.
The problem cannot be greed because that encourages competition, the problem is greed in combination with government. If people can lobby government for subsidies, guild type things, regulations---or anything to stop competition then the result of the greed is turned bad. Insurance companies are going to make sure prices are kept down in emergencies (I'm sure there are many other mechanisms too that's the first I thought of.) Food is needed by people too, shops don't charge massive prices, no one wants government to provide food for everyone. By saying that they will charge any price they want is not taking into account economic law at all, they will all want to charge an insane price but they will not be able to in real life. So, if there's greed about the last thing you want is government there.
Maybe I'm being cynical but I wouldn't be surprised if it was because they think it would mean more industrialisation.
They spend hundreds of billions on stuff to blow stuff up. There could be another massive number of amazingly talented people creating things that consumers want. It's completely absurd to say that bureaucrats spend other peoples money better than individuals. Yea sure the military make lots of important stuff like lasers but you are not looking at what we don't see---money taken out of the private sector and spent by other people, it is going to go down inefficient paths, lowering everyones wealth.
We could alternatively ask how can we use voluntarily means to provide these services, rather than services where funding comes from the threat of violence (tax.)
Watch out for the North American Union. It took like 50 years for the EU to get where it is now, so it'll prolly take decades for this too.
I think it was on Free to Choose where Milton Friedman pointed out that technology allowed government to expand to new levels sizes with technology. Of course as the article states there is a flip-side, and it will probably be really poor at adapting. It excels in expanding bureaucracy and diminishing individual liberty but not much else.
Wow, authoritarian democracy, great.
Democracy has shown itself to be pretty shit, and you would have to be pretty brainwashed to think democracy is freedom. A good example of it being shit is even the idea that these bureaucrats are talking about such a law this story is on.
By banning parties that do not share "democractic values" could on one hand it could stop a dictator, perhaps. But on the other hand, it doesn't support a continued decentralisation of government, so it might get the country stuck in the status quo.
I'm pretty sure I read some news stories a few months ago saying they were going to use them for patrolling the Mexico boarder from drug smugglers.
Most or all of the problems you have "commented" on is a result of government meddling. So I hope the same organistion doesn't start rationing, that is just plain scary and freaky.
For example, smog is the government failing to care about property rights. Poor people in Africa: foreign aid and corrupt governments. Overfishing: no one can own the sea so it is tragedy of the commons, governments need to let people own it. Ground water: I dunno, but I guess governments own a lot of the water companies, they should have water meters so people can see the actual cost of water and don't waste it. Burning rain forests: I'd take a guess that they aren't allowed to own the forests so they have no incentive to replant or do something more rational.
I hope that capitalism topples democracy before it is too late.
I guess the major problem is the previous occurrence of telecoms monopolies and that has really messed up the market. Presumably it is still being messed about with, and this is just another thing that makes the problem worse. They should get to the root of the problem and stop subsidising telecoms and giving them favours (and same with all companies.) Using another law to fix a previous problem caused by a law is nonsensical. However, I think, if there is a massive chain of stupid laws then it is much easier, politically, to just make a new law and give it a fancy buzzword like this one.
Oh, they are in the naming business are they. That's pretty stupid. If they are gona name stuff they should do it properly, and name EVERYTHING. Otherwise it is pretty arbitrary.
People don't need government to name stuff for them, but I guess it is probably better those idiots do something pointless, like this, rather than fucking something else up.
I don't think he claimed he could change it :) And, I agree with you on the nice and cozy thing. Anyway, everything starts with an idea.