it was just a matter of time until somebody applied Lorentz transformations to produce special relativity, even if they did it without the physical insight.
I'm not saying no one could fill Einstein shoes. A monkey randomly rearranging letters will eventually write all books ever written, in a Neverending Story quip. The point is, how long until?
Thinking 'generally' might lead you to false conclusions. In my opinion the optimal 'head count' varies from venture to venture, there is no general panacea. More people can help, more people can get in the way.
Large groups of people confirmed Einstein's ideas, granted. What confirmed ideas or reactors would there be today if not for that one unique man? Zip.
Nikola Tesla comes to my mind when you speak of Edison, incidentally, which was truly a scientific and creative genius while Edison, while far from a simpleton, don't get me wrong, was more of a gifted entrepreneur and obstinate tinkerer.
Anyway, if individual genius is dead it is because we are killing it. Society seems to me to be heading more and more in path of collectivism and thus less and less incentive for individual achievement. Damn shame if you ask me.:(
Funny that, I think people cried about it because it would drive the price of booze up, not because 'alcohol is bad'.
In case of privatization, it seems logical that prices charged by the private retailers would go up even more, since the LDB would no longer be in competition.
Anyhow, my point being, if you want to reduce alcohol consumption because it's a 'bad drug', it would be better to either raise the state retailer price to market prices ( and bankrupt the private retailers unless you up the wholesale discount to them ), or just kill that monopoly and let the market set the higher price for it, which which would bring demand down.
It's a stretch to get to that opinion, I believe. First, being gay and inserting body parts is just fine, and sodomy is legal in the US States, just like kissing someone of the opposite sex with a tongue is legal. Obese people may or may not be self-destructive.
You said 'you don't claim a right to use addictive drugs', how else am I going to take it? It's obvious that you consider your right to your own body limited, not by yourself, but by an external entity i.e. the Government. And I don't consider it a stretch at all, I'm merely following a principle to its logical outcome.
Inserting body parts and kissing people in the opposite sex is beyond legal. It's consensual. The law has nothing to do with it. It's like saying 'engaging in conversation with someone' or 'drinking a glass of water' is legal. The same thing as self-destructive or not, it's completely beyond the point. Their self-destructiveness is none of your business.
Knowingly transmitting potentially deadly or debilitating disease is another thing.
And it is a crime, I believe. Ok, fine.
Causing society to bear the cost of someone's addiction choice is still another. Addiction becomes dysfunctional when it removes an individual's ability to be responsible for themselves by domination of the addiction over functional daily activities.
'Addiction' does not take away somebody's responsibility. That train of thought might lead one to consider driving under the influence to be an attenuating factor in the case of 'addicts'. You, and you alone are responsible for your habit. Not the evil coke. You snorted it.
When an addict then shuns personal responsibility, doesn't provide care as a parent or care giver, and becomes incapable of dealing with the addiction (cost, self-care, even nutrition), then this is a problem that must be addressed by society and community. We don't let addicts die on the street if we can-- or at least we shouldn't.
We have already established that drug prohibition does not magically eliminate addicted and negligent parents, since it does not work to prevent drug use.
Nobody is talking about letting addicts die on the street, people are charitable and have every right to help voluntarily; but it does not follow that 'society' or 'community', although I think you really meant 'government', has any 'responsibility' to subsidize irresponsible behavior.
Then you don't claim a right to your own body and what you put into it. Dangerous way of thinking.
Gay people might be made criminals because of some 'sodomy' law. Soon obese people might be marginalized too when Twinky's consumption is made a crime.
Sounds like the opposite of funded by tax payers, 800 million dollars government revenue that doesn't have to raised by taxes.
On the surface, yes, but these 800 million dollars ARE tax revenue, since retailers cannot purchase liquor from anyone EXCEPT the Government.
'The Government buying liquor tax-free, and selling it at a profit to private retailers' vs. 'private retailers buying from whoever they want and paying a tax on it' pretty much amounts to the same thing.
That statement in itself does nothing to refute what I said.
Any government-run enterprise can be nominally profitable. You just have to make apportionments from the Treasury and put it under the 'Asset' column. It will still be pure consumption, and not creation, of wealth.
Ok, I'll just play science-fiction along and try to argue the implications in that hyphothetical scenario.
So, you have the right to use addictive drugs if you're not genetically disposed to become an addict? Whatever happened to 'before the law, all are equal'? And I suppose the Government will decide the thresholds of 'susceptibility' and what you are allowed to consume from that.
Personal responsibility is easy to define: "One is responsible for the consequences of one's actions, good or bad". Its not something to be 'enforced'. The consequences to one's health from drug abused comes from the drug abuse, not from the Personal Responsibility Agency.
So we protect some people from themselves by restricting everybody's freedom to ingest whatever they want, while innocent people may be killed by the violence and crime that arise from the illegal drug trade? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Self-ownership?
Governments can only foster trust and reliability into the market by keeping the stunts they perform in it to the absolute minimum.
The US government is actually introducing distrust and uncertainty into markets right now. Entrepreneurs are already faced with a hard pickle of forecasting in a tumultuous marketplace, and to top it off they still have to try and predict what a schizophrenic government might pull tomorrow.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that government-granted monopolies have simply done a crappy job on supplying economies with money. If you want revenue from seigniorage, then compete in the free market for it.
Good regulation is a contradiction in terms. Regulators are as human as market players, and even then are lobbied by the very enterprises they're supposed to regulate. So who do you think benefits from these regulations?
The securitization of subprime mortgages was a bone thrown to the financial sector as pro quo to the quid of having to loan money to people with no credit on the CRA. Wheee for regulation.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Nope... nothing on buying anything. Unless you'd consider buying AIG to the likeness of establishing post offices and posting roads?
letting the market decide didn't turn out so well in the finance and banking sector, now, did it?
Well, we'll never know that, since the market was not allowed to decide. With laws that tell banks what to do and with the money in a supposedly Capitalistic society being provided by a government monopoly.
But I agree about Tesla not needing/wanting a bailout. It's like saying that SpaceX got a bailout by winning a lot of the COTS competition money. I mean, strictly it is, but not nearly in the GM/Chrysler/Ford 'help us out, we can't turn a profit' bullshit.
The problem with Marxism is that even if everyone participates voluntarily submits to it, it would not work.
Mises makes a compelling case that socialism would be doomed to failure because in the absence of a market created by private property of capital goods i.e. the means of production, a concept diametrically opposed to socialism, there can be no price for these goods, and therefore rational allocation of resources to consumer demand is impossible. What to produce? 10 million bycicles or 1 million Ladas? To paraphrase, every economic command and direction would be as a step in the dark.
I disagree with "shock theater"
It's not "shock theater" - it's reality that is just never ever shown on any media.
If every meat eater has to kill his own animals there would be a whole lot more vegetarians.
You argument is 100% moot.
If every person had to build their own house there would be a whole lot more homeless. If every person had to assemble their own pens there would be a whole lot less writers. If every person had to plant their own food there would be a whole less vegetarians, and so on.
It's called 'division of labor' and it's the foundation of society and civilization. Get used to it.
On the other hand, I could argue that non-competes are unconstitutional and void since 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are _unalienable_ rights.
You can't give away your right to earn a living as a law-abiding citizen anymore that you can sign a contract that has a section that says you'll be executed by a firing squad if you breach one or another clause.
Why stop there? I mean, for how long are they going to keep life essentials like a personal yacht and 24/7 Swedish hooker from everyone? How about iPods? Fuck!
It's just disgraceful, all those rich fellas ought to contribute back some of their profits to society.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Government fights unemployment, we get more unemployment
Government fights a recession, a depression lasts for ten years.
Government regulates and prints money, hyperinflation and financial bubbles.
Government invades Iraq, never leaves.
Government passes law on spam, spam increases tenfold?! Oh Lord, what a surprise!
it was just a matter of time until somebody applied Lorentz transformations to produce special relativity, even if they did it without the physical insight.
Yea? How much time?
I'm not saying no one could fill Einstein shoes. A monkey randomly rearranging letters will eventually write all books ever written, in a Neverending Story quip. The point is, how long until?
Catch my drift?
Thinking 'generally' might lead you to false conclusions. In my opinion the optimal 'head count' varies from venture to venture, there is no general panacea. More people can help, more people can get in the way.
Large groups of people confirmed Einstein's ideas, granted. What confirmed ideas or reactors would there be today if not for that one unique man? Zip.
Nikola Tesla comes to my mind when you speak of Edison, incidentally, which was truly a scientific and creative genius while Edison, while far from a simpleton, don't get me wrong, was more of a gifted entrepreneur and obstinate tinkerer.
Anyway, if individual genius is dead it is because we are killing it. Society seems to me to be heading more and more in path of collectivism and thus less and less incentive for individual achievement. Damn shame if you ask me. :(
Funny that, I think people cried about it because it would drive the price of booze up, not because 'alcohol is bad'.
In case of privatization, it seems logical that prices charged by the private retailers would go up even more, since the LDB would no longer be in competition.
Anyhow, my point being, if you want to reduce alcohol consumption because it's a 'bad drug', it would be better to either raise the state retailer price to market prices ( and bankrupt the private retailers unless you up the wholesale discount to them ), or just kill that monopoly and let the market set the higher price for it, which which would bring demand down.
Didn't say that at all.
It's a stretch to get to that opinion, I believe. First, being gay and inserting body parts is just fine, and sodomy is legal in the US States, just like kissing someone of the opposite sex with a tongue is legal. Obese people may or may not be self-destructive.
You said 'you don't claim a right to use addictive drugs', how else am I going to take it? It's obvious that you consider your right to your own body limited, not by yourself, but by an external entity i.e. the Government. And I don't consider it a stretch at all, I'm merely following a principle to its logical outcome.
Inserting body parts and kissing people in the opposite sex is beyond legal. It's consensual. The law has nothing to do with it. It's like saying 'engaging in conversation with someone' or 'drinking a glass of water' is legal. The same thing as self-destructive or not, it's completely beyond the point. Their self-destructiveness is none of your business.
Knowingly transmitting potentially deadly or debilitating disease is another thing.
And it is a crime, I believe. Ok, fine.
Causing society to bear the cost of someone's addiction choice is still another. Addiction becomes dysfunctional when it removes an individual's ability to be responsible for themselves by domination of the addiction over functional daily activities.
'Addiction' does not take away somebody's responsibility. That train of thought might lead one to consider driving under the influence to be an attenuating factor in the case of 'addicts'. You, and you alone are responsible for your habit. Not the evil coke. You snorted it.
When an addict then shuns personal responsibility, doesn't provide care as a parent or care giver, and becomes incapable of dealing with the addiction (cost, self-care, even nutrition), then this is a problem that must be addressed by society and community. We don't let addicts die on the street if we can-- or at least we shouldn't.
We have already established that drug prohibition does not magically eliminate addicted and negligent parents, since it does not work to prevent drug use.
Nobody is talking about letting addicts die on the street, people are charitable and have every right to help voluntarily; but it does not follow that 'society' or 'community', although I think you really meant 'government', has any 'responsibility' to subsidize irresponsible behavior.
Then you don't claim a right to your own body and what you put into it. Dangerous way of thinking.
Gay people might be made criminals because of some 'sodomy' law. Soon obese people might be marginalized too when Twinky's consumption is made a crime.
Sounds like the opposite of funded by tax payers, 800 million dollars government revenue that doesn't have to raised by taxes.
On the surface, yes, but these 800 million dollars ARE tax revenue, since retailers cannot purchase liquor from anyone EXCEPT the Government.
'The Government buying liquor tax-free, and selling it at a profit to private retailers' vs. 'private retailers buying from whoever they want and paying a tax on it' pretty much amounts to the same thing.
That statement in itself does nothing to refute what I said.
Any government-run enterprise can be nominally profitable. You just have to make apportionments from the Treasury and put it under the 'Asset' column. It will still be pure consumption, and not creation, of wealth.
Ok, I'll just play science-fiction along and try to argue the implications in that hyphothetical scenario.
So, you have the right to use addictive drugs if you're not genetically disposed to become an addict? Whatever happened to 'before the law, all are equal'? And I suppose the Government will decide the thresholds of 'susceptibility' and what you are allowed to consume from that.
Personal responsibility is easy to define: "One is responsible for the consequences of one's actions, good or bad". Its not something to be 'enforced'. The consequences to one's health from drug abused comes from the drug abuse, not from the Personal Responsibility Agency.
They somehow manage to under price the private stores by 10% to 20%
That's because they can sell it at a loss, since the government is funded by taxpayers and really doesn't care about making a profit.
WoW just 6 hours a week? Hey, you should be proud of yourself! *rolls eyes*
So we protect some people from themselves by restricting everybody's freedom to ingest whatever they want, while innocent people may be killed by the violence and crime that arise from the illegal drug trade? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Self-ownership?
I respectfully disagree.
Governments can only foster trust and reliability into the market by keeping the stunts they perform in it to the absolute minimum.
The US government is actually introducing distrust and uncertainty into markets right now. Entrepreneurs are already faced with a hard pickle of forecasting in a tumultuous marketplace, and to top it off they still have to try and predict what a schizophrenic government might pull tomorrow.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that government-granted monopolies have simply done a crappy job on supplying economies with money. If you want revenue from seigniorage, then compete in the free market for it.
Good regulation is a contradiction in terms. Regulators are as human as market players, and even then are lobbied by the very enterprises they're supposed to regulate. So who do you think benefits from these regulations?
The securitization of subprime mortgages was a bone thrown to the financial sector as pro quo to the quid of having to loan money to people with no credit on the CRA. Wheee for regulation.
Here we go.. powers of congress:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Nope... nothing on buying anything. Unless you'd consider buying AIG to the likeness of establishing post offices and posting roads?
Because somebody else is selling it cheaper and taking your customers away. Not much of a choice left for you in that case.
You might want to Google 'supply and demand'
letting the market decide didn't turn out so well in the finance and banking sector, now, did it?
Well, we'll never know that, since the market was not allowed to decide. With laws that tell banks what to do and with the money in a supposedly Capitalistic society being provided by a government monopoly.
But I agree about Tesla not needing/wanting a bailout. It's like saying that SpaceX got a bailout by winning a lot of the COTS competition money. I mean, strictly it is, but not nearly in the GM/Chrysler/Ford 'help us out, we can't turn a profit' bullshit.
The problem with Marxism is that even if everyone participates voluntarily submits to it, it would not work.
Mises makes a compelling case that socialism would be doomed to failure because in the absence of a market created by private property of capital goods i.e. the means of production, a concept diametrically opposed to socialism, there can be no price for these goods, and therefore rational allocation of resources to consumer demand is impossible. What to produce? 10 million bycicles or 1 million Ladas? To paraphrase, every economic command and direction would be as a step in the dark.
Check out his book, "Socialism".
I disagree with "shock theater" It's not "shock theater" - it's reality that is just never ever shown on any media.
If every meat eater has to kill his own animals there would be a whole lot more vegetarians.
You argument is 100% moot.
If every person had to build their own house there would be a whole lot more homeless. If every person had to assemble their own pens there would be a whole lot less writers. If every person had to plant their own food there would be a whole less vegetarians, and so on.
It's called 'division of labor' and it's the foundation of society and civilization. Get used to it.
On the other hand, I could argue that non-competes are unconstitutional and void since 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are _unalienable_ rights.
You can't give away your right to earn a living as a law-abiding citizen anymore that you can sign a contract that has a section that says you'll be executed by a firing squad if you breach one or another clause.
You're screwed, he probably wrote in Ron Paul, since he's got all the young people on board with the freedom message. ;-)
*Drum roll*
Lets go to the frontier!!! :-)
You seem to get the meaning of 'general welfare' in the Constitution. If only the US government ever did. :-)
Why stop there? I mean, for how long are they going to keep life essentials like a personal yacht and 24/7 Swedish hooker from everyone? How about iPods? Fuck!
It's just disgraceful, all those rich fellas ought to contribute back some of their profits to society. ;-)