Give someone access to people's private information and it will be abused. Here I'm giving you this box that contains pure awesomeness. Please don't open it.
If you have competent management they cn tell who gets work done. Unless you work in a factory where you have shift breaks you can tell who isn't pulling their weight. It doesn't matter the reason. If someone can do the work while reading slashdot a few times a day who cares?
You have no idea what you are talking about. If you are growing just to grow your company will fail. If you grow to meet a demand in the market it's fine. But what do you do when you are in a market where you can't grow? Return a dividend. There are some great stocks like regional utilities that don't grow because they have nowhere else to go. But they make money and return it to investors. I like that.
I think it all boils down to prevention vs punishment. I don't want a government so big that it tries to prevent bad things from happening. But it has to be large enough to have a court system and police so that if someone does something bad the person harmed can take them to court, try to prove guilt, and meter out the punishment.
Take some of your examples on pollution. You wouldn't need an EPA selectively enforcing regulations without trial. You could have people that are harmed by pollution take the defendants to court.
As for fish and animals private land does a pretty good job at maintaining hunting and fishing grounds. Most peoples private ponds are well stocked. The problem is where you have public land like rivers and oceans. By not having private owners you get the tragedy of the commons.
You would be right in a real free market with hard currency. But in the cluster F we have in the US it's a fantasy. Capital these days mostly comes from banks creating money out of nothing and "investing" it. What is really does is steal from everyone that holds cash as inflation. Then those banks and investment companies act like a diode. They let any money that is made to pass to the owners and connected clients. But when a massive loss occurs the company takes the fall and the little investors are wiped out. Or if that is too politically unpopular the Federal Reserve prints more money which steals more wealth from everyone holding cash and uses it to bail out the company.
You can get money for nothing. Just start a bank. You get to loan out money you don't have that is created from bits entered into a computer with the Federal Reserve. Great racket if you are connected enough to get permission.
You must of attended the same economics class as Obama? I thought a corporation was supposed to produce as many goods and service as possible with the minimum amount of costs possible.
For most of my adult life I was 30 lbs over weight and tried all of the tricks. I'm a mechanical engineer so intuitively I knew energy in vs energy out was the key. So I said screw it, this year I'm going eat less no matter how much it sucks. I personally can't stand eating small meals so I decided to eat one meal a day. I drink coffee and tea during the day and have a big meal at night. I estimate the average daily calorie went from 3000 to 1800. Guess what? I lost 30 pounds over 4 months. Was it hard? You bet your ass it was. I was/am hungry most of the time. But at least I can look forward to that one nice meal at night. And it's not always a "healthy" meal. Sometimes it's a 1/2 lb cheese burger with fries. But that's still less than 1800 calories and that's all that counts.
Movies would not be able to be sold on DVD for the price they are now. They would have to make the price low enough to undercut the pirates. The studios would have contracts with theater owners and they would have to make their money there.
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;
I'd argue the patent and copyright system cause a net harm to liberty and society. You made my point by saying that the patent office isn't technologically sophisticated enough to evaluate complex patents. That is always the problem with Central planning. People do things and come up with disruptive ideas the planners could never envision.
We don't need patents or copyrights. They are similar to slavery. Someone else owns you and your real property and can tell you what to do with it because they are given special private by a central planner. A real innvoator gets a natural temporary monopoly based on being first to market. The more complex and advanced their innovation the longer it will take for it to be copied. Unlike the artificial monopoly which given a fixed period no matter how advanced or simple the innovation.
You are missing the point. The policy he is promoting is to allow competing currencies. Based on history he expects that gold and silver will naturally return as the money people will want to use. But if people want to keep using dollars when given the freedom to use whatever they want he would be fine with that. He just doesn't expect that to be the case.
Maybe you should read more of Ron Paul's writings because he address all of your points. He doesn't favor a gold or silver standard. He favors allowing competing currency. If people freely choose to use gold or silver or whatever as money it should be allowed. It can be used today because the government has legal tender laws and taxes "capital gains" if the government devalues the dollar relative to gold or silver. If people were allowed to choose what they want to use for money it would eliminate all of the problems you mention.
Is this a suprise to anyone? Central planners always have an excuse for their failures and always insist they just need some reforms and tweaks to get it right. They insist the problem isn't that central planning cannot work it is just some little switch or dial needs adjusting. The fact is Central planning can never work. Free people following having the liberty to do what they want with their time and property will always work better. It won't always be successful but that is the point. The failures will simply run out of their own money. The central planners get to take everyone's money to keep funding their failures.
This isn't a real test. It's the kind the teacher told you to take but didn't affect your grade. I was a decent student but whenever we had one of these I just marked whatever and them daydreamed.
My philosophy starts by asking the question. When is it legitimate to initiate the use of force? All laws flow from there. I suggest the only legitimate time is protecting your life or property. If this is the case a government should be nothing more than a system to protect everyone from having their life or property violated. So when I suggest a limited government this is what mean.
Take your drug dealer example. The reason there is so much violence is they don't have access to the police or courts to resolve conflicts. There is nothing about drug dealing that is different from alcohol or tobacco.
I don't think it's an anti-intellectual sentament but anti-busybody. The problem comes when someone comes in the name of science to force you to do or not do something. It is the use of force people are resisting. If you remove the use of force you will have better results.
Exactly. The speed of the elevator will be limited to the motor power. Now you could do something dangerous like waiting until 5 seconds after the door opens and then drop the elevator 10 feet. I don't know about the particular designs to know if there is a mechanical interrupt when the doors are open.
The problem as many of us recognize is "education" is pretty subjective. There is education that we all do for leisure like reading novels, watching sports, cooking, ect. Then there is education that is an investment where you pay to learn something that will give you knowledge or a skill that can be used to increase your income. It is not logical to borrow money for the former but it may be worth borrowing money for the latter depending on your expected rate of return. The problem is many borrow money to go to college for a leisure education. This happens because there is no pricing mechanism. Student loans don't differentiate between the two. Maybe they should. I'm all for leaving it to a free market. This would mean you would have to get rid of tax payer subsidized loans and also allow people to declare bankruptcy where student loans are dismissed as well. This would show you what the real rate would be and it would be close to any loan without collateral.
It depends on which government. You are right the US should be more like Europe. Let the states come up with ways to handle education and get the federal government out of it entirely. Denmark has the population of Minnesota. Logically works in Denmark with it's homogeneous population and culture is not necessarily going to work in a country of 300 million people of incredible diversity. Why doesn't the EU take over healthcare and education for all of the member states? Because it would be stupid to do so.
I thought the objective of Al Qaeda was to get us to withdraw from the Middle East. By making a high profile attack it would suck us into a never ending war in the middle east costing us Trillions of dollars and sending our economy into a recession that bankrupts us and forces us to withdraw all troops from the middle east. Basically the same tactic they used on the Soviets.
It's the same reason why a motion simulator ride at an amusement park can be so convincing. You feel like you are flying but you are sitting right there. Tilting backwards feels very similar to forward acceleration. Flying in a controlled banked turn feels alot like sitting still.
Slashdot Mirror
Give someone access to people's private information and it will be abused. Here I'm giving you this box that contains pure awesomeness. Please don't open it.
If you have competent management they cn tell who gets work done. Unless you work in a factory where you have shift breaks you can tell who isn't pulling their weight. It doesn't matter the reason. If someone can do the work while reading slashdot a few times a day who cares?
You have no idea what you are talking about. If you are growing just to grow your company will fail. If you grow to meet a demand in the market it's fine. But what do you do when you are in a market where you can't grow? Return a dividend. There are some great stocks like regional utilities that don't grow because they have nowhere else to go. But they make money and return it to investors. I like that.
I must have spent too much time studying engineering and computer science and not enough English grammar.
I think it all boils down to prevention vs punishment. I don't want a government so big that it tries to prevent bad things from happening. But it has to be large enough to have a court system and police so that if someone does something bad the person harmed can take them to court, try to prove guilt, and meter out the punishment.
Take some of your examples on pollution.
You wouldn't need an EPA selectively enforcing regulations without trial. You could have people that are harmed by pollution take the defendants to court.
As for fish and animals private land does a pretty good job at maintaining hunting and fishing grounds. Most peoples private ponds are well stocked. The problem is where you have public land like rivers and oceans. By not having private owners you get the tragedy of the commons.
You would be right in a real free market with hard currency. But in the cluster F we have in the US it's a fantasy. Capital these days mostly comes from banks creating money out of nothing and "investing" it. What is really does is steal from everyone that holds cash as inflation. Then those banks and investment companies act like a diode. They let any money that is made to pass to the owners and connected clients. But when a massive loss occurs the company takes the fall and the little investors are wiped out. Or if that is too politically unpopular the Federal Reserve prints more money which steals more wealth from everyone holding cash and uses it to bail out the company.
You can get money for nothing. Just start a bank. You get to loan out money you don't have that is created from bits entered into a computer with the Federal Reserve. Great racket if you are connected enough to get permission.
You must of attended the same economics class as Obama? I thought a corporation was supposed to produce as many goods and service as possible with the minimum amount of costs possible.
If only there was someone running for president that warned us about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esp-ruhkZqQ
For most of my adult life I was 30 lbs over weight and tried all of the tricks. I'm a mechanical engineer so intuitively I knew energy in vs energy out was the key. So I said screw it, this year I'm going eat less no matter how much it sucks. I personally can't stand eating small meals so I decided to eat one meal a day. I drink coffee and tea during the day and have a big meal at night. I estimate the average daily calorie went from 3000 to 1800. Guess what? I lost 30 pounds over 4 months. Was it hard? You bet your ass it was. I was/am hungry most of the time. But at least I can look forward to that one nice meal at night. And it's not always a "healthy" meal. Sometimes it's a 1/2 lb cheese burger with fries. But that's still less than 1800 calories and that's all that counts.
Not true.
Movies would not be able to be sold on DVD for the price they are now. They would have to make the price low enough to undercut the pirates. The studios would have contracts with theater owners and they would have to make their money there.
Software would move towards a subscriber model.
Here is the clause in the constitution.
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;
I'd argue the patent and copyright system cause a net harm to liberty and society. You made my point by saying that the patent office isn't technologically sophisticated enough to evaluate complex patents. That is always the problem with Central planning. People do things and come up with disruptive ideas the planners could never envision.
We don't need patents or copyrights. They are similar to slavery. Someone else owns you and your real property and can tell you what to do with it because they are given special private by a central planner. A real innvoator gets a natural temporary monopoly based on being first to market. The more complex and advanced their innovation the longer it will take for it to be copied. Unlike the artificial monopoly which given a fixed period no matter how advanced or simple the innovation.
You are missing the point. The policy he is promoting is to allow competing currencies. Based on history he expects that gold and silver will naturally return as the money people will want to use. But if people want to keep using dollars when given the freedom to use whatever they want he would be fine with that. He just doesn't expect that to be the case.
Maybe you should read more of Ron Paul's writings because he address all of your points. He doesn't favor a gold or silver standard. He favors allowing competing currency. If people freely choose to use gold or silver or whatever as money it should be allowed. It can be used today because the government has legal tender laws and taxes "capital gains" if the government devalues the dollar relative to gold or silver. If people were allowed to choose what they want to use for money it would eliminate all of the problems you mention.
Is this a suprise to anyone? Central planners always have an excuse for their failures and always insist they just need some reforms and tweaks to get it right. They insist the problem isn't that central planning cannot work it is just some little switch or dial needs adjusting. The fact is Central planning can never work. Free people following having the liberty to do what they want with their time and property will always work better. It won't always be successful but that is the point. The failures will simply run out of their own money. The central planners get to take everyone's money to keep funding their failures.
This isn't a real test. It's the kind the teacher told you to take but didn't affect your grade. I was a decent student but whenever we had one of these I just marked whatever and them daydreamed.
My philosophy starts by asking the question. When is it legitimate to initiate the use of force? All laws flow from there. I suggest the only legitimate time is protecting your life or property. If this is the case a government should be nothing more than a system to protect everyone from having their life or property violated. So when I suggest a limited government this is what mean.
Take your drug dealer example. The reason there is so much violence is they don't have access to the police or courts to resolve conflicts. There is nothing about drug dealing that is different from alcohol or tobacco.
Sounds like she should run for congress. She could vote with the guy who was worried about putting so many people on an island that it might capsize.
I don't think it's an anti-intellectual sentament but anti-busybody. The problem comes when someone comes in the name of science to force you to do or not do something. It is the use of force people are resisting. If you remove the use of force you will have better results.
Exactly. The speed of the elevator will be limited to the motor power. Now you could do something dangerous like waiting until 5 seconds after the door opens and then drop the elevator 10 feet. I don't know about the particular designs to know if there is a mechanical interrupt when the doors are open.
The problem as many of us recognize is "education" is pretty subjective. There is education that we all do for leisure like reading novels, watching sports, cooking, ect. Then there is education that is an investment where you pay to learn something that will give you knowledge or a skill that can be used to increase your income. It is not logical to borrow money for the former but it may be worth borrowing money for the latter depending on your expected rate of return. The problem is many borrow money to go to college for a leisure education. This happens because there is no pricing mechanism. Student loans don't differentiate between the two. Maybe they should. I'm all for leaving it to a free market. This would mean you would have to get rid of tax payer subsidized loans and also allow people to declare bankruptcy where student loans are dismissed as well. This would show you what the real rate would be and it would be close to any loan without collateral.
It depends on which government. You are right the US should be more like Europe. Let the states come up with ways to handle education and get the federal government out of it entirely. Denmark has the population of Minnesota. Logically works in Denmark with it's homogeneous population and culture is not necessarily going to work in a country of 300 million people of incredible diversity. Why doesn't the EU take over healthcare and education for all of the member states? Because it would be stupid to do so.
I thought the objective of Al Qaeda was to get us to withdraw from the Middle East. By making a high profile attack it would suck us into a never ending war in the middle east costing us Trillions of dollars and sending our economy into a recession that bankrupts us and forces us to withdraw all troops from the middle east. Basically the same tactic they used on the Soviets.
It's the same reason why a motion simulator ride at an amusement park can be so convincing. You feel like you are flying but you are sitting right there. Tilting backwards feels very similar to forward acceleration. Flying in a controlled banked turn feels alot like sitting still.