You think you are being facetious, but you are absolutely correct. Natural rights have been greatly curtailed in the United States and around the world. Though the right to suicide is a minor issue, the draft is not in many places, including the US in living memory. Any government which can call up a draft views its citizens as slaves, no matter how kind a master they think they are.
Further, since many types of property are taxed on a recurring basis, ownership of real property by anyone but the state is impossible. At best, you are a renter, paying rent to the government for the use of your own land. Nevermind the forcible confiscation (ie theft) of the fruits of labor of the entire populace.
So your doctors are free to charge as much as they desire for their services, and the taxpayers pay it? I see, so you are all slaves to the doctors, then.
Tell me, is food free in your country as well? Water? Rent? Clothes? Where does the free shit end? Is it humane for little teeny tiny defenseless children do go without those things?
The only human right was the one where the government can't stop people from accessing the internet. They don't have to provide ANYTHING because the people can do that themselves if they want to. No-one has a RIGHT to any good or service by virtue of their mere existence as a human being. Period. They only have a right to access goods and services.
The first amendment does not require that free newspapers be delivered to people, it only means people have a right to exchange and express ideas as they see fit, so long as they make their own arrangements to do so.
No, more important is that you have a right to not have someone interrupt your legitimate access to water that you own. Same with the internet--you have a right to not be blocked from using it, provided you have your own means of accessing it.
Life and liberty fall under the axiomatic concept of self-ownership. Think about the consequences if you do not own yourself. Further, think of the way other people think--if you try to carve a ham out of someone's behind, will they let you do it? Will everyone else? No? That person clearly has a right to the ownership of their own meat then, and that right is widely recognized.
Property is a bit more complex, but can simply be stated as axiomatic as well. People have a right to posses property, because think of the consequences if they didn't. Further, scientific study of the brain's reaction to the use of tools shows that the brain interprets a tool as a part of the body. That is as good a basis for the right to property as any. Other things which are not tools, such as food, land, or brik-a-brak (jewelry, home decorations, etc), are similarly possessed, in that someone mixed their labor into some raw material and improved it, thus gaining the right to posses it exclusively, and then sold that item for currency to buy exclusive access to other things.
The UN is run by fools who don't understand the difference between positive and negative rights.
Read: positive rights don't exist, but are merely a means for politicians to use other people's money to buy favor. "The right to access the internet shall not be infringed" is an example of a negative right. "The right to 100Tb/sec internet" is not. I'm hoping all who read this can tell the difference, and can apply that lesson to other realms of massive transfer of wealth.
disastrously destructive buttons? Yeah, that's what we all need, a button you can push that destroys all your data. Sort of like having the big red button to launch the nukes right next to the big red light switch button.
Right, because people can just get more for less by simply demanding that it be so. Nothing to do with accumulation of capital and increasing labor force specialization.
Your productivity is stolen by inflation. The computer revolution should have us all working 15 hour days for the amount of pay we currently receive (in terms of purchasing power). But the government has taken that purchasing power by spending freshly printed currency into the economy (ie taking goods out of the economy) via pay to government employees who don't make things that are for sale and direct use of goods (from bridges to nowhere to office supplies). The deflation boogyman that all the "mainstream" economists continuously crap their pants about is actually a symptom of PROGRESS when it occurs due to increased levels of efficiency.
Thing is, that's good. It would equalize the number of people AND put more butts in seats. More butts in seats means more concession sales.
I bet some enterprising theater owner might just start doing that after reading this article IF the SAG or the MPAA doesn't have some anti-competitive rule against it.
Are you kidding? Try starting a winery. Took me a fucking YEAR. Ran out of money before I could finish, and had to get a day job, which I loved so much that I never bothered to finish.
You miss the point. There are no more tax cheats BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MORE TAXES. There are no more labor laws, because we have unions to stand up for worker's rights. Courts still exist in a libertarian system to punish fraud, and fraud is much better brought to light by investigative journalism and consumer advocate organizations. Also, nice conflation of free market economic with the Jim Crow bullshit social policies. Go fuck yourself on that one. Libertarianism is individualism, which is the OPPOSITE of racism. Hell, the words themselves are opposites.
Also, hilarious that you are defending the current system, with all the damage, environmental and otherwise, that it has caused.
Just because they are in the bible doesn't make it not true. The pertinent laws are far older than the bible, and are endemic among all humans, if not all sentient beings. That is, don't kill, don't steal, don't commit fraud.
Yes, the liberals have so much empathy that they paved the road to hell with their good intentions. As if you can mandate a minimum wage, no matter what the work, and the money will just spring up from nothing to pay it, rather than replacing entry level positions that required no previous training with automations. There was a time when a dishwasher could work his way up to become a CEO in this country, but that is no longer the case. Now we have a class of academic-taught "businessmen" who have wreaked havoc on our country in the name of immediate profits, which has resulted in the looting of the metaphorical and often LITERAL seed corn.
Actually, it is granted special protections. The only difference between a corporation and a partnership (with multiple partners) is that if a corporation goes bankrupt due to a lawsuit, the plaintiffs just lose out. The government prevents the plaintiffs from suing the shareholders. If they are suing a partnership, they are actually suing the individual owners, and as such, they will either be fully compensated for the damages they suffered, or all the "shareholders" will go bankrupt as well, providing a strong incentive for people to refrain from violating the rights of others.
Eh? If they can't do it, they go out of business, and those that CAN do it get their shot at it, generally using the same set of capital.
IP doesn't exist in a free market. You have to use trade secrets for such things, which is already the most popular means of keeping other companies from piggybacking off of your research.
Not really. One can certainly have a market free from government intervention (ie a free market) in the presence of a government (which principally provides military protection and may optionally provide other services in a non-monopolistic manner). We had that very thing in this country from the end of Reconstruction until 1913, and in the North for some time before that (which allowed the industrialization that wound up winning them the war).
Note that I am an anarcho-capitalist. I think that government can be shrunk to the point that it disappears, but I recognize that it doesn't have to for free markets to work. Unlike Communism and other idiotic forms of economic control, you don't have to have a perfect implementation to get a positive result. It just works, and pulls everyone out of poverty as capital accumulates. It isn't magic, and the process isn't instant, but it does start immediately, and you see very positive results quite quickly. Just look at China, gone from an insular hermit state teeming with subsistence farmers to an economic superpower in less than a generation after liberalizing their markets alone (maintaining their big government intrusion in many other facets of life). And they didn't even get CLOSE to the ideal. Hell, they spend 20% of their GDP on their government. During the time period I described, the US government spent between 2 and 5% of GDP. Today, we spend more than 40% of GDP on government.
The market. There are many different ratings agencies, all at each other's throats. If one becomes corrupt, the others will find out, and EVERYONE will know. They want that market share.
Interesting, so you claim that the only model that has ever worked doesn't work. Note the every economy that has ever industrialized did so under a libertarian economic policy. That same economic policy is what turned the serfs and rural farmers of each nation into middle class citizens. Too bad we abandoned that policy, for a mixed market, which has proved to be a very slippery slope heading straight for fascism. Now, as we approach the terminal descent into that economic system, we see that the middle class is disappearing, along with all of our freedoms in ALL spheres, not just economic.
Not really. Such a move is naturally accompanied by a drastic reduction in regulation, with red tape being the largest impediment to most new businesses.
Further, most companies in the US are not incorporated, but are sole proprietorships. Something like 90%, as I recall.
Slashdot Mirror
You think you are being facetious, but you are absolutely correct. Natural rights have been greatly curtailed in the United States and around the world. Though the right to suicide is a minor issue, the draft is not in many places, including the US in living memory. Any government which can call up a draft views its citizens as slaves, no matter how kind a master they think they are.
Further, since many types of property are taxed on a recurring basis, ownership of real property by anyone but the state is impossible. At best, you are a renter, paying rent to the government for the use of your own land. Nevermind the forcible confiscation (ie theft) of the fruits of labor of the entire populace.
So your doctors are free to charge as much as they desire for their services, and the taxpayers pay it? I see, so you are all slaves to the doctors, then.
Tell me, is food free in your country as well? Water? Rent? Clothes? Where does the free shit end? Is it humane for little teeny tiny defenseless children do go without those things?
*Facepalm*
I guess it really was too much to ask...
The only human right was the one where the government can't stop people from accessing the internet. They don't have to provide ANYTHING because the people can do that themselves if they want to. No-one has a RIGHT to any good or service by virtue of their mere existence as a human being. Period. They only have a right to access goods and services.
The first amendment does not require that free newspapers be delivered to people, it only means people have a right to exchange and express ideas as they see fit, so long as they make their own arrangements to do so.
Interesting, so your doctors are slaves, then?
How humanitarian.
No, more important is that you have a right to not have someone interrupt your legitimate access to water that you own. Same with the internet--you have a right to not be blocked from using it, provided you have your own means of accessing it.
Life and liberty fall under the axiomatic concept of self-ownership. Think about the consequences if you do not own yourself. Further, think of the way other people think--if you try to carve a ham out of someone's behind, will they let you do it? Will everyone else? No? That person clearly has a right to the ownership of their own meat then, and that right is widely recognized.
Property is a bit more complex, but can simply be stated as axiomatic as well. People have a right to posses property, because think of the consequences if they didn't. Further, scientific study of the brain's reaction to the use of tools shows that the brain interprets a tool as a part of the body. That is as good a basis for the right to property as any. Other things which are not tools, such as food, land, or brik-a-brak (jewelry, home decorations, etc), are similarly possessed, in that someone mixed their labor into some raw material and improved it, thus gaining the right to posses it exclusively, and then sold that item for currency to buy exclusive access to other things.
The UN is run by fools who don't understand the difference between positive and negative rights.
Read: positive rights don't exist, but are merely a means for politicians to use other people's money to buy favor. "The right to access the internet shall not be infringed" is an example of a negative right. "The right to 100Tb/sec internet" is not. I'm hoping all who read this can tell the difference, and can apply that lesson to other realms of massive transfer of wealth.
disastrously destructive buttons? Yeah, that's what we all need, a button you can push that destroys all your data. Sort of like having the big red button to launch the nukes right next to the big red light switch button.
Right, because people can just get more for less by simply demanding that it be so. Nothing to do with accumulation of capital and increasing labor force specialization.
Your productivity is stolen by inflation. The computer revolution should have us all working 15 hour days for the amount of pay we currently receive (in terms of purchasing power). But the government has taken that purchasing power by spending freshly printed currency into the economy (ie taking goods out of the economy) via pay to government employees who don't make things that are for sale and direct use of goods (from bridges to nowhere to office supplies). The deflation boogyman that all the "mainstream" economists continuously crap their pants about is actually a symptom of PROGRESS when it occurs due to increased levels of efficiency.
Thing is, that's good. It would equalize the number of people AND put more butts in seats. More butts in seats means more concession sales.
I bet some enterprising theater owner might just start doing that after reading this article IF the SAG or the MPAA doesn't have some anti-competitive rule against it.
Are you kidding? Try starting a winery. Took me a fucking YEAR. Ran out of money before I could finish, and had to get a day job, which I loved so much that I never bothered to finish.
The income tax is comorbid with the central bank, FYI. We didn't have an income tax until the Fed was created.
You miss the point. There are no more tax cheats BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MORE TAXES. There are no more labor laws, because we have unions to stand up for worker's rights. Courts still exist in a libertarian system to punish fraud, and fraud is much better brought to light by investigative journalism and consumer advocate organizations. Also, nice conflation of free market economic with the Jim Crow bullshit social policies. Go fuck yourself on that one. Libertarianism is individualism, which is the OPPOSITE of racism. Hell, the words themselves are opposites.
Also, hilarious that you are defending the current system, with all the damage, environmental and otherwise, that it has caused.
Just because they are in the bible doesn't make it not true. The pertinent laws are far older than the bible, and are endemic among all humans, if not all sentient beings. That is, don't kill, don't steal, don't commit fraud.
Yes, the liberals have so much empathy that they paved the road to hell with their good intentions. As if you can mandate a minimum wage, no matter what the work, and the money will just spring up from nothing to pay it, rather than replacing entry level positions that required no previous training with automations. There was a time when a dishwasher could work his way up to become a CEO in this country, but that is no longer the case. Now we have a class of academic-taught "businessmen" who have wreaked havoc on our country in the name of immediate profits, which has resulted in the looting of the metaphorical and often LITERAL seed corn.
Actually, it is granted special protections. The only difference between a corporation and a partnership (with multiple partners) is that if a corporation goes bankrupt due to a lawsuit, the plaintiffs just lose out. The government prevents the plaintiffs from suing the shareholders. If they are suing a partnership, they are actually suing the individual owners, and as such, they will either be fully compensated for the damages they suffered, or all the "shareholders" will go bankrupt as well, providing a strong incentive for people to refrain from violating the rights of others.
Eh? If they can't do it, they go out of business, and those that CAN do it get their shot at it, generally using the same set of capital.
IP doesn't exist in a free market. You have to use trade secrets for such things, which is already the most popular means of keeping other companies from piggybacking off of your research.
Note that the organizational type you describe exists--it's called a partnership, and it is the second most common form of business in the US.
Not really. One can certainly have a market free from government intervention (ie a free market) in the presence of a government (which principally provides military protection and may optionally provide other services in a non-monopolistic manner). We had that very thing in this country from the end of Reconstruction until 1913, and in the North for some time before that (which allowed the industrialization that wound up winning them the war).
Note that I am an anarcho-capitalist. I think that government can be shrunk to the point that it disappears, but I recognize that it doesn't have to for free markets to work. Unlike Communism and other idiotic forms of economic control, you don't have to have a perfect implementation to get a positive result. It just works, and pulls everyone out of poverty as capital accumulates. It isn't magic, and the process isn't instant, but it does start immediately, and you see very positive results quite quickly. Just look at China, gone from an insular hermit state teeming with subsistence farmers to an economic superpower in less than a generation after liberalizing their markets alone (maintaining their big government intrusion in many other facets of life). And they didn't even get CLOSE to the ideal. Hell, they spend 20% of their GDP on their government. During the time period I described, the US government spent between 2 and 5% of GDP. Today, we spend more than 40% of GDP on government.
The market. There are many different ratings agencies, all at each other's throats. If one becomes corrupt, the others will find out, and EVERYONE will know. They want that market share.
Assault and attempted murder aren't allowed under a free market, moron.
Interesting, so you claim that the only model that has ever worked doesn't work. Note the every economy that has ever industrialized did so under a libertarian economic policy. That same economic policy is what turned the serfs and rural farmers of each nation into middle class citizens. Too bad we abandoned that policy, for a mixed market, which has proved to be a very slippery slope heading straight for fascism. Now, as we approach the terminal descent into that economic system, we see that the middle class is disappearing, along with all of our freedoms in ALL spheres, not just economic.
Not really. Such a move is naturally accompanied by a drastic reduction in regulation, with red tape being the largest impediment to most new businesses.
Further, most companies in the US are not incorporated, but are sole proprietorships. Something like 90%, as I recall.
I don't understand why people think they won't launch these with commercial launch service.