They lack economic knowledge, most frequently. Anyone that understands about price formation, offer and demand and so on will realize how awful minimum wage laws are. If you coercively set a minimum price for anything, that can only have 2 effects: - It changes nothing practically, if the minimum price is below the actual lowest price asked by the cheaper provider of the thing in question (when talking about minimum wages, it's the labor)
- In case the minimum forced price is not that low, it will rule out those whose actual prices are below such minumum, as they will not be able to compete with those with a more demanded product/service. They will either have to provide their product/service hidden from the authorities (informality) or will be forbidden to provide such product/service at all (unemployment, in the case of minimum wage)
This is the same for anything, not only labor. If you force a minimum price for carrots, the producers of carrots whose quality doesn't reach such price won't be able to keep selling carrots on the white market. You'd have cheap carrot farmers going bankrupt or even a carrot black market appearing. Imagine, people selling carrots on silk road.  I think that realizing that was among my first steps to leave the "social-democrat" beliefs. It made me give a bit more credit to these "laissez-faire" folks and read what they wrote. |
|
|
|
If you don't mind me asking, why do you not want to agree to the Youtube user conditions?
Well, actually the thing is I don't want to give them a real email address, and they implemented a security against mailinator-like addresses. You could create one just for that... |
|
|
|
Interesting...so if Person A creates an account with Company C and agrees to their ToS, and then Person B purchases Person A's account voluntarily, then is Person B bound to the ToS that Person A agreeded to with Company C?
I suppose it would depend on the ToS... does it authorize this commerce? I think that if it doesn't say anything, then person B would be acting in behalf of person A in what concerns its interactions with company C... This is the first time I see such a thing |
|
|
|
5th place already. At this pace we can reach 1st position in a few days. At least the 3rd one shouldn't be that difficult, keep voting!  |
|
|
|
caveden,
You mean "common sense" as "ethics".
No, I don't. This is getting pointless. Please, try reading the text I indicated you regarding property rights. I challenge you to find logical flaws in it. The people on the site are very responsive and may answer you better than I, leave comments there if you don't understand something. I have to go now. Best regards |
|
|
|
2 what plus 2 what? May not necessarily be 4, if 2 atoms of hydrogen meets 2 atoms of oxygen they will combine to form water and release 1 atom of oxygen, so here 2H+2O = H2O+O.
Dude, seriously, it's basic definition of math that, unless otherwise specified, in a simple addition like 2+2 we're talking about items of the same nature. Your play with words on the sentence makes it funny and end up to be truth, even the sentence "there's no absolute truth" can be false, but by having the possibility to be false makes it also true. Doesn't mean you didn't put a fallacy and make a statement of denial to be judged as statement.
Sorry but you seems to have problems with logic. The sentence "there's no absolute truth" is a logical contradiction itself, simply because it implies that sometimes it cannot be true (otherwise itself would be an absolute truth). But if sometimes it's false, then sometimes there are absolute truths, what makes the initial sentence false entirely, and its negation, "there are absolute truths", true. If you can't see that, I'm sorry but I don't think I can write it any better. I'm not playing with words at all. |
|
|
|
Caveden, I agree with what you said about abolitionnists being seen as extremists at their time, but you lost me when you say ethics is a matter of logic. To me it is just not, really.
Ethics, sometimes called "natural rights" (I don't like this term very much), can be logically determined based solely on human nature and axiom-like premises like "full obedience of ethics must not culminate in human race extermination". The text in Portuguese I had linked to BCEmporium is good logical explanation of property rights done by Hoppe, you could take a look if you will. Here's the English version: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe11.html |
|
|
|
So "absolute truth" does exists? Mind to give an example? Other than fallacies there is...
I just gave you the logical demonstration that they exist, didn't you follow? The negation of this sentence is a logical contradiction, meaning that the sentence is necessarily true. And if you really need an example: 2+2=4. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, I voted less than one hour ago and it was still on 10th position, now it's on 8th position!
Please, if someone's using a bot, stop. As the OP says, it wouldn't be nice to be banned due to this.
|
|
|
|
How did this happen? Shouldn't the block be invalid? |
|
|
|
Ethics are bind to what one consider or not "right" within a given cultural background.
You clearly didn't read the text I indicated you and keep repeating something wrong. Basic ethics can be logically determined, do not confuse it with personal values. Everything is relative, the belief of "absolute truth", "absolute evil or goodness" is actually the root of all extremism and fanaticism.
hehe, if "there is no absolute truth", what is this sentence itself? It can't be an absolute truth itself... meaning that in certain situations, the sentence "there is no absolute truth" is not true. But if this very sentence if false at any situation, that means that in this situation there is an absolute truth, making the sentence false always. Absolute truths do exist. As for radicalism, keeping the "status quo" can be a radical position, moderation isn't measured by "reaction = moderation / revolution = extremism", moderation is measured by awareness that despite you need a route to follow (a set of conventions we call "right and wrong"), the others' point of view isn't "just wrong" because it's different of yours.
Wow, now radicals want to maintain the status quo... basically you're defining radicalism as what suits you better. From the very dictionary definition: radicalism (uncountable) Any of various radical social or political movements that aim at fundamental change in the structure of society As I said, those wanting to abolish slavery in the beginning of the 19th century were extreme radicals. What they fought for was a fundamental change in the structure of society. |
|
|
|
9000 +
50
____
9050 BTC
There, fixed it.  |
|
|
|
Wrong! The ones keeping slavery were pretty extremists themselves.
No, they were not. They were just keeping status quo. Slavery was a reality in human race since a man became capable of producing more than his basic needs. It existed pratically everywhere, for millenia. The radical ones were those trying to abolish it. And curiously the arguments used against them were quite similar to the arguments used against those who oppose the state. |
|
|
|
That what "you believe in" (and most of the World), but it doesn't make it right by itself. It's a matter of culture not "right or wrong" - specially because there's no such thing on ANY subject.
Ethics is not a matter of culture, it's a matter of logic. Try reading the text I indicated you. |
|
|
|
A guy once lost 9.000 BTC by restoring a backup produced before a send transaction which had these 9.000 as input. That motivated Satoshi to implement the pool of addresses feature. EDIT: Here's the topic: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=782.0 |
|
|
|
Extreme Left/Libertarian vs Extreme Right/Libertarian, the ELL will take or occupy a place belonging to the ERL, ERL will attack the ELL in self-defense of his property, whereas the ELL will attack the ERL in self-defense, as he believes ERL has no property at all.
And the occupier is wrong, the one defending himself is right. This is not a matter of opinion, it's pretty logical: http://www.mises.org.br/Article.aspx?id=200Even a little kids understand that taking what belong to others is not a good idea, even little kids react violently when people take what's theirs, you shouldn't really need the full philosophical explanation to understand what most 4 years old can grasp. Besides, this whole Left-Right thing doesn't make much sense. I would never say I'm "right-wing". |
|
|
|
Basically you are arguing that any sort of "radicalism" is bad and that we should all hold some form of "moderate" political beliefs otherwise we are "dangerous". I reject this proposition out of hand.
+1 Let's never forget that those advocating for complete slavery abolition on the end of the 18th century and beginning of 19th were viewed by the majority as "radical extremists". Abolishing slavery was indeed a very radical and extreme idea at that time. |
|
|
|
I too think the new reputation system here works somewhat counterintuitive because you +1 a person and not a post.
True. I thought I was ranking posts, until I try to give a + to the same guy and received the "wait 10 days" error. I think it would made more sense if it was on a post basis. |
|
|
|
Sorry, but I read the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.", and realized that this quiz was totally biased, poorly written, and limited.
+1 |
|
|
|
But it's much simpler and more flexible to just have your client say "Send this transaction to <MinerCorp Alpha>" and you can negotiate the fee directly with that (set of) miners. Now maybe there is some kind of standard language to enable those negotiations, but the space of possible negotiations is huge so web integration might be better. Like, maybe if you're a repeat customer you get a discount.
If you want that, why don't you use paypal, LR, and that sort of stuff? Because those are just different methods of payment which use the dollar? Bitcoin is a different currency. This MinerCorp Alpha wouldn't be able to inflate at will, for instance. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
