When I think about the best way to describe what our modern day society looks like I imagine being surrounded by police who kick you to death while the crowd stands there watching.
This a million times. |
|
|
|
Hahaha I love this thread, all of my ignore list jumped to bitch about it.
The best part: the fascists defended the sociopaths, and the sociopaths defended the fascists. At least they know which side their bread is buttered on. Can you imagine what a country ruled by Augusto Crappo would look like.... Yes. Like this: |
|
|
|
Lemme illustrate what statists want: |
|
|
|
If you think funding research to put it in the public domain make sense, you are absolutely welcome to do it. If you're spending your own money, it's much more likely you'll get the cost/benefit analysis right. Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am getting it wrong. The beauty of a free market is that everyone gets to do their own such analysis.
The point that statists are trying to make, isn't whether "research is valuable" or similar nonsense, but rather that you should be ruined if you don't agree that such things should be funded by you. Slightly different things. |
|
|
|
while the state evaluates social benefit vs. research cost.
Lol. |
|
|
|
i would love to get back to the topic! Do you believe that companies can chose to pay a wage that is below market price and still attract employees? Do you believe that employees deserve higher than a market wage? If the answer to either question is yes than why? before you reply check out this very short 3 minute video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siW0YAAfX6I) to save me the trouble of outlining the basics of the anti-minimumwage position. I'm going to be the advocate of the devil here (I mean that I'm going to defend the idea of a minimal wage, even if I disagree with it). If you allow wages to price labor to its real economic value, then many people might end up earning less money than what they need to sustain their life. Because they have no skill whatsoever, and no real economic value. They'll be destitute or at least very poor. Then they might either die or chose crime in a society where they have no economic place. The idea of the minimum wage is to prevent that, I guess. That's the idea. The reality is that these people end up jobless and then turn to crime. Black youth are especially affected by this. Hence minimum wage is a racist and populist measure. |
|
|
|
sure a market can function with illegitimately acquired goods. Americans basically stole everything they have from the natives and we built very robust markets out of that stolen property. Ah - but only because the "property rights" of the thief were respected. If no property rights are respected, then you end up with a cut-throat, steal and be stolen from market, where violence is the rule, not the exception. This is the anarchy that statists fear and hold up as boogey-man, not the anarchy we seek. also "If you own something, you by definition have dominion over it." that isnt true at all. If someone steals my property from me it is still my property but i no longer have any capacity to exercise dominion over it.
On the contrary. You can go take it back, by force if need be. you guys are bickering about something you really agree upon. define your terms so the conversation can proceed. |
|
|
|
|
Encryption does not help if it uses X.509 certificates (SSL). They are broken because various issuing authorities that come in browsers by default are actually government authorities, and they issue certificates to tap SSL traffic like candy. There's even specialized DPI hardware that will decrypt the original traffic to your computer, read and inspect it, then re-encrypt using these phony certificates, while the user is none the wiser.
|
|
|
|
If property rights do not exist with out law (which is what was said)
"Property rights" do not exist, with or without belief in papers ("laws"). Property is a concept. When you say "This Coke can is my property" or "I own this Coke can", what you are saying is only an abbreviated form of "I obtained this Coke can ethically, therefore I ought to be the one who decides, exclusively, what will be done with it". That's what the concept "property" means. Concepts do not exist -- when we speak of concepts, we can only speak of their validity or invalidity. Of course, implicit in that sentence, is the idea that there is (not "exists", is) an unambiguous set of rational rules that allows two or more people to figure out who owns what scarce and rivalrous resource without having to resort to brute force to "decide". There's lots of debate over what those rules might be, whether it's rules written in a certain set of Holy Papers, or rules that mandate communal ownership of stuff, or rules that mandate individual ownership, or the rule set composed of the "I will shoot you if you don't give me your stuff" (which incidentally is the ultimate rule of the Holy Papers), et cetera. My point is not to debate what the "right" rule set is. My point is to get you to think of property in terms of a concept rather than a magical right given or granted to you by anyone or any piece of paper. Now, in my view, the only two rules needed to decide who owns what are homesteading and consensual transfer. I'm not here to tell you that is the ultimate rule set and you should obey that. But I can tell you that, deducing from these rules, if you generated or got (via consensual transfer) a private key for a Bitcoin wallet, and proceeded to generate or obtain (via consensual transfer) Bitcoins in said Bitcoin wallet, then the logical deduction is that "You own that wallet and those Bitcoins". |
|
|
|
Hahaha I love this thread, all of my ignore list jumped to bitch about it.
The best part: the fascists defended the sociopaths, and the sociopaths defended the fascists. At least they know which side their bread is buttered on. I'm bumping this thread so people watch the videos, and including a link to the playlist I published: http://rudd-o.com/archives/the-sociopaths-that-surround-you |
|
|
|
A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.
So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws. bitcoin proves that this is not true. I have a property right to my bitcoins by virtue of the fact that only i know the private key despite the fact that there is no law supporting my property claim in any way. Actually you only own that private key because you homesteaded it or someone consensually transferred it to you. Had you fraudulently obtained it, you would possess a copy but not own it. |
|
|
|
|
Hahaha I love this thread, all of my ignore list jumped to bitch about it.
|
|
|
|
Yes, he does have a good point. He's just been insistent all the time that there's no way to deduce the effects of wage price floors. Yet there is, and he proves so in the very second paragraph by giving out a deduction of that which he calls impossible. He contradicts himself in the same post. How is that logical?
I'm sorry, but you are confusing me with someone else. I've been insisting that there ARE specific effects of wage price floors. My point with "good v.s. bad" was just regarding whom specifically it's good for. Overall, yes it slows down the progress of global economy. But some people do find it good, because they end up being better off at the expense of others. OK. |
|
|
|
|
Stef's part four cast accurately predicted the behavior of the sociopaths in this thread attempting to shout these truths down.
Eerily accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Papers are what you call "laws".
Finding something unowned is an acceptable and ethical way to obtain property. The question is only how to determine whether something is unowned. That is not a question to be resolved by looking up opinions written on holy papers, but rather by reasoning from principle and material fact.
|
|
|
|
To me this is like leaving money on the street. If you find it, it has been unhomesteaded, and thus yours.
Around here if you find money on the street and it is more than a certain amount you have to hold it for 90 days and advertise that you found it. Of course most people don't, but my point is in some areas finding money does not make it yours. I empathize with your conclusion, though it is not correct. Yes, there exist some papers that say "You must hold found money for 90 days and yadda yadda" where you live. That doesn't mean that money you found which was clearly lost isn't yours. What papers say, and what is, are two different things. If a paper said "rape is not rape when perpetrated by a certain type of costumed person" ("Arizona penal code" up until a few years ago), a rape perpetrated by that person would still be rape. Now don't get me wrong, I do think that the decent thing to do when finding a lost object is to attempt to return it to its original owner. |
|
|
|
Part 4 added to OP.
He's being unusually productive with regards to the podcasts recently.
WAT part four?  |
|
|
|
By the way, the question of whether minimum wage laws are good or bad doesn't really have an objective answer.
See, this is the kind of claim that I called "armchair economics" a few comments ago. It's an argument from economic ignorance. But Rassah's got a good point: A job is worth a certain amount. If you put in a price floor for the job, it will be moved where there is no price floor. So the people who are destitute and need jobs to survive will get them. In that way, these laws take the jobs from those in 1st world nations who want them, and give them to those in 3rd world nations who actually need them (good?). So, they're bad for the nation enacting them, but good for developing nations and international trade. Of course, this benefit is usually ruined by tariffs and other import taxes. Shooting themselves in both feet, as it were. Yes, he does have a good point. He's just been insistent all the time that there's no way to deduce the effects of wage price floors. Yet there is, and he proves so in the very second paragraph by giving out a deduction of that which he calls impossible. He contradicts himself in the same post. How is that logical? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
