Kiba, I'm inclined to agree with Gene here - until this you seemed reasonably coherent and sensible, if a bit extreme. But this rebel talk of removing democratic options makes you look like a bit of an irrational fool. Are you being flippant perhaps? Libertarians are all about protecting individuals and their choices and yet here you would impose *your* values on everyone else.
You got it all wrong. I am not violating any laws in the process. I am not coercing anybody. I am just making your economic life miserable through competition. I am making democratic rule irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Do you also realize that you are advocating a system in which the individual does not have the right to assert ownership over his or her own creative works? And that you and your "fellow rebels" via "revolutionary anti-IP counter-economic activities" (  rol) are imposing their own values? Contradict much? Libertarians thought IP are violation of private property right not that IP are property right. That is the emerging consensus after years of debate. Also, what I am doing is merely outcompeting my adversaries. They can complain about too much competition, but I am better than them. |
|
|
|
How is "success" defined for this wager?
10,000 people using it. Media coverage said or perhaps estimate. |
|
|
|
I don't see any reason why a similar cryptocurrency, or even another blockchain (am I talking out of my ass here?) couldn't compete against the current Bitcoin blockchain. Back before legal tender laws and the creation of the central bank, private mints were in competition with each other. Perhaps another system has some features Bitcoin doesn't, or for whatever reason gains hold of a niche. This is not a bad thing in any case. Especially if any competing currencies have decentralized transactions and non reversibility like Bitcoin, trading would be extremely simple. Perhaps even completely transparent. They could easily exist side by side.
Unless the inventor is yet another Satoshi, bitcoin is going to win by pure momentum. |
|
|
|
|
I made a 500 dollars bet on the success of the bitcoin economy.
|
|
|
|
|
Loooooooooooooooooot of investors!
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that things are so simple. Perhaps you are opposed to the idea of IP, but many self-identifying libertarians (Randians come to mind) are supportive of such rights. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, ultra-free marketers espouse the notion that everything should be privately owned. This includes, by necessity, ideas. It also includes things like air. The idea here is that once the resource is owned, then the owner will naturally want to take care of it. This seems crazy to me - more likely the owner will use the control over critical resources to coerce for profit.
I find the notion of universal private ownership absurd, but I do recognize the need for IP as a means to protect individuals and smaller business from more powerful interests. I think people should be able to decide the terms by which their programs, music, writings, etc. are distributed. Unfortunately, the very tools that were meant to protect individuals and smaller shops have been co-opted by powerful interests. This is what happens when government stops being by and for the people. Democracy helps - and democracy can also help to define sane notions for IP in the digital age.
No. My fellow rebels and I are going to remove your democratic option to define sane IP rights using revolutionary anti-IP counter-economic activities. Our economic effort will speak for itself. |
|
|
|
In government charity 70 per cent is spent on beauracrats and paperwork.
Just because you found a nice ideology that is coherent and consistent doesn't mean you are given permission to stop thinking. |
|
|
|
|
Did this guy made his first debt payment yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Blah. I need subtitling to enjoy the story. For some reason, I can't understand English speaking movies these days.
|
|
|
|
This being a statement rather than any attempt to debate - as a flip-side to Austrian-School free-market fundamentalists not being interested in evidence (it's true, look it up), I'm ONLY interested in evidence. "Debate" as a means to measure the veracity of theories is a recipe for cockup. You know - like the one we're living through at the moment.
Knowledge is not acquired through calling opponents names or being the most persuasive in a debate. |
|
|
|
I mean 99% of the Earth's population can live a complete and healthy life instead of how it is today. There would be no need to kill for food or shelter. Everyone is well fed.
No. Most of the misery on earth is the result of poor political institutions. I believe there will be overpopulation because what else would you do besides have sex?
Make yourself infertile so you don't have to worry about overpopulation. |
|
|
|
It is not a weird point of view. It is a logical point of view. When medicine reaches a point where we live much longer than we do now, overpopulation will eventually occur, even when limiting offspring. When food sources and energy sources become abundant for everyone, not just those who are born into the right time and place, there will be overpopulation. Why does living on another planet = fiction? Look at the device you are using to communicate with me at this moment. 1/100000th of that computing power took us to the moon. People now have ocular and auditory implants. Today's science fiction = tomorrow's reality.
My personal guess is that the earth can support at least a trillion human beings. If it become too much, just use the sun. Also, we can build more efficient bodies for ourselves, making it easier for earth support more trillion human beings. Colonization of Mars is unnecessary. By the time we need to, we have all the technological means to do so or we just end up building a dyson sphere. If there's an asteroid coming our way, we just use cheap rockets made by SpaceX to knock them out of the sky. Or just mine them. |
|
|
|
Then I guess it can be privately founded, right? If so, I have no problem with it. I may even buy a few shareholdings.
Problem to building nuclear power plants is mostly political. If is done, energy cost is much cheaper. That also mean manufacturing costs are cheaper. That translate to cheaper everything, making space flight much more feasible. Also, you can buy a share in SpaceX, a space firm that's making rocket launcher cheaper and regular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX |
|
|
|
Why should I wake up in the morning and go to work in order to finance something that only humans in several centuries will enjoy? This is a ridiculously huge social abnegation. Just as silly as an ant which sacrfices itself for its queen. I dare say that I'm not as silly as an ant.
Several century? Naw. All it requires is the judicious use of nuclear power plants and we have all the energy we need to launch colonization effort. Then it's mostly an engineering challenge. |
|
|
|
Yes, creating new plastics that are not harmful is definitely a step forward. But, what about all the plastic out there now that is harmful? It degrades over hundreds, possibly thousands of years. We are stuck with it. It does get into the food chain and because of that, we most likely have trace amounts of BP-A in our blood. There's no plastic on Mars......yet.
We use bioengineering to fix whatever damage occurs. If we can go to mars, we can fix problems on earth too. |
|
|
|
State an example of how landfills can be a resource. You cannot fix the problem of the trash island by creating even more plastic, biodegradable or not. It will float on until we go out and somehow clean it up.
The problem with plastics is that they enter the food chain as poison. I was proposing we should make them harmless. My solution is to merely change the type of plastic, not increase the amount of trash thrown into the ocean. Landfill can be used to create methane gas. |
|
|
|
The giant trash island floating around in the ocean, the many land fills that will eventually need to be taken care of, nuclear waste that lasts thousands of years and must be buried underground which could leak into the water supply, I could go on...  Landfill can be valuable resource. Trash islands are a result of tragedy of the common, but one way to fix this is to have biodegradable plastics. There are proposals on way to recycle nuclear waste. |
|
|
|
What is so crazy about wanting to move to Mars? Even Stephen Hawking said the future of humanity lies in colonizing new planets. You don't really think humans can continue to destroy Earth while at the same time increasing in population size forever, do you? At some point, we will have to move to other planets or , for example, that ice moon of Saturn or whatever planet it is a moon of. Starting the development of the means to get to those planets as soon as possible, I think, would benefit mankind as a whole much more than waiting until we are bursting at the seams here on Earth to start the process.
How we're destroying the earth? The earth can support much more than 6 billion human beings in my opinion. We just need moar nuclear reactors! |
|
|
|
Seriously, you can try to go and live on Mars if you want, I don't mind if you do that by your own means. But I will try my best to prevent you from funding this crazyness with tax money.
Blah, with nuclear energy, anything is possible for the next several billion years. The only problem is a political one. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
