http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_CompanyIf private services are inherently exploitative and usurious for their clients, then why did this one manage to provide free service for local patrons while providing cheaper rates for long-distance services? How did it manage to out-compete the oh-so conscious "public offering" before it was unconstitutionally shut down by its government counterpart, for no reason other than to arbitrarily preserve the relevance of the "public offering"? What makes postal service different from any other "public good"? Why did it empirically thrive for the public and itself as a "private good"? Why do <95% of goods and services thrive as "private goods", while only a few supposedly don't other than because of obstacles currently faced by the "public offerings"? Why can't innovation found in the private sector innovate past these supposed obstacles that can only be purportedly solved by government?
|
|
|
|
|
*takes a long drag out of his e-cig*
Another day on Bitcointalk.
|
|
|
|
You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market?
Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff.
To get at your question, many of these services would not come about without government. It's a really simple concept surrounding public goods (non-rival, non-excludable goods), has been for a very very long time with nearly every serious economist over the last 100 years, and has been the paradigm for a reason you don't like but should probably accept: it has been shown with convincing experimental evidence that these goods exist and will not be provided by the market in a way that allows the efficient exchange of resources. There is nothing "magical" about "my" government, it just happens to be a better mechanism for certain kinds of exchange and resource management. No argument that probably most of the things you need in your life, along with nearly all of the things you want can be handled better by private organizations. But you have to stop acting like your mythical extreme is better simply because it hasn't been tried. Enough of that extreme has been tried and summarily rejected by massive worker revolt over the last two centuries. Spend some time reading about the definition of monopoly before you start swinging it around in the context of government. The fact that there is no competition for those services is not enough to claim monopoly, and its power to siphon consumer surplus right to the owners of the organization. Besides, it always cracks me up when you argue against "government monopoly" only to support free-market practices that lead to private monopolies, with the silly little BS argument "but that's only because the market wasn't free enough!Um, all those things were once done by the private sector. The reason governments do it is that the private sector was not up to standard.
Just because you say it's true does not make it true. The reason government got into many has nothing to do with standards, it has to do with the over-consumption of scarce resources because of their "public" nature. Really, don't bother trying until you've read a bit more on the subject. Definitely don't tell me the reasons that government does anything until you know what you're talking about. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/tennessee-firefighters-watch-home-burn/Tell me it's fair that if you can't quite afford $75 a month, that you deserve this. What's wrong with a monopoly if people voluntarily accept it and are happy with its service as opposed to a government monopoly that is forced upon its people? |
|
|
|
Yeah, you're just completely wrong. There are many methods of elucidating the value of public goods to people. It's certainly harder than for normal goods, but it's not a blind shot in the dark.
And I'm sure you wouldn't love the underproduction of public goods when you saw how fucking miserable your life would be with out any environmental regulation, public trash and sewer systems, utilities in some cases, fire and police protection, and public health.
Fucking people espouse all these ridiculous ideas from a featherbed.
You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market? Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff. Um, all those things were once done by the private sector. The reason governments do it is that the private sector was not up to standard. Yeah, like how the first competing postal company in the United States gave people cheaper mail and faster service. Thankfully the government put them out of business by fining them. Those Bastards. How dare they be profitable and give people better service. Why do I get the feeling you have left the facts that don't match your theory out? I haven't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company |
|
|
|
Yay! Then the poor will be guaranteed to starve and freeze as well! Government guarantees this happens. Can you point to example where government money has not? I would be interested. Or a example where "free Market" currency has harmed the poor, in the absent of government perversion? Just one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization#Cochabamba.2C_BoliviaAnd I know you won't read it, so here: "In the previous years, despite funds made available by the World Bank to support the public utility of Cochabamba, access to piped water in the city had decreased to 40%, water losses had remained high at 40% and water was supplied only 4 hours a day. Those not connected to the network paid ten times as much for their water to private vendors as those who were." For water. This is a good example pretty much because it's one of the few "goods" we need to live. Private != Free market Crony state-enabled capitalism is not properly incentivized services and goods. Sub-contracting a state monopoly is not the free market at work. Excuses. I know you think "but it's not perfect, that's why it doesn't work" is your answer to everything (i.e. redefine it every time to make sure counter examples don't apply), but this is reality. You have your examples, and they work great, whether you like it or not. Nothing in life is a closed system. And unless you want to float high above the level of practice all day, you have to come down and try stuff in real life. This happened, and you can't deny it's failure because it wasn't "perfect". But you will, because you are completely inept at any serious attempt at arguing a point. Seriously, go away, Atlas. Why are they excuses? They sucked because the state was involved. There is no doubt about it. You're no better, my friend. You have yet to prove why genuinely free services are worse besides providing pure myths. "Profit is exploitation!" No, theft is exploitation. Fraud is exploitation. Making money while providing equitable return is not exploitation. |
|
|
|
Yeah, you're just completely wrong. There are many methods of elucidating the value of public goods to people. It's certainly harder than for normal goods, but it's not a blind shot in the dark.
And I'm sure you wouldn't love the underproduction of public goods when you saw how fucking miserable your life would be with out any environmental regulation, public trash and sewer systems, utilities in some cases, fire and police protection, and public health.
Fucking people espouse all these ridiculous ideas from a featherbed.
You make it sound as if these services wouldn't come about except thru government. Government is just people with special privileges and authority. If there is a market for trash collection, sewer systems, utilities, fire, protection and health related issues, don't you think some enterprising individual(s) would attempt to create a market? Why does one have to have a monopoly to make it all happen? What do you think is so magical about your government? They don't have any more pixie dust than you. Oh wait, they don't have pixie dust, it was Kool Aid I was thinking of. I wouldn't drink too much of that though. You never can tell what they put in that stuff. Um, all those things were once done by the private sector. The reason governments do it is that the private sector was not up to standard. Yeah, like how the first competing postal company in the United States gave people cheaper mail and faster service. Thankfully the government put them out of business by fining them. Those Bastards. How dare they be profitable and give people better service. |
|
|
|
Your idea of humility is a pretentious one.
It must not be pretentious enough for you judging by your posts against humility. Go make your friends, Matthew. I'll make what I wish and those who like it will come. Whether anybody comes or not is of no concern to me. Wouldn't making things that people like be equivalent to making friends as well? Don't you like friends? Didn't you say a few million posts back that you only take advice from friends? Isn't that worse and more insecure than open debate to everyone regardless of position, affiliation, topics etc? News flash-- making things that no one cares about is a bad way to feed yourself. All I mean is I make things for me and people happen to like them. Everything I make isn't unilaterally dependent on the approval of others. Sometimes I will derive more pleasure by catering to the desires of others but that isn't the only means to living a pleasurable life. Being happy with who you are and your choices is more valuable than an open debate compromisable to the most potent whim. News flash--slavery and servitude is not preferred either. See this is where all that philosophy can't protect you talking out if your ass. What have you ever made that anyone liked? Since you don't believe in humility, I can just say it: this is where the aspergers is fucking with you Atlas. Heh, everything I do isn't on Skype and bitcointalk.org I bring a good amount of people value. (besides cheatersnetwork telling people its okay to break the law). You have to prove this bullshit first. I've never touched that website. I'll retract since I can't prove it at the moment. Continue. I make a lot of people happy, Matthew. I can't prove that without giving you references. That's going to be open to abuse. |
|
|
|
Your idea of humility is a pretentious one.
It must not be pretentious enough for you judging by your posts against humility. Go make your friends, Matthew. I'll make what I wish and those who like it will come. Whether anybody comes or not is of no concern to me. Wouldn't making things that people like be equivalent to making friends as well? Don't you like friends? Didn't you say a few million posts back that you only take advice from friends? Isn't that worse and more insecure than open debate to everyone regardless of position, affiliation, topics etc? News flash-- making things that no one cares about is a bad way to feed yourself. All I mean is I make things for me and people happen to like them. Everything I make isn't unilaterally dependent on the approval of others. Sometimes I will derive more pleasure by catering to the desires of others but that isn't the only means to living a pleasurable life. Being happy with who you are and your choices is more valuable than an open debate compromisable to the most potent whim. News flash--slavery and servitude is not preferred either. See this is where all that philosophy can't protect you talking out if your ass. What have you ever made that anyone liked? Since you don't believe in humility, I can just say it: this is where the aspergers is fucking with you Atlas. Heh, everything I do isn't on Skype and bitcointalk.org I bring a good amount of people value. (besides cheatersnetwork telling people its okay to break the law). You have to prove this bullshit first. I've never touched that website. |
|
|
|
Your idea of humility is a pretentious one.
It must not be pretentious enough for you judging by your posts against humility. Go make your friends, Matthew. I'll make what I wish and those who like it will come. Whether anybody comes or not is of no concern to me. Wouldn't making things that people like be equivalent to making friends as well? Don't you like friends? Didn't you say a few million posts back that you only take advice from friends? Isn't that worse and more insecure than open debate to everyone regardless of position, affiliation, topics etc? News flash-- making things that no one cares about is a bad way to feed yourself. All I mean is I make things for me and people happen to like them. Everything I make isn't unilaterally dependent on the approval of others. Sometimes I will derive more pleasure by catering to the desires of others but that isn't the only means to living a pleasurable life. Being happy with who you are and your choices is more valuable than an open debate compromisable to the most potent whim. News flash--slavery and servitude is not preferred either. See this is where all that philosophy can't protect you talking out if your ass. What have you ever made that anyone liked? Since you don't believe in humility, I can just say it: this is where the aspergers is fucking with you Atlas. Heh, everything I do isn't on Skype and bitcointalk.org I bring a good amount of people value. I have little to prove and I continue to gain. Take care of yourself, Matthew. |
|
|
|
Your idea of humility is a pretentious one.
It must not be pretentious enough for you judging by your posts against humility. Go make your friends, Matthew. I'll make what I wish and those who like it will come. Whether anybody comes or not is of no concern to me. Wouldn't making things that people like be equivalent to making friends as well? Don't you like friends? Didn't you say a few million posts back that you only take advice from friends? Isn't that worse and more insecure than open debate to everyone regardless of position, affiliation, topics etc? News flash-- making things that no one cares about is a bad way to feed yourself. All I mean is I make things for me and people happen to like them. Everything I make isn't unilaterally dependent on the approval of others. Sometimes I will derive more pleasure by catering to the desires of others but that isn't the only means to living a pleasurable life. Being happy with who you are and your choices is more valuable than an open debate compromisable to the most potent whim. News flash--slavery and servitude is not preferred either. |
|
|
|
Your idea of humility is a pretentious one.
It must not be pretentious enough for you judging by your posts against humility. Go make your friends, Matthew. I'll make what I wish and those who like it will come. Whether anybody comes or not is of no concern to me. |
|
|
|
|
In short, I am a proud philistine in regards to the appearance to the means of education. I only care about the end. Rugged collectivism in an argument and discussion to notable ends leads to nothing but waste and destruction.
|
|
|
|
He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.
-Nietzsche
I want neither exaltation nor your definition of success. I have already achieved happiness.
I don't want people to show me the way. I don't need them to hold doors for me nor close them when I have become dependent on their guidance. I will not become a servant to another's whim. It will never be a matter of who lets me do things but who is going to stop me!
I'll act on my own virtues. I'll enjoy stumbling upon knowledge on my own as man has done for the majority of civilization. To me that is the most rewarding journey.
Civilization has evolved. What you call 'getting back to roots', most educators would call counter-progressive. I call them ducks. Most educators are not educators at all but merely rhetoricians in the art of provisioned self-esteem. I will not go to them for knowledge. I will accept things through my own understanding and refutation; not through another man's whims. Good educators present issues and only assess a student's abilities to critically examine the issues, not their opinions on it. One thing we learn as teachers is TTT (teacher talk time). It's a style of lecture teaching and it's super easy to fall into as a teacher when you're passionate about the topic (you for example would be in TTT mode 100% of the time as a teacher no doubt), but many educators understand that STT is a better model-- it focuses on debate style learning and involving students, encouraging them to share opinions with each other, only 'teaching' how to deliver those opinions effectively, not which opinions are 'right' or 'wrong'. I was homeschooled by an overly religious group of mental children and pressured to think the school system, government etc is all out to get me (the same way you talk). The funny thing is, despite their attempts to brainwash me, I grew up perfectly understanding the difference on my own. What's more likely Atlas, that I'm a genius, or that with commonsense any 'bad' teachers can still teach something useful? Side-question: your teachers must be shit. I didn't go to publuc school but I can't say I've heard many good things about it. Critical examination and the end opinion go hand-in-hand. False premises can lead to bad answers and there are bad answers in regards to unanimous human desires. Debating style is useless when you end up with a world of incomplete objectives. You will inevitably end up with a bubble of artificial reality that we see in academia today. A world with no principles is one of only evil. In a compromise between a purported good and evil, evil will always win. Debate is fun and all but in regards to the world we live in, I prefer sound opinions. The delivery is just flowers and pedantry. An education shouldn't be about conformity but teaching an individual to achieve his objectives. Yeah, I guess you're right. All those faggots at Harvard are just wasting their time arguing issues in debates based on gentlemanly rules. They should just beat each other up or name call instead! Good idea! They are and they are just burning money in general. What they achieve is the same result of name calling; a lot like one-sided arguments on Something Awful.. They should be trying to achieve objectives that create wealth and innovation in the end instead of trying to achieve prestige through pseudo-academic papers and notoriety. Again, debate etiquette is subjective and pedantry. Your idea of humility is a pretentious one: It's all about respecting sensibilities and stroking cocks all the way to the top of a mountain of waste and corpses. |
|
|
|
He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.
-Nietzsche
I want neither exaltation nor your definition of success. I have already achieved happiness.
I don't want people to show me the way. I don't need them to hold doors for me nor close them when I have become dependent on their guidance. I will not become a servant to another's whim. It will never be a matter of who lets me do things but who is going to stop me!
I'll act on my own virtues. I'll enjoy stumbling upon knowledge on my own as man has done for the majority of civilization. To me that is the most rewarding journey.
Civilization has evolved. What you call 'getting back to roots', most educators would call counter-progressive. I call them ducks. Most educators are not educators at all but merely rhetoricians in the art of provisioned self-esteem. I will not go to them for knowledge. I will accept things through my own understanding and refutation; not through another man's whims. Good educators present issues and only assess a student's abilities to critically examine the issues, not their opinions on it. One thing we learn as teachers is TTT (teacher talk time). It's a style of lecture teaching and it's super easy to fall into as a teacher when you're passionate about the topic (you for example would be in TTT mode 100% of the time as a teacher no doubt), but many educators understand that STT is a better model-- it focuses on debate style learning and involving students, encouraging them to share opinions with each other, only 'teaching' how to deliver those opinions effectively, not which opinions are 'right' or 'wrong'. I was homeschooled by an overly religious group of mental children and pressured to think the school system, government etc is all out to get me (the same way you talk). The funny thing is, despite their attempts to brainwash me, I grew up perfectly understanding the difference on my own. What's more likely Atlas, that I'm a genius, or that with commonsense any 'bad' teachers can still teach something useful? Side-question: your teachers must be shit. I didn't go to publuc school but I can't say I've heard many good things about it. Critical examination and the end opinion go hand-in-hand. False premises can lead to bad answers and there are bad answers in regards to unanimous human desires. Debating style is useless when you end up with a world of incomplete objectives. You will inevitably end up with a bubble of artificial reality that we see in academia today. A world with no principles is one of only evil. In a compromise between a purported good and evil, evil will always win. Debate is fun and all but in regards to the world we live in, I prefer sound opinions. The delivery is just flowers and pedantry. An education shouldn't be about conformity but about giving an individual information to achieve his personal objectives. |
|
|
|
I think you want to be recognized, and as someone with no skills you stick to what you know (the things you read) and the get rich quick schemes. I understand the fear of education and the anxiety, as well as the difficulties in believing you're not the center of the universe (it's classic aspergers stuff), but what I don't get is why you don't then try to be a jack of all trades?
I don't really have strong desires in regards to any of these matters. I just want to create value and sustain myself. I will be happy with whatever pleasures this brings me. There is really no end goal nor anxiety over the purported journey as a whole. |
|
|
|
He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.
-Nietzsche
I want neither exaltation nor your definition of success. I have already achieved happiness.
I don't want people to show me the way. I don't need them to hold doors for me nor close them when I have become dependent on their guidance. I will not become a servant to another's whim. It will never be a matter of who lets me do things but only of who is going to stop me!
I'll act on my own virtues. I'll enjoy stumbling upon knowledge on my own as man has done for the majority of civilization. To me that is the most rewarding journey.
For a self made man you do beg strangers for money and labor quite a bit. I think he has split-personality disorder or difficulties with jealousy possibly. How else could he attempt to get rich off an idea involving markets, development, electronics etc, and then downplay the success of others his age in doing the same thing? What is it you want to be exactly? The next christ? A shining beacon of knowledge, truth and justice? The next unibomber? I've heard 'I'm still deciding' from you, but it doesn't take a genius to take people's conversation patterns and habitual rants and formulate a hypothesis if their intended direction. Okay, maybe it does. I think you want to be recognized, and as someone with no skills you stick to what you know (the things you read) and the get rich quick schemes. I understand the fear of education and the anxiety, as well as the difficulties in believing you're not the center of the universe (it's classic aspergers stuff), but what I don't get is why you don't then try to be a jack of all trades? I don't recall downplaying anybody. I would love to see direct evidence of me degrading people. Haha. I have complete admiration for Zhou. I feel nothing but happiness in regards to him. Well, some apathy considering Bitcoinica isn't generating much wealth at the moment and remains to be a zero-sum gambling operation. |
|
|
|
He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.
-Nietzsche
I want neither exaltation nor your definition of success. I have already achieved happiness.
I don't want people to show me the way. I don't need them to hold doors for me nor close them when I have become dependent on their guidance. I will not become a servant to another's whim. It will never be a matter of who lets me do things but only of who is going to stop me!
I'll act on my own virtues. I'll enjoy stumbling upon knowledge on my own as man has done for the majority of civilization. To me that is the most rewarding journey.
For a self made man you do beg strangers for money and labor quite a bit. I do not beg. I exchange. I wish no man to interact with me if he has nothing to gain. |
|
|
|
He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.
-Nietzsche
I want neither exaltation nor your definition of success. I have already achieved happiness.
I don't want people to show me the way. I don't need them to hold doors for me nor close them when I have become dependent on their guidance. I will not become a servant to another's whim. It will never be a matter of who lets me do things but who is going to stop me!
I'll act on my own virtues. I'll enjoy stumbling upon knowledge on my own as man has done for the majority of civilization. To me that is the most rewarding journey.
Civilization has evolved. What you call 'getting back to roots', most educators would call counter-progressive. I call them ducks. Most educators are not educators at all but merely rhetoricians in the art of provisioned self-esteem. I will not go to them for knowledge. I will accept things through my own understanding and refutation; not through another man's whims. |
|
|
|
Do you consider Russia Today to be a trustworthy source of journalism? On anything besides local Russian news. Haha. They have little to no incentive to distort information elsewhere. Russia is pretty sovereign to foreign interests. |
|
|
|
|
He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.
-Nietzsche
I want neither exaltation nor your definition of success. I have already achieved happiness.
I don't want people to show me the way. I don't need them to hold doors for me nor close them when I have become dependent on their guidance. I will not become a servant to another's whim. It will never be a matter of who lets me do things but only of who is going to stop me!
I'll act on my own virtues. I'll enjoy stumbling upon knowledge on my own as man has done for the majority of civilization. To me that is the most rewarding journey.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
