What would you do in that situation? Give up and quit?
I'd not get into such a ridiculous situation. I don't have years to waste settling the oceans and I don't have a navy that could defeat the states that would have to be forced to accept my homestead. Huh, OK. Can we all just agree that you have a severe lack of imagination, and leave it at that? |
|
|
|
http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.htmlSorry but the ideas are ridiculous. How can you start from the point that there is no state? Humans organise themselves - its as much part of our behaviour as eating. As for his dispute resolution - "Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled." A simple example would be inheritance. A Muslim man marries a Christian woman. They have a son and daughter. They get divorced when the man wants to have both children circumcised. The man goes to a Sharia court and gets custody of the children. The woman goes to a Christian court and gets custody. Under these circumstance, the court with the money for a bigger army wins. And there is no real scope for compromise - either the daughter is circumcised or not. So unless you want a society where the guy with the money for a bigger army wins, you need to have 1 law. Saying its cheaper to allow girls get circumcised than to fight the other guys army is not offering any improvement on where we are now. The other glaring problem is that if a dispute does result in violence between police forces, the losing force is gone forever. They are dead. As time goes on, there will be fewer and few competing forces until you end up with one single force. In theory anyone will be able to set up against them. In practice, money applied to armies has an exponential rather than a geometric effect and all newcomers will be to weak ever to get a customer. So you've worked your way back to a...state. What if the "force" is armed citizens themselves, who agree not to screw with each other's stuff, agree to choose a court both agree to go to for disputes, and defend themselves from any outside or inside agressors? Your scenario assumes that no one living under those police forces would care, will keep supporting them financially, and that most people are assholes. |
|
|
|
You can't homestead an ocean. Japanese whalers would have first claim.
Interesting concept though. It assumes that people will take care of the species if they own it. I'd want a guarantee as there are a minority of jerks in the world and if one owned all whales he should not have the right to exterminate them but assuming a decent owner you are probably correct.
You can homestead a piece of the ocean in the same way that you can homestead a piece of land. You establish "residency" in a way that allows others to understand that you are the rightful owner. On land you have to clearly mark your territory and live there for a few years. There are plenty of ways with modern technology to mark your territory in the ocean. ...snip... So you live in a boat in the Antarctic whaling grounds a few years. A Japanese whaler comes along and kills the whales around your boat. What you gonna do? Sue them? Threaten to sink them? Stage a sit down protest on your little boat? Or face the fact that homesteading the ocean is no more viable a concept than homesteading the clouds? Please - its great to have new ideas but at least try to make them a little practical. What would you do in that situation? Give up and quit? |
|
|
|
Interesting. New version of AMD video drivers came out, and now ocl is working fine  Guess it was them, not you. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Rinse and repeat until there are three bitcoiners left at $0.10 a coin
I wish I had 1/3rd of the Bitcoin supply at $0.10. Not because I want all that bitcoin, but because it's be nice to have $700,000USD worth just lying around. |
|
|
|
Isn't this thread about the two laws in my signature? Do you guys think it has anything to do with zoning?
Looked like the topic was on question of how the two laws could be upheld if there are no zoning laws. Maybe a question on how someone could be forced to follow those two laws without government enforcement. |
|
|
|
The real point here is that you can't really predict where a company may choose to locate, and in the absence of regulations, you can't really assume that a company will choose to do one thing or another.
You also can't really predict if the government will decide a new aluminum factory is good for the economy and jobs, use their eminent domain power to pay "fair market" values to home owners, and kick them out whether they want to or not. So sucks both ways. |
|
|
|
What about just preserving whale DNA and growing one for anyone who needs one?
Read all my above posts. However, additionally, consider: - This does nothing to preserve the ecosystem. - Do you mean growing of whale meat, or making a new whale? I meant new whale, for meat, or as a pet for an aquarium (or to save planet Earth from being destroyed by a power draining space orb in case Captain Kirk isn't available). But yeah, I wasn't considering the ecosystem part. |
|
|
|
Could also be that desert land and transportation are both dirt cheap.
Desert land is cheaper. In my initial scenario in the first post, envision MoonShadow's home to be on a desert plot. As for transportation, is $800 cheap to transport a sixteen foot skin that is part of an aileron, so that it can be treated with a coating? I paid $450 to transport my six foot tal Sonic Championship arcade cabinet, and that was on a truck with other shipments, too, so that sounds cheap, yeah. It's also likely cheaper than the costs the company would've had to deal with if it built near other people if zoning laws didn't exist. |
|
|
|
...snip...
Can you download movies from Hulu? If yes, I'd love to know how.
By the way, how is it that Microsoft makes so much money from china, and is a company loved by its people, when China practically has no copyright protections for outside companies?
If Hulu has it, someone has recorded it somewhere and it will be on Bittorrent. Feel free to ask Microsoft how they make make money in China. My recollection is that they are pretty steamed about being ripped off but you may have an authoritative quote that proves me wrong. They worked with the people, picked a price people there would feel is fair based on that country's average income and what people felt they would be willing to "donate," and are now raking in hundreds of millions from hundreds of millions of people who willingly pay $2.50 to $7 for a copy of Windows, who are now also extremely loyal customers of Microsoft products, because they believe it is one of the few companies that understands and values them ("unlike those other greedy western companies that are only there to esploit them"). As opposed to in US and Europe, where they make a few million from customers they charge $200+ for that same copy, where the general view of their company is as being evil assholes. Microsoft is one of the premiere business cases of how to do business with China, and thrive in a world without IP protections. (Though the Harvard Business case is rather long and boring to read). |
|
|
|
But they are still more costly than just building in a better location of your choosing.
If you ran a business whose job was to etch, treat and anodize aluminum components which are destined to be components of airframes of (mostly) Boeing aircraft, and all your customers are located in the southern Los Angeles area, and shipping the components to be treated requires flatbed trucks, would you locate your business a hundred miles away in the high desert? First i would question why my customers decided to be in that area. Then I would consider buying the land adjacent to those customers so i can work more closely with them. Then, if that is not an option, I would discuss the costs of shipping with my customers, which I would ask them to pay for, versus the risks of building near them, pissing off people in the surrounding area, and alienating THEIR customers and employees. People who live near those factories often work there. I would totally expect a strike or mass quitting if enough people see their homes ruined. OR, I would see if it's possible to develop new technology to let them switch to sometjing else, like carbon fiber or plastic. Big reason we don't have awesome electric cars is because gas is so heavily subsidized. Without that, we'd have a lot faster technological progress. Well, Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas which has plants in the southern Los Angeles area and that is the heart of the defense industry and near two large airports. There is no questioning why they are there. Hundreds of other companies which offer contracting services to the defense industry are in the same area. Oddly enough, an aluminum etching service is located one hundred miles away in the high desert, virtually in the middle of nowhere. I don't have an answer to why, but I have been to both Boeing and the high desert company on several occasions. My main point is, there can be many reasons why a company sets up where they do. Minimal regulations related to acidic etching solutions? Maybe the owner owned a large plot of desert land? Who knows? Could also be that desert land and transportation are both dirt cheap. |
|
|
|
But they are still more costly than just building in a better location of your choosing.
If you ran a business whose job was to etch, treat and anodize aluminum components which are destined to be components of airframes of (mostly) Boeing aircraft, and all your customers are located in the southern Los Angeles area, and shipping the components to be treated requires flatbed trucks, would you locate your business a hundred miles away in the high desert? First i would question why my customers decided to be in that area. Then I would consider buying the land adjacent to those customers so i can work more closely with them. Then, if that is not an option, I would discuss the costs of shipping with my customers, which I would ask them to pay for, versus the risks of building near them, pissing off people in the surrounding area, and alienating THEIR customers and employees. People who live near those factories often work there. I would totally expect a strike or mass quitting if enough people see their homes ruined. OR, I would see if it's possible to develop new technology to let them switch to sometjing else, like carbon fiber or plastic. Big reason we don't have awesome electric cars is because gas is so heavily subsidized. Without that, we'd have a lot faster technological progress. |
|
|
|
...snip...
That's just it, there are many ways to get capital costs back. As I have already mentioned, copyright is relatively weak law, and no rational production company is going to depend upon it for their revenue. They go to great lengths to keep advance copies from getting out, and they have contractural agreements with distributers to honor their "ownership". That's also why software comes with 'swrink wrap' policies, as an attempt to shore up copyrights with contract law; pity it doesn't really fly unless the customer actually agrees to the terms in advance. Why hasn't the shrink wrap licenses been challenged more in court? Because most people buy the product and have no interest in sharing it online for no personal gain. They respect the production company's 'ownership' of their work, even without the threat of legal action.
The people who matter from this point of view are owners of movie theaters. If they can get the movies without paying royalties, they will of course do so. And that alone kills the incentive to make movies. Of course you could make the case that some movies would still get made, especially CGI ones using college computers. But the likes of Titanic or Toy Story that take millions in up front costs would never get made. It could also be that Netflix and Hulu will become the next WB, financing movies to show exclusively to their subscribers, and movie theaters will charge much cheaper rates to just provide the service of watching the movie in a more comfortable setting with a bigger screen. No IP law mean no exclusive movies for their subscribers. Bittorrent isn't going away anytime soon. Can you download movies from Hulu? If yes, I'd love to know how. By the way, how is it that Microsoft makes so much money from china, and is a company loved by its people, when China practically has no copyright protections for outside companies? |
|
|
|
...snip...
That's just it, there are many ways to get capital costs back. As I have already mentioned, copyright is relatively weak law, and no rational production company is going to depend upon it for their revenue. They go to great lengths to keep advance copies from getting out, and they have contractural agreements with distributers to honor their "ownership". That's also why software comes with 'swrink wrap' policies, as an attempt to shore up copyrights with contract law; pity it doesn't really fly unless the customer actually agrees to the terms in advance. Why hasn't the shrink wrap licenses been challenged more in court? Because most people buy the product and have no interest in sharing it online for no personal gain. They respect the production company's 'ownership' of their work, even without the threat of legal action.
The people who matter from this point of view are owners of movie theaters. If they can get the movies without paying royalties, they will of course do so. And that alone kills the incentive to make movies. Of course you could make the case that some movies would still get made, especially CGI ones using college computers. But the likes of Titanic or Toy Story that take millions in up front costs would never get made. It could also be that Netflix and Hulu will become the next WB, financing movies to show exclusively to their subscribers, and movie theaters will charge much cheaper rates to just provide the service of watching the movie in a more comfortable setting with a bigger screen. |
|
|
|
What you describe is the reason zoning laws exist. Its not good that people have to resort to violence in order to protect their homes or their premises. For both the homeowner and the factory owner, a zoning law that settles the issue before the factory is built is the best option.
Just as a factory owner is aware of zoning laws, that factory owner will be aware of those risks as well. Then it's just a question of what's cheaper, paying for sound insulation and quieter machines, paying for lots of men with guns to stand around doing nothing, or paying to keep repairing broken equipment and burned stuff. In either case, that factory owner will likely get severely underpriced by another factory that decides to build in a better "zone" and doesn't have to pay for those extra issues, so, as someone else said, this one likely wouldn't survive long in the market anyway. So zoning laws save the cost of hiring a militia. Good point. But they are still more costly than just building in a better location of your choosing. |
|
|
|
Actually, this is a rally. Bitcoin is big news in China recently, with many more people buying now, so it's a rally to China (down)  |
|
|
|
We speak about rally and bitcoin drop from 5 to 4.6...weird rally is weird
Actually, it makes sense. Bitcoin is big news in China recently, with many more people buying now, so it's a rally to China (down) |
|
|
|
Done deal: Then I would no longer expect fathers to be forced to pay child support, since you wish to treat them as sperm donors then they should not be required to pay child support on the whim of the mother as well.
I'm actually kind of with you on that. There are plenty of options for the mother to avoid the financial burden of having a child, and if she decides to take on that burden, anyway, then it's her choice entirely. I would maybe have the father still pay for part of the abortion or adoption services (and maybe the morning sicknesses and ice cream), since the situation was caused by his negligence. Though this thing is a rather inflammatory hot topic issue  Additionally, fathers were just as "shamed" into doing what is right by our less morally destitute culture. And I don't advocate controlling others sexuality, I DO advocate they take responsibility for those choices. ... But you know unwanted babies are not the only problem here... my solution to keep the consequences of someones actions helps solve more than just unwanted babies, it also helps curb the rapid growth of STD's some of which are life threatening or outright fatal.
Controlling through shaming is still controlling. That's how the church does it: take something that is people's most basic desire and want, and make them feel ashamed of it, which works great since everyone thinks about and wants it. Then, when they feel shamed and guilty, tell them you have answers, have them come to you, and tell them what to do. It's been pretty destructive, actually. Shame keeps it all in secret, makes people avoid honestly discussing the issues, and just leads to more ignorant mistakes followed by more shame. Compare this (us) to secular cultures, where sex maybe makes people blush, but is not shamed; where sexual issues like contraception, disease, and abortion are freely discussed, and where sex is not something shamefull that you must get before anyone finds out. Those cultures are much better informed of the issues and risks, are much better prepared to discuss, plan for, and deal with them, and thus have far fewer STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortion. In a way it's also like keeping candy from a baby. Compare the problems with underage drinking in US with, say, Italy, where there's really no minimum drinking age in family homes, and alcohol is just a part of dinner. The problem with your argument is this question: What happens if you are wrong?
If I am wrong, we could have more people around to solve the problem better, people who could grow into being great leaders, scientists, doctors etc. If you are wrong then you have the blood of millions on your hands.
Wrong about what exactly? And why do you suppose that children born to financially destitute parents who don't want them will most likely grow up to be leaders, scientists, and doctors, as opposed to troubled people? Why do you believe that they would have been aborted? Abortion is not a new invention, and an ancient procedure is even mentioned in the bible. Also, if the mother aborts, who's to say she won't have another baby later, when she is ready, and have that second baby become the great person that the first one never had the chance to? |
|
|
|
As soon as enough traders become convinced it will not move, it will move.
I have quite a few grand that finally transferred into Dwolla a week or two ago. Usually I buy right away, but I'm now one of those waiting to be convinced it won't move before I help move it... (The Dwolla lady that called me, wondering what the heck, and verifying my identity, sounded very nice. I just hope Dwolla doesn't get Goxed) But you are not selling what you have yet? No, I'm not. Whatever I put into it over the course of the Summer I'm still holding on to, and have no plans to get rid of (even if I overpaid) So it is not bottom yet. Don't take this personally - but you are the 'long investor' with what I judged the most honest posts - so I like to take you as a representation of this type. Long investor/not worried if I lose the money I put in. If it drops to $0, I'll just shrug it off, but I believe that it won't, and so keep holding. In other words, don't use me as a barometer for whether this thing will die or not. I'm pretty bad at predicting bottoms, too, and I hold because I can miss a rally just as easily as I can predict another drop. |
|
|
|
What you describe is the reason zoning laws exist. Its not good that people have to resort to violence in order to protect their homes or their premises. For both the homeowner and the factory owner, a zoning law that settles the issue before the factory is built is the best option.
Just as a factory owner is aware of zoning laws, that factory owner will be aware of those risks as well. Then it's just a question of what's cheaper, paying for sound insulation and quieter machines, paying for lots of men with guns to stand around doing nothing, or paying to keep repairing broken equipment and burned stuff. In either case, that factory owner will likely get severely underpriced by another factory that decides to build in a better "zone" and doesn't have to pay for those extra issues, so, as someone else said, this one likely wouldn't survive long in the market anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
