|
I don't see how this is a first amendment issue (unless it was actually the publishing and not the recording that was at issue).
Of course, it absolutely should be allowed. Which probably means that there was a door the court didn't want to open by finding in favor for the *real* reason.
|
|
|
|
I can feel the winds of change, but I just hope all these states that will end up legalizing it don't have ridiculous tax rates. I don't mind paying a little but I keep hearing politicians talking about 25-30% tax rates and that's just ridiculous.
I understand it's easy to grow. How do they stand on that? |
|
|
|
To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission.
This, right here, is a large part of the problem from what you have described. The lack of a robust State to maintain pesky "pro little people" laws, which would introduce distortions into the Libertarian economy? "To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission. " Who, exactly, makes things legal and illegal? |
|
|
|
To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission.
This, right here, is a large part of the problem from what you have described. |
|
|
|
We won't run out of it any time soon. The earth's crust is estimated to contain over a trillion tons of thorium, where each ton is capable of producing a gigawatt-year of energy when burned in a LFTR. Compare this to the number of tons of coal a 1 GW power plant needs to consume in a year.
In fact, if you collected the ashes from a 1 GW coal power plant produced in the course of a year you'd find 13 tons of thorium.
In other words the usable energy content of coal is 93% nuclear and 7% chemical and right now we're completely ignoring the nuclear energy.
WAAAAAT. GIIIGAAA-WAAAAAT |
|
|
|
|
I'm English so technically those Americans of you out there stole land from me in the revolution and you owe me some moolah. Send me your bitcoins. I work with a guy of Indian descent so I'll make sure to split it with him and we should all be square. Any Vikings out there contact me directly and we can discuss negotiations over all that raping and pillaging.
|
|
|
|
First, I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not the person to really argue this point.
Still, the answer is in the data. The reason that the do not dominate our world despite their effectiveness is that they are not sustainable. The Penn State example is perfect for this. It was very anarchist and it was effective, it just didn't provide any resistance to other ideas, and thus ultimately, to the rise of governments. There are other examples, but my point isn't that AnCap theories (or libertarian theories) on government should be discounted simply because they aren't perfect. Nothing is. Do you disagree with the root premises of AnCap? I don't, I think that they are obviously correct, just not (as examples highlight) likely to result in a society with a vested interest in it's own long term viability. Any force, foreign or domestic, capable of developing to a certain level is able to overtake it. If the US was still under the Articles of Confederation, I think that we would have lost the war of 1812 and lost our independence. We almost lost anyway, despite the advanced level of federal order that the US Constitution provided. AnCap theories of government do not provide well for the collective defense of the founding ideas, be that a physical defense from foreign powers or the defense of ideas. Hell, neither does libertarianism for that matter. It's a contradiction that we all want to live in a free society, but also wish to be protected from risk for ourselves and our children. What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the socity with the minumum of interference from government, while also being able to protiect that society from existential threats.
I consider libertarianism (and other similar ideologies) more as a signpost for the direction we should be traveling than as an ultimate destination. |
|
|
|
If you can't stand letting my assertions stand uncontested, then by all means, contest them. That's what I've been asking you to do, rather than make childish mocking noises and useless remarks about the count of lines in a post.
If the metacontext wasn't important, you wouldn't abuse it so badly. I'm sorry (I'm not), I won't ignore the man behind the curtain. |
|
|
|
Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?
OMG! Animals are walking downhill because of Global Warming (or maybe cooling. Is it Tuesday?) How does the character of your statement show anything but your own resignation in this discussion? Dude, I was always resigned that there would be no reasonable discussion with you. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. I just couldn't let your assertions stand uncontested, particularly ones that are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question. |
|
|
|
Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?
OMG! Animals are walking uphill because of Global Warming (or maybe cooling. Is it Tuesday?) |
|
|
|
The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.
Citation please. Or it didn't happen. And if it did, blame the sun, not ManBearPig. Pah, you expect us to pay any attention to right-wing nutjob websites like the BBC? |
|
|
|
That might explain why it has moved up recently, but you responded to a question about the movement in august, which should have a different explaination?
So I did. Didn't realize it was that old  |
|
|
|
"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"
That's exactly the quote I was thinking of posting. Can I get a high-five? |
|
|
|
While this may be true we need to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and should seek out robust solutions to problems, often this means mimicking nature. For example I would think solar will still be better than fusion in the case if only because it is more decentralized.
I don't know. The version of solar I'd like to see would be satellites beaming power down. That's fairly centralized and has many benefits over individual solar. Now, distributed nuclear power, that's something that could be made to work (I believe) |
|
|
|
Oh really? If you say so. In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example? http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_MoveThat's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time. Most of your "points" are actually one point split out to three, four or more line items in some rambling attempt to make your list look longer. Several of them are not points related to global warming but simple tautologies. You also consider only certain aspects of situations without considering the wider context. Your agenda is transparent and your strategy crude. |
|
|
|
- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering
- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence
Some of these are predicated on warming to a degree which I claim hasn't been proven to exist. The other assumption is that such warming is all caused by human action and not simply natural cycles, some are wild speculation, some are not even caused by supposed warming. Some of these are not yet known to be long term trends (weather is not climate as we are frequently told). And of course, any possible benefits from warming are totally discounted (not that I am a flag waver for that but it should be noted). And exactly what proportion of new discoveries in the sciences are made from rooting out and analyzing obscure species and not from some goober in a white coat sitting in front of a computer anyway? We used to get aspirin from willow trees you know. Again, proposed solutions will cripple first and second world economies (and enrich certain well connected people *cough*AlGore*cough* of course). If it's so abundantly clear this is an issue, why are we seeing comments in computer code about fudge factors? If I claim all swans are white, why is there a sack of black feathers stuffed in my closet? |
|
|
|
On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that constraining supply of a good stimulates technological innovation that overcomes the supply constraint.
Very concise and well articulated. There's also a lot of evidence that capitalism unchecked results in picking the lowest hanging fruit until its exhausted. It goes like this: 1. The resource might have many uses. It also may have many beneficial effects to the environment. 2. The resource might also have many future as of yet undiscovered uses. 3. However, it's only harvested for one particular use, wasting other possible uses. 4. As it diminishes in supply, its price rises, and more harvesters enter the market to capitalize on the higher market price. More technology and effort is applied to harvest it. 5. To use the resource, it undergoes an irreversible transformation. It's not like metal or water. 6. Unchecked capitalism harvests it until its gone or nearly gone. Collateral damage occurs throughout these processes. 7. Capitalism finally seeks alternative solutions, but the world is poorer, due to the benefits or future benefits the original resource provided or could have provided. Central planning is the way forward, comrades. It only failed before because it wasn't done right. This time we shall surely prevail! |
|
|
|
Bought in @ $6 because i liked the stable price of bitcoin, while € was really weak.
I should throw a party for breaking $13, but I'm to confused to be pleased with the development.
I simply do not understand whats driving this price.
Bitcoin has been in the news a little because of the reward halving. This may have driven some interest. |
|
|
|
Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?
If everyone was using the output of those libertarian thinkers as the basis for libertarianism, surely. Please show where Popper lied, falsified his data and hid his original results and methodology. Or pick another popular Libertarian source if you would. Claiming that Rand is a shitty writer doesn't count. |
|
|
|
Do you have scientific studies showing all this damage that will occur to billions if we take action?
Really? I make no claims of veracity of the following chart as I just grabbed it off of google indiscriminately but if you will post up a chart showing the inverse, I will happily consider myself schooled.  Are you aware of the damage that is occurring right now by doing nothing?
Are you aware of how disagreement works? My position is that this claimed damage has not been sufficiently and scientifically demonstrated. Are you even remotely aware of what classes of damage I am referring to? The damage that is caused by global warming because global warming is causing the damage.  Good day, sir. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
