How exactly does that make you no longer responsible for your actions? Are you saying that if you're born into a poor family then you have no choice but to murder, rape and steal? What is your point?
Are you saying that outside influence have no impact on the choices that a person does? My original post is referring to competent adults, not children or the mentally disabled. I grant that if you are a retard, you aren't necessarily in control of your actions. Everyone else still has to take personal responsibility.
You didn't read the whole thing he wrote, did you? And what if you didn't get lower IQ, just high agression from the lead poisoning? Then what? Still fully responsible? |
|
|
|
Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.
I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun? He's usually rather well reasoned but this latest post was just plain dumb, and he's been smarter than that before. Dead wrong and naive naturally but smarter. My question was whether he wrote something, which he thinks is wrong, purposefully. It's very hard to know what another person thinks, but I do hope so. |
|
|
|
If you do something wrong then you are to blame. Aside from coercion, what anyone else does has absolutely nothing to do with your behavior. You can still choose to do the right thing.
Again, very simplistic view. While I agree with the principle, life just isn't that simple. If you're put in a situation where it's constantly very hard to do the right thing and very easy to do the wrong thing, you are still to blame for doing something wrong, but you're not solely responsible. That which put you in that situation shares the blame. |
|
|
|
I was responsible enough to be born in a stable middle-class American family that prepared me to be prosperous as an adult. People who chose to be born to abusive/crazy/stupid/addicted parents or in the Gaza Strip need to take responsibility for their terrible planning. They're probably the same simpletons who confuse threats of starvation or eviction with real coercion such as income taxes.
+1  |
|
|
|
Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.
I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun? He's usually rather well reasoned but this latest post was just plain dumb, and he's been smarter than that before. Dead wrong and naive naturally but smarter. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, one anecdotal example tips the whole system.
Down with grants. Booh! They're all the sux0rz!
*sigh*
|
|
|
|
Organisms have adapted very well to oil contamination. In fact, it has helped several species. One could even consider the oil natural just as human's other effects have been considered a permanent part of the environment. To worry about these minute effects is pedantry in the scheme of things. Three species will always die a day and strains of fish will always deplete. We're not special nor omnipotent. We affect things just as much as any other species and we can only prevent our affects so much without otherwise inhibiting our ability to sustain happily.
Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.
As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.
I hope you're trolling me because this has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. But I'll bite anyway. Oil spill hurts the ecosystem, there's no doubt about that. NONE. Some species might temporarily benefit from the contamination, but the net effect is ALWAYS negative for the environment. All scientists not on oil-money agrees with this. And while I agree that oil is to be considered natural, but so is arsenic, yet both are bad in too high concentrations. No, we are not special nor omnipotent, but to say that we affect the environment just as much as any other species is just plain dumb. We have a huge impact on our surroundings which we manipulate like no other species. The market has absolutely no idea which species are valuable. It only know which ones are profitable. Oh, there's a "commons" now. Who owns that? Can anyone use it? How much? Are there any rules or regulations in place for this "commons"? Yes, property can be easily affected by things from the outside. Your apple farm could be affected by the factory in the next city, or state, that does something that kills off bees. However it will be impossible for you to prove that it's their actions that does so, since they are so far away and there could be another thousand reasons why your apples don't grow. So your apple farm isn't your property now since it can be so easily affected? Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet. |
|
|
|
Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.
This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.
I'm sorry. I don't mean to derail the thread. I just don't see how this should work. What about weak corrolations? Let's say that Shell poisons a bit of their sea, but only trace amounts reach your property, however you can see after 15 years that the amount of fish you get is decreasing slowly but steadily? Can you sue? How do you prove that it's their fault? What if I overfish my sea-property which collapses the fish population, leading to a growth of algae that kills off a lot of fish in your sea-property, can you sue me for that? What if the link isn't that clear cut? Let's say that there are a few steps in between? And after the damage is irreversible, then what? What good does money do when your property is destroyed for the foreseeable future? |
|
|
|
Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.
Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.
Bankrupt? Oh, right, in your world being right, as opposed to being rich, actually helps you in court. Back here in the real world, you just go ahead and try to sue Shell and we'll see how that turns out. And who owns the north sea in your world? Can I claim it? How do you homestead the sea? Put out buoys? Is it free to pollute as long as there's nobody directly impacted? Minor? Largest oil spill in the north sea for over 10 years is minor? |
|
|
|
no need for governement action. no need to force any one to anything.
I think Shell would be on your side. Must be tedious to have to inform the government about their accidents. Perhaps that's why they didn't do it right away I'm sure Shell would love if there weren't anyone out there who could force them to do anything. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904006104576504572754151598.html |
|
|
|
|
I think that it depends on the organization where more decentralization increases efficiency. I don't think that a completely centralized organization is efficient, nor do I think that a completely decentralized organization is efficient. I disagree with myrkul there. I do however believe that many organizations could benefit from more decentralization than they currently have, and that it takes a good boss to dare to let go of some control, which really is what decentralization is about.
|
|
|
|
It's a fairly simple request. Give me one example where the efficiency/decentralization curve reverses.
In fact, organizations can suffer from extreme decentralization. For example, some analysts believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) experiences some problems because all its structure and systems are based on the assumption that crime needs to be investigated after it happens. Over time, this assumption led to a situation where, instead of following an overarching strategy, each FBI unit is completely decentralized and field agents determine how investigations should be pursued. It has been argued that due to the change in the nature of crimes, the FBI needs to gather accurate intelligence before a crime is committed; this requires more centralized decision making and strategy development. Brazil, J. J. (2007, April). Mission: Impossible? Fast Company, 114, 92–109. |
|
|
|
Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.
Yes, and if a little salt each day is good for you then a few kilos a day is better. Right? |
|
|
|
What's up with the banning idea? You're anarcho capitalists, right? Let the market handle it. Buy them out. I'm sure if the market is free enough problems will solve themselves.  |
|
|
|
Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that? I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous. It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching. Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?
Not knowing your local laws I really can't say if they're ridiculous or not. I'll just take your word for it. What you should do in that case is to have the regulations rewritten. They're part of the political process so it's not hard, and probably being rewritten every now and then anyway. Lobby for change, position yourself so that you can take part in the rewrite. I'm also not familiar with OSHA and how that works, but here the employer is responsible for making sure that you follow the regulations, and it's the employer that will be in trouble if you're not doing it. Unless they can prove that they've done everything they can to make your work safe as can be and you choose to ignore the rules. A relative (US Citizen) told me that laws in the US are historical and not logical. Once you start to look at laws from a historical point of view, they start to make some sort of sense, but from a logical point of view many are downright dumb. |
|
|
|
I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.
Not once did you mention the word 'regulation', as indeed, it's not needed. By George, I think he's got it. What regulation does is raise the minimum standard. Companies are allowed and encouraged to go above the minimum standard, but not below. Yes it's needed. I have nothing against market solution to problems, but believing it's the one and all solution to all problems is naive to the point of stupidity. |
|
|
|
Two questions: 1) What do you do? 2) How can I do it too?  So what you are saying is that the government gets to decide what "unnecessary" risks are, regardless of what people are or are not willing to do themselves? Why? What I want to know is why government gets to trump people's personal liberty. Find something you're good at and then find someone wiling to pay you to do it. Preferably good money. I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company. When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows. |
|
|
|
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.
No, I don't have that black and white view of the world. That viewpoint belongs to someone else. What I'm saying is that I do agree with you that a cost/benefit analysis is done and what the government has done is to say that certain things aren't allowed to be part of that calculation. Yes, certain jobs are dangerous, yes companies will have to compensate people for high risk jobs, but they also can't take unnecessary risks with their employees life and health. $70/hour isn't very much is it? It's less than 15 minutes of my time. And I have a very safe job compared to that. The drive to the airport or the flight would be the most dangerous part of any work week. Or perhaps coffee poisoning. |
|
|
|
Fail. Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war. The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.
Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?
Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position? The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest. |
|
|
|
Or you could just lower the threshold to your current balance?
0.1 is the lowest I think. If I stop mining anything below that won't be sent to me. Not much, but every little thing counts. I'm working on the upgrade. Soon payouts will not be limited to two decimal digits  No sweat. I've enjoyed the pool while it lasted. Now difficulty is too high for me and I'll only mine on borrowed power with a cpu. If you're changing things, perhaps the option to have the full balance paid out if no shares have been submitted in X days? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
