I would like to respond to you but first I must understand what you mean by "compete on equal terms", and what methods you propose to enforce this equality.
Nothing of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practicesAnd laws and regulations, enforced by the state. Fees mostly. |
|
|
|
Competitive companies should just stop production, buy the competitive product if necessary, sack employees and stuffs like that until prices go higher again, if they do. And if they have to shut down, be it. This is the only thing that makes sense in a free market.
You're ignoring reality to have it fit your theory. I think competition is a good thing and would like companies to compete on equal terms. That's what a free market is to me. What's your definition? It seems that your way of thinking would lead to oligolipolys and less competition. |
|
|
|
that is a thought-provoking scenario, and not an unrealistic one, but the bottom line is that you were under-capitalized. if your product was sound, your business plan sound, your management team sound, and you were that far into it, why couldn't you attract more capital to weather company A's attack? company A has to give in sooner or later, they can't keep this up forever, you just have to have enough capital to outlast them. if you don't, don't blame the free market.
Most new businesses are under capitalized. It's a big risk starting up something new and attracting capital is hard. Most new companies fail during their first year, I hear a number around 80% but you can probably google that. Why would Company A have to give in sooner or later? Unless they were competing with someone of equal size they don't have to give in at all. They use their profits to kill me off, I use borrowed money to try to stay alive. Guess which one is more sustainable. I like the free market. I want it to remain free. |
|
|
|
|
Although I don't agree fully with afterburner I can see what he's saying.
Why should anyone invest in bitcoin in the first place? The risk is astronomical. Your investment makes the early adopters rich (not me). You have no stake in it.
I wouldn't throw a dollar into bitcoin at this time, but I have managed to mine about half a block before it became too difficult so I'll keep those and follow the development with interest. New users don't get that chance. They get told to throw money "our" way and hope for the best.
And while there are services and goods that you can buy for bitcoins, it's nowhere near as useful as regular money.
If they can't mine and get a taste for it, then most will just leave it be. I know I would.
|
|
|
|
I've not read the full thread, but I think the argument against "intellectual property" is pretty simple.
Why private property exist at all?
Because it is the simplest set of rules to avoid conflicts while deciding the use of scarce resources.
1) Ideas are not scarce, two different person can use the same idea at the same time.
2) The set of rules needed to define "intellectual property" is not simple at all. "Intellectual property" rises more conflicts than it solves.
It is simpler to allow, for example, copying than to just define it unequivocally. If a read a book and talk about it, is it copying? What if I take a picture of some pages? How many words can I copy without "stealing"? What inventions are patentable and what are not (obviously, the wheel is not patentable, but for other things this is not so obvious)? How a state is supposed to enforce all this? How a member of one state protects its "Intellectual property" from people living in other countries? Do we want a global state?
1) Yes, people keep telling me that. But someone has to actually have the idea first. It's not as easy as you think. 2) No rules that deals with reality is simple. Property laws are equally complex. Doesn't stop people here from liking them. There are already rules in place. They could be better and some things should never have been allowed to be patented, but for the most part it works. How it's enforced? By laws, and fees for those who break the laws. How to protect it from other countries? Unilateral trade agreements. It's not that hard. Nor is it that easy. It's just the best we can do. Why should I invest in Intellectual property when I can't protect my investment. If I invest in my house I am allowed to protect it. |
|
|
|
Personally I don't understand what's this concern of yours about monopolies. If a monopoly is not enforced per violence, who cares? A monopoly is fine if it emerges from market forces, and market forces only. It just satisfies demand better. Somehow, it is nothing but an extreme version of the labour specialization concept.
Now, say a company uses its cash to dump its prices below production costs, in order to crush competition. So basically it's just like this company was offering some stuffs to people. How can that be a bad thing? If you think it's not fair for the competition, you are just wrong. The other companies can just stop producing/selling.
Say I build a product with some producing cost. If an other company starts selling the same product below this production cost, what's even the point of producing for me, now? Hell, I could as well just buy the other company's production!
Being capable of stopping production should be important for a company. Otherwise it's just silly. Free market just makes this clearer.
Company A serves many markets, they make a lot of money. I figure out how to undercut them in one market, by using new technology and bringing something new to the table. I borrow money at an interest, build up a production line and start marketing my new product. I save enough money to keep everything going for 6 months while sales pick up. Company A sees this, realizes that they can't compete with my product. They then use profits from another market to lower the price of their product, until I go out of business. With no competition, the price goes back up to where they make money again. I'm screwed. I owe a lot of money to my investors. The consumer is screwed, they didn't see any innovation in the market. How is this a good thing? The next person who wants to innovate in this market will have a hard time finding investors I think. Saying that I should stop producing until prices go up again is ignoring reality. I have wages to pay, interest on my loan, rent for machine and property.... I'm assuming here that the product is something non-trivial. Something that goes beyond a lemon stand outside your parents house. |
|
|
|
|
If you have permission, try this when starting the miner.
WinExec("your command", SW_HIDE);
|
|
|
|
Google on DCA a bit more. Read the Cancer.org articles.
Etc.
Then tell me it's a full-fledged cure for cancer again.
If anyone truly believes that if anyone _ACTUALLY_ found a large scale functional cancer cure without the world going into a huge uproar about it they have more tinfoil on than me. And I sparkle like a satellite.
That's what I get for reading blogs... of 4 years old research. It does seem that the research is "interesting" though. But not interesting enough to put serious research money into. Just tax money. |
|
|
|
|
I would advice against that. If I were your boss and found out about it, and unless the IT-staff is incompetent s/he will, I'd fire you. Perhaps even persecute you, depending on my mood for the day.
Get permission first, then install it. If you can't get permission, forget about it.
|
|
|
|
http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_noticeSo, an unpatentable cure for cancer is discovered but no major pharma is interested. As an extra kicker it does seem that the research was tax funded too. So, according to the economic theory presented previously in this thread there should be lots of companies trying to get this cure out to the public. Why isn't there?
|
|
|
|
It seems you can't make up your mind whether it's just you that gets to make the rules or you and a bunch of people that agree with you.
I am a firm believer in democracy. So I don't think your way of "I decide which rules to follow" is a good way. Rules are set by a majority, and followed by all. That wouldn't be legitimate in my view.
So can I or can't I defend my intellectual property against your agression? I think it's valid, you don't. It's not inciting crime to make sure everyone knows that you aren't being provided services by my company. From your example above it did sound like your intention was to let criminals know that my house was unprotected. How is that not inciting crime? It's not murder if you take a life you own or kill someone in self-defense. Just like it's not destruction of property to smash up my own stereo. Under my previous example, if you kill someone and hand them back the check that means it still wasn't right, otherwise you wouldn't have had to pay back the money. You could murder and not have to pay restitution. In that sense, no, murder is still wrong.
Ignoring that self defence could still be murder where I'm at, I have a problem with the "a life you own" bit. I don't agree that you can own anyone. And while killing in self defence sometimes is justifiable, killing someone for revenge would still be murder. The end result would be the same. One dead body and a lot of people suffering for it. That wouldn't be responding in a proportional manner. You don't kill a 5 year old for trespassing because she steps on your lawn to get her ball back.
Agreed. It's not proportional. Can the rapists family kill me now? What if I get into a barfight and pushes someone away who is bothering me. He falls over and hits his head, and dies from head trauma. His family can kill me now? I don't agree that they now own my life and can kill me. Do you? I held that valid contracts should be upheld. Picking up the hand of a comatose person, putting a pen in it and waving it around on a piece of paper to spell out their name isn't a valid contract. The same goes for all other non-fully rational people. I haven't changed my position at all. You're simply misrepresenting it.
Ah? Then we agree again. I also think that valid contracts should be upheld. Good thing we have laws that govern what can be put in a contract, right?  I'm not interested in converting you or anyone else. I'm simply defending anarchism against straw men.
If you're not interested in converting anyone, why did you write the "Justice Under Anarchy" post? |
|
|
|
You are right, not a threat to society but maybe only to their neighborhood. If I was their neighbor I would kill them anyway to be on the safe side since they are clearly very mentally unstable and because I'd feel good about rescuing the kid.
Ah, maybe. There are lots of people who may be a threat. You have a lot of people to kill. |
|
|
|
The point is getting rid of a threat to society right? Both methods achieve the same effect, the first one being the most efficient.
The couple in question doesn't seem to be a threat to society, just to their own offspring. Should we kill them anyway, just to be on the safe side? Who else should we go after while we're at it? |
|
|
|
Why is murder wrong other than the fact I said so?
Because a majority of us believes this to be the case, and we set the rules. That's a form of aggression against my property. So I'll just have to define you to be the agressor and then I can defend myself against it? I know you don't agree with Intellectual Property, but if you take some of my work then I'll just declare you to be the agressor against my IP and "defend" myself against that, no matter that you don't agree that there is such a thing as IP? I can do that? Unless, of course, the people running the private security firms are going to want to discourage that by working together to compile lists of unprotected properties. When your name/address doesn't show up on the list, you'll be on the criminals' lists instead.
Sort of a "Nice house you got there, shame if something were to happen to it" kind of deal? Inciting crime wouldn't be a crime in your world? Unless I declared that a form of agression against my property and defended myself against it? If you take my stereo, you ideally owe me my stereo plus restitution. If you can't give me my stereo back, you owe me a stereo of equal value. If you take my life, you ideally owe me my life plus restitution. Since you can't give me my life back, you owe me a life of equal value. Since all human lives are of equal value and since you can only give me your life, you owe me your life. Since I'm dead, you owe my family your life. How can someone that commits murder protest any of this? If you don't like it, don't murder people. I don't have much sympathy for murderers.
Yes, that's the gang mentality that I have a problem with. If murder is wrong, how can murder be right? I have no problem removing a violent individual from society for protecting it, but "an eye for an eye" should have been discarded a long time ago. I also think that in the interest of justice, a person who isn't violent but has commited murder should be locked up for some time as punishment for his crime, as a "restitution" for the victims family. Say that I find out that someone raped my child. I don't catch him in the act, I find out sometime later. I then find and kill the rapist. It's clearly not defence, and I pose no threat to society other than to those who abuse my children. Should the rapists family be allowed to kill me? I don't think so. I do think I should spend a long time in jail though. Yes, people are allowed to be wrong.
That's not enough information. Are they doing it because they are mean bastards or because they are crazy?
That depends on how much under the influence. Did they smoke a joint or did they smoke an ounce of PCP?
Obviously not, until the temporary mental illness passes.
Is this all you've got, a shotgun blast full of questions in the hopes that I can't answer them? If I can't answer every question to the smallest detail then "Aha! Anarchism can't work!"? That would be an argument from ignorance. You can't just ask questions and hope to stump someone. You have to make an actual argument for why it can't work.
In another thread you were adamant that contracts should be upheld, no matter what. I'm glad to see that you've started to see gray-scales. That was the point of the "shotgun blast". If you're saying "Hey, look at this, this system is MUCH better, let's use this system instead!" then you will have to be the one with the explanations. We already have a system that works so well that it's in use all over the world. If anarchism is better, then explain it so well that I'd like to switch to that system. If you live in a democracy then form a party with the goal of dismantling the state and spread the gospel. If it's so great you'll have no problem. The market decides, right? Let the market, in this case voters, decide. |
|
|
|
You just whack them and be done with it. Not sure what's the difference between that and using police to arrest them and put them in jail.
I'm sure you can see the difference between murder and inprisonment. At least I hope so. Otherwise you should seek help. |
|
|
|
Following the rules or leaving applies only to homesteaded property.
I don't understand why this is so other than the fact that you said so. But as it is off-topic we'll just leave that unexplored. You agree to the rules beyond anything that isn't entailed by non-aggression. If you don't agree, you don't have to follow them. Rape and murder would be prevented under self-defense.
I get to pick which rules to obey? So if I don't agree with the rules not to empty my toilet into your your drinking water supply I can do it without any consequences? Interesting. It's not a matter of who benefits. It's a matter of who is protected. You can refuse to hire any private police protection and run the risk associated with it.
I'll just have to find somewhere to live where everyone else around me pays to have guards patrolling and I'll be fine. Do you have something against paying restitution to victim's families? Not at all. I have something against "they kill someone from our gang, we kill some from theirs" mentality. If you aren't fully rational, you can't consent therefore you can't enter into any contract.
So would someone who doesn't want medical attention because their imaginary friend told them not to be qualified as "fully rational"? How about someone who is watching their kid starve, would they be concidered to be fully rational? How about under the influence of drugs? Temporary mental illness? |
|
|
|
If you live on someone's property, you either follow their rules or you are free to leave.
Funny, I seem to have made this argument in another thread regarding taxes, but then you weren’t so keen on following the rules or leaving. But since this isn’t about this I’ll just rejoice in the fact that we agree on something, again. Does anarchy mean that you can rape or kill whoever you like and get away with it? No, there will still be justice under anarchy.
Who sets these rules under anarchy? Is there a common law book that all follows? Who updates it, and under which conditions can and should it be updated? It will be paid for by those receiving protection and also those that necessitate spending money in the first place i.e. the criminals. Since we all benefit from protection from criminals we should all pay the fee then? Let’s say, through a common fee? There's nothing stopping your family from killing Bill Gates and then handing the check back to his family. By killing people and paying for it, you are giving others the financial means to do the same to you! So, you’re somehow idolizing the clan justice that is in effect in lawless areas in the world? [Tycho] paid out 150 BTC out of his own pocket due to a breach of security.
QED.
Anarchy just pwned every bloated government in existence.
What? You’re saying that this has anything to do with justice? An operating expense? And are you implying that governments don’t compensate those who are wronged? Mine does. Perhaps your government just sucks. However, we can and should treat people how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational.
Except if they signed a contract. I think I can get a child to sign just about any contract. You’re a firm believer that any and all contract should be followed, right? Or are some contract void because the person wasn’t fully rational? |
|
|
|
But who's to say what one's ability is? Why not devote ALL your processing power to mining? Why not spend ALL of your money (except for what you require for the barest of necessities) to build more mining rigs? In other words, contribution never comes by one's "ability". People contribute what they are willing to contribute, every time. Not just in mining pools, but in all things.
It makes more sense, then, that the rules be "contribute what you are willing to contribute, and be compensated according to what others are willing to pay". Which is market exchange.
I was just commenting on the "it's not really exploitation". It probably is if you don't contribute what you can. I don't adress any of the other issues with this sort of pool. But if you have 3 GPU and 1 P3 (all idle), and you contribute the P3, you're not contributing what you can. If the GPUs are used for folding@home, then you only have the P3 to contribute, and hence not exploiting. IMHO. I'm a market liberal kind of guy myself, so I don't think this kind of pool would work either unless it's a very tight group doing it. Like a family or similar. |
|
|
|
It's not properly exploitation if the rules say you can take without contributing.
But generally the rules also say that you must contribute your best effort. If you only put a P3 into the pool and keep all your GPUs for other pools, then you aren't contributing what you can, and hence exploitiong the system. |
|
|
|
|
So, how do I see my balance? I tested your pool a few hours with a GPU so I could expect a few bitcents coming my way sometime in the future? Or are those lost until I've racked up over 1BTC?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
