Bitcoin Forum
May 04, 2024, 08:07:09 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 [101] 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 »
2001  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 16, 2011, 06:02:48 PM
Of course no one is likely to go to the moon.  That's the point.  They're likely to just kill you and take your property instead, regardless of what claim you think you have to it.  And, of course, this is likely to happen after you're dead and gone anyways, so it will be some other poor sucker who receives the blowback from your ill-thought-out political philosophy.  You're writing a mortgage that you know will blow up on some future sucker.

What makes you think "ordinary jobs" pay for condos in skyscrapers?  Are you living in some economic fantasyland, like New York?

Forcing others to work for your benefit is not slavery?  Really?  What do you call that then?

What makes you think there will always be jobs for humans?  In case you haven't noticed, Cirque du Soleil and Vegas aren't doing so hot lately.  Neither is Detroit.  Of all the professions that can be more effectively done by humans than by machines, only a handful qualify as productive work.

Have you ever studied history?  Physics?  I already know what the solution is.  And I'm trying to point it out to you.
2002  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 16, 2011, 04:03:36 AM
Nobody is forced to care for their children, even with our current system.

And you think that's a good thing?  So what makes you think anyone would choose to homestead the moon over, say, your back yard?

Have I not made this argument perfectly clear by now, or are you just that dense?  You support slavery.  You want future generations to have to do something ludicrous, like colonizing a desert or the moon, by force, so that current generations can benefit by not having to care for them or compete with them for scarce resources.  That's the philosophy that you are advocating, taken to it's logical conclusion -- inter-generational slavery -- disguised as "anarcho-capitalism".  In actuality, it's the opposite of capitalism.  Since, what you advocate has only ever led to the destruction of capital throughout history.  But it's in your immediate interest and it produces "profit" on paper so you can find ways to intellectually justify it.

Also,
http://www.theonion.com/articles/al-gore-places-infant-son-in-rocket-to-escape-dyin,2495/
2003  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 16, 2011, 02:02:52 AM
How do you think Las Vegas was built?  It was built by criminals and gangsters.  And it's maintained by activities which are illegal most other places.  Do you see any manufacturing plants or farms to produce goods for export?  How would you earn a living in a desert?

You haven't really thought through the consequences of your philosophy in a world of finite resources.  "Homesteading" is not some universal answer to everything.  Are you really under the impression that the vast majority of productive property on Earth is not already owned, or soon will be?  Should people homestead the moon?

Quote from: bitcoin2cash
It doesn't really matter since the entire country hasn't been homesteaded therefore it isn't owned, collectively or otherwise.

So please address this question.

Quote from: benjamindees
Quote from:  bitcoin2cash
I can be evicted by the owner of any owned property.  If you're on my property and refuse to leave after being asked, you're trespassing. You're the aggressor, not me.

What if you are a child and the owner is your family?  Still apply?
2004  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 16, 2011, 01:26:31 AM
Great, so then you're not only for slavery.  You're for sex slavery.  Fantastic argument.  I can't imagine why everyone isn't rushing to sign up for your "evict your kids so they can whore themselves out in a desert wasteland to survive" philosophy.
2005  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Courier Network (For real) on: April 16, 2011, 01:13:33 AM
http://www.instructables.com/community/do-it-yourself-4-wheel-adult-sized-pedal-bike-car/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gauge

train detection
2006  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 16, 2011, 12:25:26 AM
I'm sure there will always be some swath of desert somewhere that remains un-owned.

Would it be reasonable for the rest of us to demand that you either give us all of your possessions or move there?
2007  Economy / Economics / Re: Negative Externalities on: April 16, 2011, 12:22:48 AM
I think you're really underestimating the proclivity of industry and commerce to simply ignore stupid laws.

Aircraft are a special case.  Weight is an issue.  They require pressurized cabins.  Etc..

Well, I did oversimplify the situation, but the basic premise is true.  Air cycle refrigerators do not exist because prior regulations into the industry makes research into alternatives unattractive for manufactures.  How much does the risk of getting sideways with some nitwit government oversight board cost?  That seems worthwhile with aircraft, mostly because the risk of a freon leak in a pressurized cabin at 3000 feet could kill your customers.  I doubt that it's worth the risk with consumer devices that usually depend upon profit margins measured in a few dollars each.

Then it sounds like the opposite of what you are arguing is true.  Air cycle refrigerators exist in aircraft because of the risk of liability for freon leaks at 30000 feet, and because of laws which account for this externality.

Of course it's usually pretty cold at 30000 feet also, so air cycle cooling probably saves a lot of energy.  And small scale turbines are impossibly difficult to manufacture and not very efficient, so having one in your refrigerator is not practical.  And closed-cycle air and CO2 cycle refrigerators are somewhat high pressure, so having one explode in your home would not be fun.

Overall I don't think this is a very good example of unjust government intervention, even if we assume the law is at all enforceable.  Considering the fact that I am not being arrested for breathing, I think your interpretation is somewhat broad.
2008  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 11:55:43 PM

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?  The property owner?

If someone puts a kid in your backyard, are you obligated to let it stay there?

In this hypothetical example my parents liked this community so much that they moved there, and then had children who were born into it.
We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible.

Not unless it was my kid.

So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids.  But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property?
2009  Other / Off-topic / Re: I wonder how much he would take in gold. on: April 15, 2011, 09:19:33 PM
Ron Paul's district is a free market wonderland.
2010  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 09:16:08 PM
And what happened to this question about our gated community?

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?  The property owner?

If someone puts a kid in your backyard, are you obligated to let it stay there?
2011  Economy / Economics / Re: Negative Externalities on: April 15, 2011, 08:37:40 PM
I think you're really underestimating the proclivity of industry and commerce to simply ignore stupid laws.

Aircraft are a special case.  Weight is an issue.  They require pressurized cabins.  Etc..
2012  Economy / Economics / Re: Negative Externalities on: April 15, 2011, 08:00:25 PM
1) Make sure we're talking about non-pecuniary externalities, and make sure to define that. Because basically every market system operates on constant pecuniary externalities, its just that it often takes some work (and transparency!) to figure out why something costs what it does.

Thank you for pointing this out.  And, yes, for the purposes of this thread I think it's important to make the connection between pecuniary and non-pecuniary externalities.

Pecuniary externalities are not obviously harmful.  But they eventually translate into material externalities which are very easily recognized as such.  So I think it is important for promoters of Bitcoin to make the logical connection between the two and to point out how pecuniary externalities are in fact harmful.
2013  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 07:42:22 PM
poltergeist attacks

SPECTRE
2014  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Courier Network (For real) on: April 15, 2011, 06:46:02 PM
It would be easy (and cheaper) to build a device that rides on rails.  Weight and range wouldn't be an issue.  It could be be autonomous very easily.
2015  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 15, 2011, 04:59:26 AM
Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.  And they might bite you, or eat your cat.  Negative externality?
Sure.  But they are just as likely to eat each other, and after I shoot the first one, the survivors are going to be very wary of me.

And let's say someone deliberately bred these dogs and released them into your neighborhood.

So, if one of them bit you, who would be responsible?
2016  Other / Politics & Society / Re: "Anarchists" rioting in London on: April 14, 2011, 11:57:00 PM
Father McGruder, if you could take a minute out from kicking ass for the Lord, please tell us why owning things is inherently authoritarian.
Christ, I've been waiting for someone to make that reference. Have you actually seen Dead Alive or did you watch me make that reference in IRC?

I've seen the clip on YouTube a few times, but not the whole movie.

Quote
Ownership is authoritarian when you come to own or maintain ownership of something through authoritarian means. Simply owning the product of your labor, and not using it to extort from others the product of their labor is not authoritarian.

So, is locking the door on my house "maintaining ownership through authoritarian means"?  If I were to rent out something I own, like tools for instance, to others, would that be "extorting the product of their labor"?

Quote
Capitalist profit is extortion though and therefore authoritarian.

How is it extortion?  You have to pay the capitalists?
2017  Other / Politics & Society / Re: "Anarchists" rioting in London on: April 14, 2011, 11:34:49 PM
Okay well if you want to use "rent seeking" to mean something besides seeking rent then rent requires capital and interest is not "rent seeking".
2018  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Courier Network (For real) on: April 14, 2011, 10:08:31 PM
Use a blimp.
2019  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 14, 2011, 10:04:45 PM
If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

How does that affect me?

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.  And they might bite you, or eat your cat.  Negative externality?
2020  Economy / Economics / Re: Defending Capitalism on: April 14, 2011, 09:23:07 PM
Seems pretty simple to me, so I'm not sure what you don't understand.

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?
Pages: « 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 [101] 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!