Search content
Sort by
Showing 6 of 6 results by Mal
He'll be happier because he'll actually have other reasons to live besides shaping ground beef?
Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. Eventually, robots are produced to flip burgers automatically. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.
Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. They grow envious of 8's happiness and decide to buy a weapon with the money they've saved. No one stops them. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.
Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. 16 saves up enough money to be able to procure some means of production, and forms a burger company. BurgerB takes enough customers away from BurgerA so that the grasshopper gets laid off. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.
Yeah, I know, in some versions of the story the ant lets the grasshopper in and he learns his lesson and everyone is happy. Not this one. There's always going to be some jerk red ant acting purely to gain control of the market and/or situation, and the regulations on the market should be at most to keep these red ants' actions within reason, and at least a safety net for the grasshopper to not starve through a winter. I won't debate at all whether current governments meet these requirements, as I don't believe they do. However, a truly free market won't meet either.
Who was arguing for anarchism? Hell even anarchism has a theory for how society would deal with violent aggression.
I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it. 
But, this go against the profit. That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that.
However, the practice of bonding a child to the debts/obligations of a parent is morally wrong, and such a contract is not valid. In the US, we call this phenomenon Social Security.
Well said, but it isn't limited to Social Security, and worse yet it's part of an institutional, violent, force-based taxation system.*Repost for fixed quote*
I rarely play TF2 anymore but I still have some pretty cool old hats for it. I'll accept offers in thread and conclude transactions in private messages/steam. I'm trustworthy but if you have more posts than me(not hard) I'll send you the hat(s) first. To keep it simple the minimum bid is 0.005 bitcoins. If you want to withdraw your bid just edit your post. I offer full refunds for 1 week and feel free to test that, I'd like to have a good reputation.
http://i.imgur.com/77mR2.jpgItem 1 - Vintage (Black) Engineer's Cap
http://i.imgur.com/j03G7.pngItem 2 - Vintage Bonk Helm
http://i.imgur.com/vXEzn.pngItem 3 - Vintage Ye Olde Baker Boy
http://i.imgur.com/mAErR.pngItem 4 - Vintage (Purple) Hustler's Hallmark
http://i.imgur.com/wUnnt.pngItem 5 - Vintage (White) Camera Beard
http://i.imgur.com/wVmDy.pngItem 6 - Vintage Stockbroker's Scarf + Vintage Foster's Facade
BONUS!
http://i.imgur.com/AT7De.png
If I manage to sell all these I'll roll a 6-sided dice and give the purchaser of the rolled item number a Name Tag and Description tag.
I hope you guys like TF2.
http://i.imgur.com/77mR2.jpgItem 1 - Vintage (Black) Engineer's Cap
http://i.imgur.com/j03G7.pngItem 2 - Vintage Bonk Helm
http://i.imgur.com/vXEzn.pngItem 3 - Vintage Ye Olde Baker Boy
http://i.imgur.com/mAErR.pngItem 4 - Vintage (Purple) Hustler's Hallmark
http://i.imgur.com/wUnnt.pngItem 5 - Vintage (White) Camera Beard
http://i.imgur.com/wVmDy.pngItem 6 - Vintage Stockbroker's Scarf + Vintage Foster's Facade
BONUS!
http://i.imgur.com/AT7De.png
If I manage to sell all these I'll roll a 6-sided dice and give the purchaser of the rolled item number a Name Tag and Description tag.
I hope you guys like TF2.
You want people to send you bitcoins for writing this wall of text?
That's rudeI have a number of points to make. They are disjointed but I believe they would help to narrow these arguments which seem to confuse a number of people with their semantics. I'll number my points so you can refute or elaborate upon them specifically.
1. People have created and will continue to create "intellectual property" of value without financial incentive to do so, and they will find financial incentives to do so even without "intellectual property" laws.
2. The current system is inherently unfair, for many reasons, not the least reason of which is the arbitrary nature of what ideas are considered "intellectual property" and what are not. As such, to support intellectual property you should make specific examples of what idealized laws might look like. Otherwise I and many others will likely assume you mean you support current U.S. or Europe intellectual property laws, or international agreements in their vein.
3. "Big budget" films will rarely if ever be made without "intellectual property" laws. This seems to me like common sense, which sadly is not as common as one may wish.
4. People do not need large budgets to create powerful ideas of value. My favorite movie, Primer, was created for $7,000.
5. It is not the society's legal responsibility to ensure profits on your work, speculation, or investment. If you make a bad investment other people are not responsible to pay you what you expected to make, even if that expectation was reasonable at the time and your investment was beneficial to society. If you buy stock in a business whose goal is to start sustainable food-export communities for starving and poor peoples, and it seems like a sound investment but it's business model failed, no one owes you your investment. That was your risk to take. (This could be a point of contention)
6. It does not require the initiation of force to copy a book that was sold to me. (This seems to be a point of contention)
7. It does require the initiation of force to prevent me from copying a book that was sold to me. (This seems to be a point of contention)
8. It requires the initiation of force to take your property from you, for instance, a book, and as such reasonable force required to address that grievance is not the initiation of force and should be legal. This is complicated however. Help me to elaborate this point.
9. Something morally or ethically wrong does not necessarily need to be illegal.
10. My final point for now is an abstract one, and my own opinion. I consider anything that can be put into someone's mind (perhaps as mnemonic devices, words, letters, numbers, names) and then spoken aloud elsewhere, and recorded, no matter how long it takes, cannot be considered property. If they can exist within our minds they can't be owned by someone else, even if we didn't spontaneously think of them on our own.
Also I would like to hear further ideas about the enforcement and establishment of contract-law alternatives to "intellectual property".
Thank you for your time. I know this was a long (FIRST!) post.
I chuckled.
1. People have created and will continue to create "intellectual property" of value without financial incentive to do so, and they will find financial incentives to do so even without "intellectual property" laws.
2. The current system is inherently unfair, for many reasons, not the least reason of which is the arbitrary nature of what ideas are considered "intellectual property" and what are not. As such, to support intellectual property you should make specific examples of what idealized laws might look like. Otherwise I and many others will likely assume you mean you support current U.S. or Europe intellectual property laws, or international agreements in their vein.
3. "Big budget" films will rarely if ever be made without "intellectual property" laws. This seems to me like common sense, which sadly is not as common as one may wish.
4. People do not need large budgets to create powerful ideas of value. My favorite movie, Primer, was created for $7,000.
5. It is not the society's legal responsibility to ensure profits on your work, speculation, or investment. If you make a bad investment other people are not responsible to pay you what you expected to make, even if that expectation was reasonable at the time and your investment was beneficial to society. If you buy stock in a business whose goal is to start sustainable food-export communities for starving and poor peoples, and it seems like a sound investment but it's business model failed, no one owes you your investment. That was your risk to take. (This could be a point of contention)
6. It does not require the initiation of force to copy a book that was sold to me. (This seems to be a point of contention)
7. It does require the initiation of force to prevent me from copying a book that was sold to me. (This seems to be a point of contention)
8. It requires the initiation of force to take your property from you, for instance, a book, and as such reasonable force required to address that grievance is not the initiation of force and should be legal. This is complicated however. Help me to elaborate this point.
9. Something morally or ethically wrong does not necessarily need to be illegal.
10. My final point for now is an abstract one, and my own opinion. I consider anything that can be put into someone's mind (perhaps as mnemonic devices, words, letters, numbers, names) and then spoken aloud elsewhere, and recorded, no matter how long it takes, cannot be considered property. If they can exist within our minds they can't be owned by someone else, even if we didn't spontaneously think of them on our own.
Also I would like to hear further ideas about the enforcement and establishment of contract-law alternatives to "intellectual property".
Thank you for your time. I know this was a long (FIRST!) post.
Surely, the original contract would contain a clause to discourage this eventuality, e.g. "If Bob allows a copy to be made, he hereby requests to be hung, quartered and drawn." (Which incidentally is probably where today's punishments for copyright infringement seem to be heading.)
I chuckled.