aminok

45 ms·

301.
by aminok 10y ago
> That's not what authoritarianism means. When society restricts some individual freedoms that's not always authoritarianism. You personally may not like it; you may be ideologically opposed to it, but that's not enough to
302.
by aminok 10y ago
> Justification for restricting individual actions should be based on empirical study of whether or not they harm others, not on an a priori creed that appeals some simplistic logic. Harm others or harm themselves? Or are you referring
303.
by aminok 10y ago
> It's extremely nonobvious, because you're not making an argument from a position of fact but from a position of principle. Which is my point. It is not obvious because it would require a person reading many pages of dense ec
304.
by aminok 10y ago
> Eh, depends on the law in question. Banking regulations, for example, protect consumers and the broader economy from short sighted actions in the part of bankers. I don't think the justifications are hollow given the history. A r
305.
by aminok 10y ago
Because you have zero risk bias. Faster economic development reduces overall risk of mortality more rapidly than lower rates, and there is good theoretical and empirical reason to believe the unadulturated free market maximizes the rate of
306.
by aminok 10y ago
The vast majority of such justifications are hollow, and usually premised on the idea that adults are too incompetent to make correct consumer, employment, etc decisions for themselves. E.g. laws against selling dangerous products like drug
307.
by aminok 10y ago
There is no way to easily show the electorate that the policies are responsible for 2% less growth per year. The policies that affect growth are instituted gradually over the course of many decades. It is not obvious that the growth rates w
308.
by aminok 10y ago
I should clarify, when I say "voluntary action", I mean mutually voluntary or consensual action, where no one's person or property is violated. The idea of being free to act in any way other than violating the rights of other
309.
by aminok 10y ago
Any law that punishes a voluntary action is authoritarian, whether it has a democratic mandate or not. Not all laws punish voluntary action. For instance, a law against theft is not authoritarian.
310.
by aminok 10y ago
There are better ways to prevent violent revolution than instuting socialist policies. Three decades of 2% lower per year economic growth adds up to 80% of the base year's GDP. I imagine that at a much lower cost, you could prevent rev
311.
by aminok 10y ago
You can't compare the isolated instances of people starving in developing free market economies, e.g. the US circa 1880, to the mass starvation and economic strangulation caused by communism. >Does the fact that Sweden adopted welfa
312.
by aminok 10y ago
This will lead to political dissidents being outted.
313.
by aminok 10y ago
Yes exactly. They are allowed to continue hurting the economy for decades. >I would have thought the most dangerous interventions were ones that tanked the economy and caused widespread poverty and desperation. But yeah, slightly reduced
314.
by aminok 10y ago
We can safely assume, based on some sensible and self-evident axioms, that the adaptation is less economically optimal than the actions that would have been taken absent the authoritarian intervention.
315.
by aminok 10y ago
>Today we know that both Soviet-style communism and Hayek-style free-marketism have the annoying tendency to result in people starving It's very annoying when people make bold statements like this without any evidence or factual sup
316.
by aminok 10y ago
All regulations on voluntary market activity are a form of prohibition, where engaging in some voluntary activity is punished by prison sentences or expropriation of wealth. That is textbook authoritarian intervention. Just because it is po
317.
by aminok 10y ago
Venezuela did enough damage where it becomes obvious that intervention fails. Just because the damage done by intervention is not apparent, doesn't mean it's not there. It's the hidden damage, that is caused by milder forms o
318.
by aminok 10y ago
>Source? This is logical extrapolation, and it's more or less validated by empirical evidence. It's not scientifically proven because we're dealing with incredibly complex phenomena where there are always potential confoun
319.
Jeremy Rand completes proof of concept for SPV name look ups and TLS in Namecoin(archive.org)
2 points by aminok 10y ago|0 comments
320.
by aminok 10y ago
You'll do massive economic damage that harms the poor if you price control or subsidise any commodity, including water. The economy is the way it is because of millions of individual decisions that factored in volumes of information th
321.
by aminok 10y ago
Yes conversion is subject to regulation but I don't see how that prevents cryptocurrency/blockchain applications from being useful. >And trading derivatives contracts on a blockchain would almost certainly violate US laws. Thes
322.
by aminok 10y ago
Yes, but that's not peer-to-peer. That's like a company ferrying physical cash from one party to another. They become a financial intermediary and become subject to financial regulations. You don't have to take the role of a
323.
by aminok 10y ago
> there are existing regulations that make it difficult for a decentralized system to work (e.g. know your customer laws and centralized counterparty systems). Those regulations don't apply to peer-to-peer electronic cash transactio
324.
by aminok 10y ago
That is an extremely rude/ungenerous blanket characterization of proponents of cryptocurrency. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given your support for authoritarianism.
325.
by aminok 10y ago
I don't think nuclear war poses any risk to human continuity. The only threats to human existence that I can see are an asteroid impact and advanced AGI.
326.
by aminok 10y ago
Which just sounds like the author trying to make the proposal palatable to non-libertarians (or more precisely, ideological opponents of libertarians) by framing Romer's views as anti-libertarians. Rules are absolutely important to lib
327.
by aminok 10y ago
It's odd that you think the only people renting places out on Airbnb are non-owner lease holders. Anti-short-term-rental laws apply to owners who rent their property out short term as well. I'm only referring to this subset of sho
328.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)(theatlantic.com)
86 points by aminok 10y ago|100 comments
329.
by aminok 10y ago
It is is not illegal to discriminate against them, but it is immoral. Renting someone else's property is not immoral. Threatening to rob (fine) or imprison someone for engaging in any kind of consensual transaction, including short ter
330.
by aminok 10y ago
The fact that the service is illegal is a human rights violation. Liberal ideology is authoritarian and human rights violating.

More ›