aminok

11 ms·

31.
Fully decentralized zero-fees jobs marketplace on Ethereum(ethlance.com)
5 points by aminok 10y ago|0 comments
32.
by aminok 10y ago
If only Bitcon had a high enough block size limit to allow more than 1.67 KB/s of transaction data per second. It could be a cryptocurrency, but it can't be Bitcoin.
33.
by aminok 10y ago
A statistical correlation does not justify a blanket characterization. Suggestions to the contrary are adolescent and absurd.
34.
by aminok 10y ago
The entrepreneur with a large equity stake. The entrepreneur who sacrificed and bled to build a company.
35.
by aminok 10y ago
It diminishes the accomplishments of entrepreneurs, and the sacrifices they've made. If they only have large equity stakes in the companies they founded because they're "privileged" it casts them as undeserving of the we
36.
by aminok 10y ago
I have no idea, but a statistical correlation does not justify the blanket characterization made by the article, where "risk-taker" is essentially held as a synonym for "privileged".
37.
by aminok 10y ago
We've had machines that can automatically produces lattes for years, but people choose cafes with human baristas for social/relational reasons.
38.
by aminok 10y ago
Yes I admit that part conveys emotion, but that's not the part the parent commenter was citing. I think emotion has its uses, like defending entire classes of people from being unfairly denigrated by simplistic blanket characterization
39.
by aminok 10y ago
It does not automatically mean one is more privileged than those who choose to work for startups, which is what the article implies.
40.
by aminok 10y ago
You do not need someone's consent to appropriate a clump of natural resources for your own exclusive use. Exercising our rights to our own body is a case of us doing this. You want a society where everyone in the world has to unanimous
41.
by aminok 10y ago
I don't see what's emotional about it. I view the assertion that being a risk-taker in the startup world is synonymous with being privileged as absurd and adolescent. I also explained why I think the notion is offensive and worthy
42.
by aminok 10y ago
>Any time you hear, "taking the most risk" replace it with "have the most privilege and resources." This is absurd and adolescent. I know people who are extremely privileged, and don't make any sacrifices or take
43.
by aminok 10y ago
Of course there's such a thing as private trade. The very fact that the government needs to require people to surrender their privacy rights and disclose all transactions and sources of income for an income tax to be enforceable proves
44.
by aminok 10y ago
They have a right to do that, and others have a right to advertise how much it pays to drive Uber, and if it's less than what people are willing to accept, make it more difficult for Uber to recruit.
45.
by aminok 10y ago
The only way a union can survive economically is through authoritarian prohibitions against firing people for joining unions. This is because unions provide nothing that has market value. Historically they survived and flourished through il
46.
by aminok 10y ago
>Forget that they pay their drivers peanuts, that drivers have to drive up to 30% more now to make the same wages as just a few years ago, and that many are calling Uber to unionise. Uber can't compete if its workers unionize. Pleas
47.
by aminok 10y ago
>The premise was if it were better for all involved. How could any institution that denies a party the freedom to choose (e.g. slavery) be better for all involved. Maybe you're suggesting that if slaves were better off by some crite
48.
by aminok 10y ago
Ah the old "they benefited from living in this country, so the country has a right to rob them" argument. Self-righteous demmaogogues love to propose robbing successful people and spreading their wealth.
49.
by aminok 10y ago
>I think if some form of slavery could be proven to lead to better outcomes for all involved, it would be a good thing. I just don't think such a system is possible. What's a good outcome is subjective. For the slave, it cannot
50.
by aminok 10y ago
It's not functionally equivalent to slavery. Slavery has nothing to do with being resource poor. It has to do with threats of violence being used to compel one person to work for another. There is a fundamental moral difference between
51.
by aminok 10y ago
I agree with you. It's not slavery, even while sharing some of its characteristics. It's certainly not as tyrannical or brutal.
52.
by aminok 10y ago
The only principle that I want society to follow is to not rob others of their right to their person or property. Everything else can be organized through voluntary association.
53.
by aminok 10y ago
The old "it was luck that got them their wealth, so it's morally acceptable to rob them" argument.
54.
by aminok 10y ago
Theft is violence. Property is an extension of a person. Depriving someone of their property without their consent is an act of violence.
55.
by aminok 10y ago
>Incorrect. Buildings stand on land (natural resources) and require significant amounts of energy to be erected (natural resource). So does machinery. Everything is made from natural resources. That goes without saying. The question is w
56.
by aminok 10y ago
You do not have a right to take someone's capital from them without their consent. You also do not have a right to privacy that you voluntarily give up. This is really basic logic, that you're failing at.
57.
by aminok 10y ago
>Where is that written? That is how property has historically been justified. Read up on property rights if you want to learn more about it. >I would like to point to you that your "private property", including your own body
58.
by aminok 10y ago
>Of course. But my objection is that libertarians like to imply that violence coercion is inherently bad for rhetorical effect when criticising government. I was implying that using threats of violence against non-violent people engaging
59.
by aminok 10y ago
>People starve to death because we find protecting property rights more important than letting them eat. How does it not make sense? You're not framing the situation accurately. The question to be asked is: should people starve to d
60.
by aminok 10y ago
>but rather on simple consequentialism. Slavery tends to lead to abuse of the enslaved, and allows no recourse for those under it. So slavery would be okay if the people who were enslaved could be protected from abuse whilst enslaved? Th

More ›