piekvorst

5 ms·

31.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
> certain appeals to emotion or outcome are evil tools of fictional villains, while simultaneously doing the exact same thing You would be correct if that were the whole truth about Atlas Shrugged: defending protagonists on emotional gro
32.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
This quote would be more meaningful if Atlas Shrugged critics were able to actually criticize it, not the straw-man. Unfortunately, orcs didn’t show them how to do it.
33.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
Now I can spy on the software spying at me. Nice.
34.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
It seems like this “journalist” speaks English. Guess who also spoke English? That’s exactly right, Satoshi did.
35.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
Finding value in giving up one’s values.
36.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
You’re assuming that without preemptive permits, nothing stops a company from spewing uranium. But liability, if properly enforced, is a powerful deterrent. The threat of paying full cleanup costs, compensating victims, and facing criminal
37.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
What alternative would you suggest?
38.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
Yes, to settle disputes. The purpose of these laws is the protection of individual rights, not consumer “rights” or any other special “rights” that belong exclusively to one group or race and no other.
39.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
I don’t think that either libertarians or Kant are genuinely concerned with freedom. My position is closest to classical liberalism, with different philosophical foundations.
40.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
s/zealot/advocate/ s/denier/opponent/ s/late-stage capitalism/socialist propaganda/ If you're asking genuinely: 1. It's wrong to assume beforehand that the other party is irrational. 2.
41.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
What exactly do you mean by "economic violence"? If you mean fraud or theft, we already agree those are crimes. If you mean something else, I'd like to know what.
42.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
> You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. . . . Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities. You describe
43.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
If "withholding" means actively blocking someone from acessing water they already have a right to, you'd be correct. But that's not what's in your link. Passive possession, "I have water, I'm not giving it
44.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there’s something substantive to it? "Public interest" today implies a conflict with private interests: a new sports arena, "affordable" housing, protecting domestic jo
45.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
If people without an access to clean water want it, the proper route is to trade with those who do, not victimize them. There can be no right that involves sacrifices of one man to another. Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (
46.
by piekvorst 6mo ago
It's far from minor. To ban physical force from social relationships, people need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights. People's rights can only be violated by physical force. To prevent this, the govern
47.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
It's not arbitrary. It's called the distinction between retaliatory and preemptive force. Retaliatory force requires a victim and evidence of causation. Preemptive force has no objective anchor, hence arbitrary by definition. You
48.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
I do agree. In many places, governments are weak, captured, or corrupt. But those are mixed economies, in which state and corporate power fuse into one corrupt swamp: corporations lobby for regulations to crush rivals, officials sell favors
49.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable. That is, a society can function using only courts, class actions, and government-as-plaintiff, without preemptive editcs on screw sizes or battery compartments. As I s
50.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
Courts, police, and the army are proper. That's government. The difference is what kind of government. A proper government holds a monopoly on retaliatory force, it acts after someone initiates force or fraud. It doesn't dictate y
51.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
I don't know the precise legal mechanisms for handling diffuse harms like the ones you describe. Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the phi
52.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
It means you can sue for product liability under common law. Negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability, depending on jurisdiction. Court decides after harm.
53.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
> why market participants are being given special treatment here. There are laws, and they must be followed. Laws are contextual, they depend on more fundamental principles. A regulation that says "you must use this specific screw s
54.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
If I buy a can of soup and find glass in it, I have a valid claim against the manufacturer. It's a matter of holding someone accountable for fraud or negligence, not a matter of regulation. The proper route is a court, not a bureaucrat
55.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
Laws protect everyone’s rights, both consumers and producers. When they are targeted to favor a specific collective, it’s fair to bring up the issue of physical force. The 20th century is repleted with examples of one social group fighting
56.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
Having the government regulate the free market is an issue of physical force and should always be discussed as such. Are you willing to deal with men by force beyond retaliation? This issue is moral, not practical. Besides, it’s easy to sel
57.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
Long lines make reading rhythm uncomfortable (long jumps, prolonged eye movements) and long words make the text too dense and slow down the reading. It’s bad typography. I have heard an idea that a good variable should be understood by just
58.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
You can use this article to guide your choice of rulesets. And you still have to exert some artisan labor to develop any taste. Parochialism here is saying “just use AI” in disguise.
59.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
Personally, I don’t mind. Train however you want.
60.
by piekvorst 7mo ago
I never have any window in the fullscreen/maximized mode. Some are pretty large, such as IDE, and they sometimes touch one or more edges of the screen/dock/panel, but never occupy the entire space. That was true even on my 14

More ›