snitko

85 ms·

751.
by snitko 14y ago
So, he's crazy because he doesn't want to regulate things. You believe homeopathy is bullshit - fine, I agree with you. We can campaign against it and inform people it's bullshit. But you and I have no rights to tell people what to believe
752.
by snitko 14y ago
It's a valid argument that private protection agencies may become de-facto government. With one crucial distinction: no one's giving them any legitimacy to be one. If they point guns to people, people are free to organize themselves and fig
753.
by snitko 14y ago
Wait, so if you say the likely equilibrium is no violence at all, what's bad about it? If violence-suppliers form a cartel and people are happy about the way it serves them - what's wrong with that? If some become unhappy, they do 2 things:
754.
by snitko 14y ago
I guess what he meant is that in a libertarian society corporations would not be able to lobby the government for special (monopoly) rights and privileges - because there would be no government to lobby. Corporations would have to rely sole
755.
by snitko 14y ago
So you still haven't come up with a monopoly example. Can you prove that monopolies would exist in a completely free market?
756.
by snitko 14y ago
You're assuming it's only the government which is interested in providing me the information about services I use and the environment that I live in. An implicit monopoly of information. But I want to ask you this question: can you come up
757.
by snitko 14y ago
I think you're assuming that violence is somehow more profitable than no violence. I disagree. In fact, I think it's the opposite: violence is much less profitable than a non-violent solution. Violence only becomes more profitable when you
758.
by snitko 14y ago
When you tackle a certain problem and try to apply a libertarian framework to it, odds are you have to check if it's an implicit monopoly that you're dealing with and go from there. In your particular example you're dealing with a city gove
759.
by snitko 14y ago
Ok, sure. Let's not argue then. I have a question though (and it's not intended to spark an argument), I'm just curious to know, how and why do you think people become libertarians?
760.
by snitko 14y ago
Good thing someone brought the non-aggression principle up. Personally, I don't believe in it. I mean, I think eventually the society becomes smart enough to understand aggression in any circumstances is both costly and immoral. However, I
761.
by snitko 14y ago
I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Because especially the latter has nothing to do with politics at all. Generally, I
762.
by snitko 14y ago
I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing co
763.
by snitko 14y ago
What makes me sad is that a lot of people, even here, discharge Ron Paul as some sort of crazy guy without even listening to what he says. In comments to this post "thesagan" wrote that some of his ideas are "batshit crazy" as if his ideolo
764.
by snitko 14y ago
If you have a marketable skill and there's little competition - I'm pretty sure you can negotiate whatever hours you want. If you have a competition, your options are decreased. If it happens so that your skills are not very marketable you
765.
by snitko 14y ago
Don't blame lawyers. This is a perfect example of the stupidity of the idea of anti-discrimination laws. The intentions may be noble, but the reality bites you in the ass.
766.
by snitko 14y ago
Your proposition ignores the demand part of the equation completely.
767.
by snitko 14y ago
When people say "it's profitable" I think what they really should say is that it's profitable for one group of individuals, when at the same time very unprofitable for the other group(s) of individuals (namely, consumers and victims). Moreo
768.
by snitko 14y ago
I can absolutely agree that the story is very disturbing, however I also believe that it is an Amazon's right as a private company to do whatever the hell it wants with products an services it provides. The problem is not that it can or can
769.
by snitko 14y ago
No, I'm awaiting a good opportunity to invest. If in my judgement there's currently nothing good on the market that I can invest into, why should I be paying the price? I don't quite understand. If you want my money, make something I want t
770.
by snitko 14y ago
Inflation is not the only reason why I want to spend/invest money now rather than save them. In fact, it's not even a good reason, because it forces me to spend money. Deflation doesn't discourage spending by itself. The price of holding to
771.
Bitcoin Non-Technical FAQ(blog.oleganza.com)
60 points by snitko 14y ago|33 comments
772.
by snitko 14y ago
"For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard and "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David D. Friedman.
773.
by snitko 14y ago
May I refer you to David D. Friedman and Murray Rothbard for explanations of how public property would be so much better off as private property and how protection can be both private and optional? I mean you can disagree after reading it,
774.
by snitko 14y ago
There's a meme among libertarians about people suggesting they go visit Somalia. Really, don't bring it up unless you're prepared to discuss it in detail.
775.
by snitko 14y ago
Even if you're right, it's edge cases that companies should care about. People who are not edge cases will comply anyway and use whatever is default, whereas it's people who are edge cases most likely to switch to a competitor (possibly lea
776.
by snitko 14y ago
Also, in my view, the problem with your argument is that your expectations of government (preventing exploitations) is rather different from reality (picking winners). Just because many people believe that government is supposed to do good,
777.
by snitko 14y ago
I don't see how staying in the office for 4 years practically indefinitely, makes you more resistant to exploit the opportunities it provides. On the other hand, when business does something customers don't like, it loses customers, money a
778.
by snitko 14y ago
You are assuming government is immune to all of the exploitation desires that businesses are not, and that is not true.
779.
by snitko 14y ago
I think you're missing the point about laws and democracy. Libertarianism assumes you have the least possible government and preferably none at all. You don't really need democracy when you can vote instantly with your wallet and you don't
780.
by snitko 14y ago
I bought Samsung Galaxy S3 recently, plugged it in via USB and was not able to browse it because, as far as I understood, MacOSX has no support for "media devices" whatever that is. I had to download some obscure Samsung "Kies" software th

More ›