yossarian1408

7 ms·

31.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
Zimbabwe, Argentina, off the top of my head
32.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
Such a twisted view. If someone works hard their whole life, and wants their hard-earned (and already taxed) money/investments to give their children a leg-up, who are you to say no? So they waste half a million on a ritzy house, or sp
33.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
Depends on what you think the objectives were. Did the USA want to add another star to the Star Spangled Banner? Then yeah, they lost. But if the objective of the USA was to prevent a domino of communism taking over all of South-East Asia,
34.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
you're right, my bad
35.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
Except the limited-time monopoly becomes an until-the-end-of-time monopoly, and has a more toxic effect on innovation and creativity than what would exist in its absence.
36.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
Liberty does not mean freedom. Actually, the positive freedom you want for would come at cost of the negative liberties of other individuals. And an iPhone being your property does not change the properties of the iPhone you bought. You can
37.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
Good accounting, bad economics >In a typical transaction, no market value is created.[1] If I give you an apple and you give me an orange, the total amount of fruit in the economy remains constant. We can’t create fruit by bartering with
38.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
Except there are no negative rights being infringed upon here. You can hardly appeal to natural law for the right to publish what you want on someone else's platform. Liberty is defined as being 'free from', not 'free to
39.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
And how are profits gained? Ideally, in providing goods or services of value to society. In a competitive free market the profit incentive is actually the 'who can do the most good for society' incentive.
40.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
You don't have to do business on the App store. You don't have to launch a startup on the App store. You can buy any device you want, and if there isn't currently one sold that meets your specific criterion, society might be
41.
by yossarian1408 5y ago
It seems a fatal flaw of a system of government where my liberty might be at stake merely due to apathy of the citizenry. And it seems so much easier to excite the passions of a mob, than to engage the rational capacity of your fellow count
42.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
Sure, it's real, but it is not affected by scarcity. Monopolies are never a good idea, they suit oligarchs at the expense of mankind. First-movers already have an advantage in the market, this seems to be a natural incentive for R&
43.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
He means idea in the broader sense of nonphysical concept. For example, the patent for a drug is not private property in the same way that a plot of land is. One is a physical entity which can only be owned/utilised by one person or gr
44.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
My guess would be something to do with the algorithm. Spam random words to trigger greater visibility in search results, boost 'engagement' metric - today's bump comment.
45.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
That is a very interesting idea. I never considered that freedom can either contain or exclude liberty, depending on who you are talking to. But i'm still pretty sure that you can't confuse the term 'liberty', as it has
46.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
The confusion comes from the conflation of 'liberty' and 'freedom' as meaning the same thing. Your "stupid redneck" is right if by 'freedom' he really means 'liberty', and to most people the
47.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
They should not do anything inside the apps on Appstore. If you make a claim, you have to back it up with reasons. Your statement is not self-evident.
48.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
Why not?
49.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
No it isn't. It's 50%. Also, consumers can choose to move away from iOS.
50.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
Why not? If Instagram or Apple censors certain content, consumers can choose to move to Snapchat or Android, etc. If a government censors certain content, that's the end of the story.
51.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
The comment I was replying to mentioned it being noble for a woman to starve herself to give $25 to a stranger. I disagree, and I pointed out the contradiction of praising sacrifice while disparaging self-interest, when the two are not poss
52.
by yossarian1408 6y ago
Not related to the article, however the third paragraph of your comment touches on a controversial idea, so I'll add another perspective. On the idea of sacrifice as virtuous. Sacrifice is only compatible with selfishness. This is beca