On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2013/11/20 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > 2013/11/19 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2013/11/18 meekerdb <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 11/18/2013 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On 11/17/2013 4:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the >> >> >>>>>>>> government >> >> >>>>>>>> is >> >> >>>>>>>> not >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> trusted. However, it is not the government that is warning >> >> >>>>>>>>> us >> >> >>>>>>>>> about >> >> >>>>>>>>> global >> >> >>>>>>>>> warming. It is in the scientific research literature. You >> >> >>>>>>>>> didn't >> >> >>>>>>>>> find >> >> >>>>>>>>> lies >> >> >>>>>>>>> about drones or drugs or the Patriout act in Physical Review >> >> >>>>>>>>> or >> >> >>>>>>>>> even >> >> >>>>>>>>> in >> >> >>>>>>>>> arXiv. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> No, but then they come up with this plan >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> What plan? Where is it? As far as I know there is no plan >> >> >>>>>> whatsoever. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Here with "they" I mean the people with the most political clout, >> >> >>>>> access to the media an so on who campaign for the reduction of >> >> >>>>> CO2 >> >> >>>>> emissions. Their demand seems to be for the signing of a global >> >> >>>>> treaty. This is a demand for empowering governments to further >> >> >>>>> regulate economic activity, now at a global scale, and one of the >> >> >>>>> main >> >> >>>>> suggestions is some global tax based on carbon emissions. Is this >> >> >>>>> not >> >> >>>>> correct? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> That's the market based approach to reducing CO2 emissions by >> >> >>>> charging >> >> >>>> for >> >> >>>> the externalities. But there is no treaty even on the table to >> >> >>>> require >> >> >>>> any >> >> >>>> particular solution or even to enforce any degree of reduction. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>>>> that the way to solve the >> >> >>>>>>> problem is to give more power to the above-mentioned >> >> >>>>>>> government. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> So even the proposals don't give any new power to governments - >> >> >>>> they >> >> >>>> always >> >> >>>> had the power to tax. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> This is too simplistic. Taxes have a long and complicated history, >> >> >>> and >> >> >>> several types of taxes that are accepted today were very >> >> >>> controversial >> >> >>> not so long ago. For example, the income tax in the US came into >> >> >>> existence in 1913, with ratification of the 16th amendment. My >> >> >>> father >> >> >>> lived a good part of his life under the fascist regime in Portugal. >> >> >>> We >> >> >>> had a thriving match industry, so there was a tax on lighters. I >> >> >>> have >> >> >>> the license he had to carry in his pocket to use his lighter. This >> >> >>> tax >> >> >>> would now be illegal because of a UE treaty that forbids this type >> >> >>> of >> >> >>> protectionism. It was made redundant before that by the >> >> >>> post-revolutionary nationalisation and consequent destruction of >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> match industry. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Then, also in the UE, we saw the social security system turn into a >> >> >>> tax: first, people were convinced that they should put some money >> >> >>> aside and let the government take care of it, so that it is later >> >> >>> able >> >> >>> to provide you with a pension. Now that this system is collapsing, >> >> >>> existing pensions are being cut, future pensions are uncertain and >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> age of retirement is rising. Yet, people don't pay less to social >> >> >>> security. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The pattern seems to always be the same: an initial reasonable >> >> >>> plan, >> >> >>> then a slow slide down a long sequence of small "corrections" and >> >> >>> "mistakes" that eventually lead to pure obligation with nothing in >> >> >>> return. Now, most UE citizens are resigned to the idea that they >> >> >>> have >> >> >>> to pay taxes to make up for past mistakes and expect nothing in >> >> >>> return. This was attained by a process of slow cooking. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>>> You're protesting against a plan that you imagine. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Any >> >> >>>>>>> proposed solution that does not involve further government >> >> >>>>>>> intrusion >> >> >>>>>>> in our lives is rejected. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> What solution is that? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> More nuclear power and geo-engineering. Both these proposals >> >> >>>>> exists >> >> >>>>> and there is interest on the part of investors. They are always >> >> >>>>> met >> >> >>>>> with a lot of resistance from environmentalists. I'm not saying >> >> >>>>> that >> >> >>>>> all of this resistance is unjustified, caution is a good thing in >> >> >>>>> these matters, but I definitely see a lot of resistance that >> >> >>>>> comes >> >> >>>>> from some moral framework that sees these ideas as fundamentally >> >> >>>>> immoral, even more so if someone can profit from them. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Sure, there's a lot of luddite resistance fed by scares like >> >> >>>> Fukushima. >> >> >>>> The >> >> >>>> important role I see for government is driving the R&D to LFTRs. >> >> >>>> It's >> >> >>>> too >> >> >>>> big and too politically risky to expect private investment to take >> >> >>>> it >> >> >>>> on. >> >> >>>> It needs government funded and government protected development - >> >> >>>> just >> >> >>>> like >> >> >>>> the internet, spaceflight, uranium reactors, vaccination, >> >> >>>> intercontinental >> >> >>>> railroads, and just about any other really big technological >> >> >>>> development. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I'll comment on two: the internet and railroads. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The internet is the synergistic outcome of a number of >> >> >>> technologies. I >> >> >>> am fairly certain that no government desired the internet as it >> >> >>> exists >> >> >>> today. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> First, that's your supposition. If you named anything in the world >> >> >> "as >> >> >> it >> >> >> exists today" there would be some government, maybe even all people, >> >> >> who >> >> >> would want it to be different, not "as it exists today", in some >> >> >> respect. >> >> >> >> >> >> But it was created and developed by government funded organizations. >> >> >> By >> >> >> DARPA, by CERN. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> I can be fairly certain because they're using large chunks of >> >> >>> our money to try to make it go away in its current format. Many >> >> >>> different protocols were dreamt of. Creating a working internet >> >> >>> protocol does not take a genius. It just so happened that TCP/IP >> >> >>> gained popularity faster than other alternatives. A very great part >> >> >>> of >> >> >>> what makes the internet what it is today is open-source software. >> >> >>> Sure, many companies and government organisations got in that >> >> >>> action >> >> >>> too for a number of reasons. But we saw an entire unix kernel being >> >> >>> developed in front of our eyes by a Finnish kid and his followers. >> >> >>> I >> >> >>> remembered when this was laughed at, something that only a gigantic >> >> >>> serious effort by government and corporations could achieve. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So you want to denigrate the government's role because the >> >> >> government >> >> >> just >> >> >> created the market? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> That it >> >> >>> would only ever be a toy. Now it powers Google, the majority of >> >> >>> cell >> >> >>> phones and several governments run on it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, the majority of phones now use Android which was developed by >> >> >> Google >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Just for the record, android runs on linux kernel... android is >> >> > essentially >> >> > an user space layer on top of the linux kernel... Except that I >> >> > mostly >> >> > agree >> >> > with your position... This example is not something to show that >> >> > "free" >> >> > market works alone... no kernel was ever develop by government >> >> > anyway... >> >> > so >> >> > what ? >> >> >> >> My point is that the Linux kernel was developed by a community of >> >> volunteers asking nothing in return. The linux kernel is a >> >> tremendously complex piece of software, and people laughed when the >> >> effort begun. People still laugh at the idea that volunteers could >> >> tackle other complex problems, >> > >> > >> > Well linux was not the first kernel developed that way (BSD/Mach etc), >> > linux >> > is not at the start of the free software movement, the big difference is >> > linux had more success... but anyway this is not due to freemarket... >> >> Well you could argue that BSD has its origins in Berkley and DARPA, so >> Linux makes for a purer example. I actually prefer the BSD license, >> which I consider more free than the GPL, especially GPL v.3. But >> that's another flamewar :) > > > Maybe :) but it's essentially because of the GPL that linux had its > success... (and nearly no fork) hmm ok no flamewar.
I admit that the choice of license may have made a big difference. I don't mind really. I have a lot of sympathy for all these free software and open source efforts. >> >> >> >> >> >> or that there exists a sufficient >> >> number of altruistic people to do so. >> > >> > >> > What is free market having to do with that ? >> >> People often argue that without government nothing will be done for >> the good of the community, that people won't volunteer their time and >> money to better society and that cooperation will only happen for >> financial gain. This is an example that contradicts this idea and >> shows that the drive to contribute to society and cooperate for some >> cause is more innate to human nature than impositions from the >> government. > > > Ok... but that has nothing to do with freemarket... (or gorvenment)... As I > see it, you're more advocating some sort of anarchy system... unlike a > libertarian system... libertarianism use liberty as a cover, libertarianism > means the ones who have the money rules... it's not about liberty it's about > power... they try to make it looks like anarchy but it's not, anarchy means > without hierarchy, that's clearly not what libertarians advocate. I never claimed I was a libertarian. I am very suspicious of people who use such labels. I am anti-authoritarian and I do believe that decentralised and free monetary systems are a rational way to organise society without violence. I don't desire the "who has the money rules" situation. My position is that big government amplifies the power of money, instead of reducing it. I don't like Wall Street. I'm more of a Bitcoin kind of guy, if you get my meaning. Telmo. > Quentin > >> >> I claim that the most complex product of completely voluntary human >> cooperation did not happen in the context of the early Internet by >> chance. Beyond the obvious communication advantages, this was a new >> medium, completely free and unrestricted and full of possibilities. >> >> Telmo. >> >> > Quentin >> > >> >> >> >> This is a counter-example to >> >> these ideas. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to break into Apple's smartphone market. But so what? Digital >> >> >> computers >> >> >> were developed by government funding during and just after WW2. I >> >> >> never >> >> >> claimed that private enterprise didn't create things. I was just >> >> >> countering >> >> >> your claim that government just obstructs free enterprise and >> >> >> everything >> >> >> government does would be better done by the free market. It's not >> >> >> true >> >> >> because some projects are too big and involve too many >> >> >> legal/political >> >> >> problems for private enterprise to risk them. The intercontinental >> >> >> railroads are an example because it would have been very difficult >> >> >> for >> >> >> private companies to obtain the right-of-ways without government >> >> >> intervention. The Panama Canal is another good example. Sure, in >> >> >> theory >> >> >> they could have done by private enterprise, but in practice it >> >> >> probably >> >> >> wouldn't have happened or happened much later. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The initial history of the internet as we know it (circa '92 to >> >> >>> '95) >> >> >>> is a history of circumvention of red tape created by governments. >> >> >>> Monopolistic government-backed telecoms made data exchange >> >> >>> artificially expensive. It still does, by preventing long-range >> >> >>> radio >> >> >>> networks and open access points, purely for the purpose of the >> >> >>> protection of monopolies and total surveillance. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sure without the FCC everybody could just broadcast on whatever band >> >> >> they >> >> >> wanted - and all anybody would hear would be interference. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> >> >> Groups >> >> >> "Everything List" group. >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> >> >> send >> >> >> an >> >> >> email to [email protected]. >> >> >> To post to this group, send email to >> >> >> [email protected]. >> >> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> >> > Groups >> >> > "Everything List" group. >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> >> > send >> >> > an >> >> > email to [email protected]. >> >> > To post to this group, send email to >> >> > [email protected]. >> >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> >> Groups >> >> "Everything List" group. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> >> an >> >> email to [email protected]. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > Groups >> > "Everything List" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> > an >> > email to [email protected]. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
