WorBlux

People would stop telling me to cut my hair -yay! My shyness would be more socially acceptable. --yay! My analytic mind and approach would be much less socially accepted. -boo! Potential sexual partners might approach me -mixed bag Different job prospects - I think the same feild but different jobs within it would be seen more or less suitible for me. I'd be more grossed out by the idea of childbirth. I'd have to deal with more passive-aggressive BS. It'd be more accepted to share feeling with my friends. I could wear a skirt without being called gay. Ditto for pretty jewlery I would simultaneously love and hate high heels.

Most economic research depends on a praxeological explanation at some level or another, that is results tend to be interpreted on praxeological ideas and terms (mariginal utility, supply, demand, elasticity) and how they came together at some point in the past. but extrapolation is hard because the fundamental processes that shaped them are ordinal and ever changing. It may be heavily biased and make fallacious agruments (straw men and red herrings), but it is rational in the strict sense of the word.

Lets see -- parking minimums -- expands the space between places. Height restrictions --reduces density Single-use zoning. --increases the space between the types of spaces Large setbacks / yard requirements -- increases the space between places The used of eminent domain to build freeways. http://marketurbanism.com/ is a high quality blog on the topic. http://marketurbanism.com/2013/10/17/the-value-of-walkability/ 1 point in walkability tends to add $850 dollars to the value of a home.

Most of the Austrians do in fact do empirical research. What cracks me up is they take quotes of sentence fragments, not the complete sentence Anyways they confuse the random "austrian" on the Internet for the actual academic literature. They also confuse the theory itself, with makes no moral judgements. with the moral judgements that people might reasonably make when informed by the theory, and those just out there in left feild

For 70 years planners have been perusing policies that promote the automobile lifestyle.

Free shipping? How many hours will it take to install? Whats the charge per hour. Do you have an inverter? Batteries? Even the best battery banks cost about a dime USD per kWhr stored and discharged. Are you going to sell back to the grid -that requires a special meter? And when you sell to the grid you can really only count in the wholesale price rather than the retail price as the power company still has to distribute the power to someone else. Oh and solar cells degrade over time. Your lucky to have 50% capacity at the end of twenty years. The realities start stacking up. In some place you can make it work, especially in particular sunny area of the globe with high utility costs with new construction where you can roll the cost into a mortgage, and you can set up the angles for maximum efficiency. Instead of putting solar panel on your roof you may be better off painting it white. You can't really achieve criticality at that mass in a way that's controllable. But you can get them much smaller. 30MW plants about the size of a semi-trailer are feasible. Some places centralization makes sense. The land is simply too valuable to build windmills or square footage of a house too scarce to install a battery. It's not dense so it costs a lot to harness it wheras you can fit a lifetime's supply energy in of thorium or uranium (233 or 235) in the palm of your hand. Cheap energy saves lives. In addition cheap energy allows us to derive our biological energy from chemiosynthetic organisms rather only photosynthetic organisms reducing or eliminating damage to marginal land from cultivation, even perhaps allowing the human population grow to a trillion without adversely affecting natural ecosystems. An argument against current designs, not all nuclear. Many of the designs in the works have methods to quickly (and some of the passively) remove fuel from the core and passively cool the fuel for long periods of time.

Even if this is true, a monopoly has every incentive to rule in favor of itself. Second you've assumed that people will value maybe getting away with something more than their security agency suppressing crime which is unlikely. Third should some small actually adopt this model their costs would skyrocket as more and more claims proportionally are brought against their clients.

1. You can't just pour coffee out of the Internet. Being first would give you time to set up shops, supply chains, farms, and so one. It would take a competitor at least four years to be ready to compete. Even with stuff you can pour out of the Internet, being nearly instantaneous, fans can find you and spread the word quickly. And they just won't want the boot they'll want further commentary, sneak previews, merchandise, live performance, appearances and so on. The truth is that we are innovating at rates faster than ever before, Look at the adoption rates (time from introduction to one billion owners) of Radio Vs. Television Vs. PC Vs. Cell phone. New medicines may have decreased, but there has been a greater upswell in biochem and genomics that promise more target and individualized medicine. (which is very gummed up with patents though) If someone proves to me they can innovate in the area of business I were in, then I'd certainly consider hiring them (companies fight for the privilege of paying Linus Torvalds a salary to keep him working on his hobby project) but haven't paid him for this OS kernel I'm using. , Wages for labor are only ever due based on a contract, exertion alone commands no reward as a matter of course. Reputation's not going to work as a general solution as copyright because noone really cares, and if they did, people would just adopt methods that were anonymous for sharing content. You might get a publishers guild or craft union to set up guidelines, but it would suffer the same instability as any other cartel, unless there was no demand for infringed material. If there is in fact benefit for creating the restriction as this level you should see it seek it's equilibrium such that you may see fair-go policies which would mean a small time frame compared to current practises though. Reputation might show a bigger splash when protecting trade secrets, but you also have the employment contract to leverage to protect them as well. 2. The foundation was created before there was really any notion of it as a system. 1. Monastaries in favor of less labor and more prayer developed methods of agricultural improvement. 2. The medival church create renewed interest in Aristotelean enquiry. 3. The black death chips away at the fuedal system by eroding the base. 4. The flight into cities, made possible by #1 and partially #2, 5. New craft and trade association increase trade locally and among nations. Then people started asking "what the heck is all this trade going on all about?". It happened simply because it worked, The late sixteenth century with the School of Salmenca is where the prototypical formal market theories first arose. 3. A lot of opinion indeed. Anarchy will not be a utopia, and people will still be left with the practical problem of how to turn ideas into money. Society might be better off having given Mr. Tesla or resources, or he might have delved to deep into his more esoteric and ceased productive discovery, or perhaps in his zeal for free power for everyone accidentally electrocute everyone instead. But if I then giver the book to someone else and they reproduce it? If you want to rent a book, you should just figure out how to do that. Reader that you control, and that you can disable remotely and demand returned to you at any time, use strong asymmetric cryptography to deliver the content and contract a group of authors for exclusive publication.... but it's very hard to secure system you don't physically control access too, and you can always take pictures. (the analogue hole) So an author is free to publish in whatever manner they desire, but technological measures or dense legalese may alienate the very people that you want as customers. Personally I am loathe to purchase DRM'd anything unless I know how to circumvent it.

The choice of the Light Water Reactor (LWR) was driven by wartime requirements of plotonium production. The LWR is a disaster waiting to happen without extensive and intensive intervention to keep reactor conditions from going supercritical. The create wastes that are too 'hot' to handle for 10,000 years, a time period that has never been successfully engineered for. It burns about 0.5% of it's fuel before reprocessing is required, but the high transuranics prevent successfull reprossing. Back at the beginning there were other promising designs that were were set aside in favour of the LWR because of it's potential to create plutonium. The gen IV reactors are much more promising designed to completely burn trans-uranics (reduces wastes by 99% and reducing the holding required to two centuries), and many of them are designed to be walk-away safe, where cooling failure activate secondary measure to stop and contain the nuclear reaction. (The salt plug in the LFTR)

He does strike me as awfully effeminate, but that's not why I don't like him. He strikes my as self-involved in the extreme. Strike John Lenon as the counterpoint.

1. You haven't rebutted any of the facts I've presented regarding this topic. You're just appealing to a principle which is the very thing in question. "Was their first recipe, of economic value? Did they deserve to be rewarded for their innovation?" We don't disagree on facts here. He could very likely command a price for transferring his knowledge of the process, and he has no general obligation to disclose his process. . Being the first to market is a huge advantage, that is the reward. The simplest case is the clearest, and most innovations that we use and cherish are simple or stepwise improvements from the existing body of knowledge. "To me, this is as much a core argument of capitalism as the idea that skilled labor is of value." First capitalism is an imprecise word, that means many different things. Secondly that's going at it backwards. You must pay wages for labor because of the disutility of labor. Skilled labor commands higher wages because it is more rare, or requires specialized skills and training that not everyone possesses, such that at the end of the day skilled labor is merely highly productive labor. And a person's labor can only do one job at a time. To produce something they must refrain from producing all other good and services that they are capable of. An idea or process can be put to all of it's potential uses at once. 2. Take it from first principles please. Your evidence that capitalism (in this case taken to mean the market system) was designed rather something emergent from the category of action? Two issues that I take with that option. 1. Everybody knows that all nerds are sexy; period, no qualifications 2. Capitalism improves the reproductive fitness of almost any person living under it and the traits it favors isn't so much creativity per se as EQ (people skills) and foresight. 3. Tesla's autobiography mentions money 6 times, and dollars twice. It doesn't really paint the picture of a man who desired money. He filed many patents and they really didn't help him much. Look at the patent application for his turbine. It was invented to reach the maximum theoretical efficiently rather than practical use. He was obsessed with proving the science more so than making thing people might find useful. While the theoretical approach may be more useful in the long run , people of the time supported the guy in it for the practicality. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just a different preference. "The goal of capitalism ..." Capitalism wasn't a thing with thought, goals, or desires last time I checked.

1. From Human Action p. 128 "A thing rendering such unlimited services is, for instance, the knowledge of the causal relation implied. The formula, the recipe that teaches us how to prepare coffee, provided it is known, renders unlimited services. It does not lose anything from its capacity to produce however often it is used; its productive power is inexhaustible; it is therefore not an economic good. Acting man is never faced with a situation in which he must choose between the use?-value of a known formula and any other useful thing." Someone might pay me to teach them how to make coffee, but once they know, they never have to account for the use of that knowledge for fear of using it up. I might prefer access to a good album over an hour's pay, but strictly speaking I'm not consuming the music but rather the tangible form in which it is expressed. 2. Sorry I wasn't clear here. I absolutely believe it's possible to artists to make a profession of their art without copyright, it was just laid out as a worst-case scenario. See "Against Intellectual Monopoly" http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm for some possible models. "Why would anyone want there to be less high quality works of art available?" -- because the alternative is worse. To take a phrase from the objectivist's phrasebook; Compared to What? And yes a very similar argument was used by communists when communism was criticized for a lack of industrial innovation, and they weren't entirely wrong. There were Russian scientists that added some very useful things to humanities body of knowledge. The problem with communism isn't so much a lack of innovation per se, it's that without a price system nobody knows whether any new methods of manufacture makes a better trade off between the factors of production to satisfy the desires of people. Say a communist vodka bottle plant is playing around on his 20% time and discovers an additive that increases the strength of glass by 200%. They want to change their process to use the additive, but have no idea weather the added material to the glass is worth more or less than the difference in vodka lost due to bottle breakage. 3. You didn't answer my question regarding the dispute resolution manual. Even though a thing can be argued doesn't make it correct. Your starting the argument in the middle. I admit that if property in intellectual matters (copyright and patent) turned out to be necessary and good, then the homesteading principle would be at least as fine as any other principle to settle ownership, however it's precisely that matter that you must prove before appealing to the homesteading principle. And it's a pretty tough sell, as the worst case scenario I mentioned is fairly mild compared to the worst case scenario of not apportioning physical stuff. Physical stuff is inherently rivalrous between uses, while idea are inherently compatible between uses. Second as far as homesteading goes, the type of labor matters, and labor alone is insufficient. A claim or intent to exclusive use of the land is necessary. A such labor which expresses that intent more obviously is superior in establishing property to labor which expresses it subtlety or not at all . Publishing or publicly marketing embodying and idea is opposed to the desire of exclusivity.

If this was a trust properly speaking then the bank does have a duty of care to protect the assets held in trust.

Hemp fiber - Very high quality, but trees can grow on very marginal lands. Market for hemp paper is mostly saturated. Hemp food - very nutritious acceptable yeild Hemp oil - yeild is low, you'd never make a profit burning it. Hemp Biomass -- significantly better than anything else outside of the tropics, but there is no good way currently to translate that into fuel. It's a good crop, but not a miracle.

It's certainly complicated Sense this is a legal question, let's use legal definitions A crime is a tort against the body politic. As we reject political bodies here, we can skip straight to torts. A tort involves (1) some specific act or commission, (2) contrary to law (3) that causes (4) a particular loss, harm, or injury to another. A tortfeasor is a person who commits the act even if that other chooses not to present a case to the court. So the tort is in the act, and the act is an objective thing as is the loss. However now for the tricky part. Elements 2 and 3 are necessarily matters of legal opinion for which courts tend to recognize their own opinions or those of other courts so legally a tort doesn't occur unless they say it did. So it's not exactly one or the other. So while the tort rests in the specific act, a court won't speak on the matter without an accusation of such and act being presented such that they can try the evidence's sufficiency to meet the standard of the court. So while we can't call an act a tort in the full sense without a legal opinion backing us up, we can still refer to acts as torts by analogy. This act is like other acts which have been found tortuitous.

Intellectual property are by definition not economic goods. When you use them they aren't "used up", and subsequently can be used any number of times. There is no need to allocate the use of an idea between competing uses, because additional uses do not diminish the original idea. Second creative works would not disappears even if it became impossible to make a living from them. The creative drive is part of what it means to be human, and you would still have works from amateurs and those with patrons (or very tolerant spouses). Yes you may see fewer high-quality works available but creativity wouldn't disappear. While I agree that maker of a creative work has the right to sell it fixed in tangible form, it is by no means an exclusive right, and he or she may charge whatever fee a seller will agree to. The word publish means to make public, and once you've released an idea publicly you've given up any reasonable claim of exclusivity. It's out there for anyone to take up and fix for themselves. Let's take as an example a man who published a magnificent manual on a formal, decentralized dispute resolution method, that was able objectively to solve disputes by mutual agreement 10% of the time more than any current system. Later this author realizes that agorists are using his method to lubricate exchanges drugs and firearms on the black market. Horrified he withdraws the manual from publication. Is it them immoral to copy it? I think not. This brings doubt into the moral thesis that the obligation is from the consumer to the creator. Instead I think is the relation of the consumer to his or her own desires and self-esteem. "Yes I like this work, and have affirmed my desire by some positive action to encourage, participate in, or show appreciation of said work." Buying a discrete product offered for sale is an easy way to do this, but isn't the only way. And I don't think the morality of this is established in individual acts of consumption, but as a whole, and in relation to the means a person has available.

Define your terms! Intellectual property has been used to refer to a hodgepodge of stuff, for copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. All of the things you mention fall under copyright, which is statutory bugaboo and there is no moral reason as to obey such bugaboo. What I will say is that it is good to affirm your individuality as it manifests in your tastes and desires by sharing, performing or being a patron of the arts you like. How it manifests should be an act of discretion, there is no one true way in this matter.

"One of his central claims was that Bitcoin must increase the division of labor to qualify as money, claiming that it does not." Bitcoin reduces or at least potentially reduces the coase costs of transaction to something like 1/100 of a percent on average. The payment is final facilitating gray and black market transactions.

The duty of a Godparent is to help direct a child in the faith. It really is supposed to be a catholic posistion if it is a catholic baptism. @ That Popular Anti-Social Guy "I don't know the correlation, but basically the cracker you refused to eat is called communion and it is supposed to symbolize his flesh. FRIGGIN WEIRD!!! I know! But that's basically what you implicitly said in not eating the cracker. You were refusing to become a symbolic cannibal, and why that was offensive was because after all the weird ass rituals during church, to continue to validate your "faith" is to eat the flesh of dead Jewish zombie." Catholics are even weirder in that it's not considered symbollic and that the bread is transubsantiated into the body of christ. He wasn't mad because she didn't have his faith, he was mad because he perciever her as profaning his deity. Some satanists actually do pocket the hosts to use in thier own rituals. Anyway a priest should explain that the communion is a catholic only thing, and demonstrate the local opt-out whenever there's a good chance non-catholics are in the pews.

Unionize, if the market is hampered in favor of employers or the barrier of entry in the industry is high, form cooperative industries where it is not.

Go to the source. David Hume's essay on the topic is helpful. There is a fundamental or seemingly fundamental difference between descriptive statements. "the scientific method is how we achieve truth, so you ought to use the scientific method if you want to be true?" Is still a fundamentally descriptive statement, of how a value relates to a causal relationship.

"George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin who was found innocent of murder, was arrested again" A court never finds a person innocent. He was found to be not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The question of innocence (freedom from wrongdoing) is not even considered.