2,253 karma · joined February 5, 2012
Email: avp-13@yandex.ru
Example: you start a project on something like kickstarter, people contribute the amount of money they like. Then after the project reaches its goal, the research starts. If goal isn't reached then people get their money back.
There is even a term for this: "laissez faire capitalism". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
> Isn't the basis of capitalism itself wholly dependent on the governmental construct called currency?
No, we've used gold for hundreds of years without any government intervention. Fiat money is relatively recent invention.
More recent example: bitcoin, which works as currency without any governments.
> It's hard to imagine anything approximating the modern idea of trade without those functions.
Yes, but these services can be provided through free market. They'll become more cheap and available. Take for example government-run courts: they are slow, inefficient and expensive(which is the reason why patent trolling is viable: in many cases it is cheaper to hand some money to at troll instead of trying to resolve a conflict using government system).
True, such ideas may seem radical to you(No government, won't there be violence and chaos?!). If you want to know how such system will work, take a look at Murray Rothbard's awesome book "For a new liberty: libertarian manifesto" mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf . There is a chapter "The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts", which you'll enjoy.
vimdiff =(ls /bin) =(ls /usr/bin)
You can use it even from bash:
zsh -c 'vimdiff =(ls /bin) =(ls /usr/bin)'
So I'll just leave it there: http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html
What we need is multiple court systems, multiple police systems, etc. And what's more important -- the ability to freely choose between them. Just like you're able to choose Pepsi over Coke or to choose Google over Bing, or to choose one bank over another.
This isn't easy system to achieve, but mostly because a lot of people are skeptical.
More on this topic: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
curl -I http://lurkmore.to/Конопля
Yeah, happens to me all the time. :(
> 1-2 self help books every week
Give "Feeling Good" a try then, I don't read as much books as you do, but I think "FG" is a cut above the other books I've read. With the exception of "When panic attacks(also by D. Burns). While it was only somewhat useful for procrastination, I found this book extremely useful for other problems. The main thing about this book is cognitive techniques, if you apply them(AND read the book) then you gain 10x more value than by just reading the book.
And if you do find the book useful, you may find CBT therapist(which was already suggested in this discussion). A friend of mine did so recently, and she is much better now(though she was clinically depressed).
Chances are that you're depressed, OP. And even if you're not, the book is related anyway: there is a chapter specifically on practical methods to beat procrastination. I personally get mixed results: sometimes these methods work, sometimes they don't -- though mostly because I fail to apply them consistenly. I recommend this book because other(not related to procrastination) cognitive techniques described in this book works great for me.
10 days ago I invented my own personal method to beat procrastination(this book influenced me btw). I am aware of the following things about myself:
- Motivation comes after action: I don't particularly feel doing something(hence procrastination), but once I start, it gets more enjoyable after a short time
- I like score-keeping in games(as many other people - no wonder game designers employ scores!)
- I am motivated if there is a reward.
So here is my method. I give myself one score point if either I stop procrastinating(and proceed to do something meaningful) or if I feel an urge to start procrastinating during some activity. I use a simple app on my smartphone to keep total score(which is 113 as of now). I've set up the following reward for myself: each 10 points = 1 visit to a restaurant(I enjoy dining at restaurants but usually I am too lazy to go to one).
I've used this method only for everyday stuff like washing dishes, cleaning up my apartment(which was complete mess), doing laundry, etc. Sometimes I award myself 5 points washing particularly nasty dish, and sometimes I get only 2 points doing 30 minutes of cleanup. I was really surprised to see that my invention works, and now I hope to use it for my job(like OP I am not fully productive at it, there is room for improvement).
This is simply untrue, there is a great book by Terence Kealey: "Sex, science and profits", you should check it: http://amzn.com/B0045JKEQ2
> So your plan is to incentivize private R&D by abolishing IP. Hahahahahaha.
No, private R&D do not require additional incentives beyond those arising naturally by market forces.
The same is true in your system, substituting "afford" for whatever verb is better suited for your proposed system.
> Also the government should not leave R&D
Government leaving R&D to private sector(which is major source of funding even now, at least in the USA) would be the great decision. It will stop crowding out resources from private R&D, thus making R&D more effective and more beneficial to economy.
Patents are the separate issue. There is the flaw in your logic. Patents are government granted. You view them as undesirable, but your solution is even more government. However, the logical solution would be abolishing patents.
> No sane person will buy brain surgery if he has no problems even if it 1$ and he has no choice but to buy one at whatever cost if he has.
So what? Also, if there are multiple methods to treat his conditions, he may choose more expensive(or more cheap) method. Also, he may choose not to have brain surgery -- and sadly suffer or die. Socialism is hardly a solution here, if state will fail to provide necessary amount of surgeons to fulfill demand for them, then people will die too(not mentioning that there always be better methods and better qualified surgeons, so you won't be able to achieve the same level of healthcare anyway).
It doesn't really affect my argument(if all states didn't collapse into one over past couple of centuries, then multi-government system is quite stable), but I am quite interested in the source(out of pure curiousity).
> The USSR is a special case because it was actually based on ideology and not just strength
Almost all states utilize some sort of ideology. In fact, I agree that ideological component was really strong in the USSR, but the USSR did use raw power - it annexed baltic states for example.
Also, there are other examples: Czechoslovakia, South & North Sudan.
> We can equally ask why, if your libertarian philosophy is so naturally stable, it has not emerged into the world yet?
I would define stable as "won't collapse once established". The problem of stability is orthogonal to the problem of establishing. It is not easy to organize a market anarchy when all territory is occupied by the state(note: you cannot easily organize another state either, though existing states are relatively stable). In past there were more or less "anarcho-capitalist" societies which lasted for thousands of years: medieval iceland, medieval ireland.
Iceland: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Iceland#Medieval_Iceland_and_Anar...
Ireland: http://pucksmith.blogspot.ru/2013/02/libertarian-ancient-ire...
> The argument is that if you eliminated the government, the alternative (private dictatorships) would be even less accountable.
If you are right and private defense organization would collapse into one, then why there is no single government? (Moreover, some of states(like USSR) get decomposed into few more, so the number of states even grows). Why do you assume there is no reason to prevent a number of PDO turning into violent one?
There are great books: Murray Rothbard's "For a new liberty: libertarian manifesto": http://mises.org/document/1010/
David Friedman's "The machinery of freedom": http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
How do other languages solve this problem?
> or memory leaks when you need an object to live beyond the current scope.
Have you ever heard about smart pointers? They take most pain from dealing with pointers. Managing circular references remains a bit complex though.
There are speculations that he may be outside of transit zone, in some hotel under guard(still without crossing border): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732387390457857...
This explains absence of photos.
This is because the prices for drugs are artificially inflated by prohibition. Make drugs legal, or -- at least -- make methadone replacement therapy readily available, and price problem solved.
Is it fake document? I wonder why there is no photo, no signature or stamps.
Or is it just ecuador playing safe?
Coercion isn't the only way to help people. And absence of coercion isn't "every man for himself"
The originally announced path was: HK -> Russia -> Havana -> Venezuela (probably: -> Ecuador).
I am wondering if the US pressed hard on Cuba and if Snowden can reach Ecuador on a private plane.
Here is my crude translation of the relevant part:
"Considering possible extradition somewhere, we can extradite people only to the countries which have extradition treaty with us. We don't have such agreement with the USA. Snowden haven't committed any crimes in the territory of Russia".
Note: Putin hasn't used the exact formal term "extradition". So he may have spoken of some other type of agreement.
Also, there is a wikileaks twit: "Cancelling Snowden's passport and bullying intermediary countries may keep Snowden permanently in Russia. Not the brightest bunch at State.".
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/349556329645473792
So he remains in Russia, and he probably has problem getting to Ecuador.
Lavrov actualy said "Snowden hasn't crossed the russian border", not "has not entered Russia".
The quote from the article in OP's link: > Correspondents say Mr Lavrov's comments suggest that Mr Snowden remained airside after landing in Moscow, and so has technically never entered Russian territory.
During last couple of days there were a number of news telling that Snowden flew to Moscow but never crossed the russian border(he had no visa anyway). The only new information in bbc's article is Lavrov's confirmation.
So: Snowden (probably) crossed HK border before flight to Moscow, but after arrival in Moscow he (probably) hasn't crossed the border.
I assume you meant "your home" != USA. But even now many people still seek asylum in the USA.
As for Russia, it is certainly more free than in 70s, but a lot of people run from Russia because of prosecution for political reasons.
The whole concept of "legality" is (sadly) appropriated by governments. The government invents the rules for itself and other organizations and individuums. They ca invent whatever rules they like. Gulag was perfectly legal. Nazi concentration camps were perfectly legal.
It is stupid to assume that one's actions are bad just because they are against the law.