sophrosyne42

You take it for granted that everyone agrees with you that what you regard as addictive or radical should be restricted by the government. These are not facts-of-the-matter, but opinions, and opinions for which there is disagreement, and for which people deserve the opportunity to decide for themselves and make a decision. You want to make that decision for them. You are a disguised dictator and fascist. Simple-as.

Ok, take it the other way.

You want to marry someone? Make sure the government approves for your safety.

Want to make dinner? First you have to send the recipe to your local overseer with proof of your safe cooking credentials or you will have to pay heafty fines for noncompliance.

Want to make love, read a book, speak your mind, make a contract with someone, work the job you want? Sorry, you can't decide that yourself, first the politburo must approve it.

Sounds great!

Similarly, I do not understand the willful ignorance and bootlicking attitude of those who want to support coercing others into sharing orivate information.

The reasons are mentioned every single time these laws are brought up, I can only assume you're willfully ignoring the concerns people have:

It's a security black hole, increasing our attack surface astronomically.

It causes undue compliance costs for websites to meet basic security standards.

It does not reliably prevent the determined teenager from bypassing these restrictions, e.g. with a vpn, but imposes enormous costs on allegedly a nontarget demograpgic (e.g. everyone else). Small benefit with a large cost is a bad policy.

The problem is entirely manufactured by bureaucrats, the public is concerned with gas prices and making ends meet. The parents that are concerned about their child's internet access can and do take the appropriate precautions because child controls already exist.

Whatever justification is given, the end result is mass surveillance, with the expected consequences in reduction of personal and social liberties. This is nothing to scoff at.

That's more of a problem on the distro side, no?

Ah yes, the classic fascist ploy of... being concerned about propaganda...

Because the prices of ddr5 are causing people to use substitutes

Framework has a fingerprint sensor. [1]

[1] https://frame.work/products/fingerprint-reader-kit?v=FRANTD0...

I love when tech bros think they can make up a new groundbreaking theory about a topic, in this case economics, they demonstrate zero knowledge in. You're definitely projecting on the confusion point

> It can simultaneously be true that the populated areas of the Amazon where deliberately and carefully managed by the population and that the Amazon was largely untouched for any other reason.

Certainly, though nothing about the quoted fact that 97% of forest was uninhabited should lead us to make statements like "the pristine untouched Amazon idea is a European myth", nor does it give any information to go off of regarding their possible knowledge of environmental engineering.

Bro has never played the thousands of shitty visual novels. Hell even from software games, which are beautifully well designed, are technically embarrassing

Most europeans love their chains, they call it freedom as a coping mechanism

First mover advantage is theoretically only a short-term advantage. Long-term revenues come from entrepreneurship, and a first mover may or may not better insight into long-term market wants than later entrants.

Copyright is not a way to compensate for innovation. Innovation is compensated by being first to market. The specific rent that copyright causes is due to holding the copyright and restricting the produced supply. Copyright provides compensation even while mantaining the status quo and not doing any innovation, just by holding the intellectual property. Without copyright, there is a specific revenue for bringing something to market, and that revenue disappears as the new becomes old. Since the specific revenue is bringing something new to market innovation is compensated.

Intellectual property creates compensation without a corresponding benefit to the public.

Edit: to add to this, the existence of copyright today does not show it has been effective for creating innovation. You need a counterfactual for that, which you did not provide.

Sure, and I say we should exclude a system of rights and privileges which involves intellectualnproperty

There are sounds in sanskrit that don't exist in Hindi, including vocalizations that exist in Sanskrit which are omitted in Hindi for the same glyphs. Additionally, Sanskrit meter has pretty specific rules on which should be stressed and unstressed, when to have pitch changes, and the length of each sound.

Nobody has a right to have an economic value for what they sell. That is a special privilege, not a right, and harms everyone for the enrichment of the privileged

Whats the difference between a siphonophore and a single organism? Aren't all the organs of an organism genetically identical, specialized, fused together, and functionally dependent on each other?

China regularly conducts military, even live fire, exercises in the waters the South China Sea and surrounding waters, fishes and uses these water illegally, it helps Russia with its war against Ukraine, has provided assistance to Iran and continues to do so, has set up illegal policing units inside of other countries, conducts regular espionage, influence campaigns, propaganda, and infiltrates the political structures of other countries, and more. Unlike much (though not all) of what you blame the US for, these are all direct decisions by the state China rather than developments in its respective market by private actors.

China's hostility is not hypothetical. The US's hostility is not universal. I think my point about ignorance or propaganda is proven by your statement.

We are hostile to each other. It's ignorant or propagandistic to pretend it is only one sided. The concern is valid, if vague and unproven

You are talking about creating a big moat, which might be a worse precedent than removing fable access altogether.

"Most economically" means to satisfy the desires of the buyers without impairing the satisfaction considered more important. It has public benefit built in.

It comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of how the market operated. Profits only come from exchange. It is more accurate to say profits are given than extracted.

The existence and polularity of Christian socialist movements in Europe contradicts this thesis strongly.

I would like a solution that was itself not largely written by an AI

Seems more of a moral hazard of government intervention than of ventures whose economies of scale demand large market cap to most economically serve customer needs.

> Money is used by loaning it out, which requires no effort

Money is a medium of exchange. It is used by exchanging it for something else. A loan involves trading money in the present, which is more valuable, for money in the future. What produces value here is surrendering present goods indirectly through the intermediary of money. The creditor gives up consumption so that others can consume or produce earlier than they otherwise could have in absence of the loan. This is the value produced by loans in the eyes of the debtor.

> Now you're getting it!

Notice how any market automatically involves said accounting immediately when money is used. Your earlier insistence that markets and capitalism are distinct cannot be maintained.

Starmer is a Fabian. He is textbook, self identified left and socialist. He is pretty much a poster child for leftism.

> The social costs of gambling, particularly compulsive gambling, cannot be so easily dismissed.

You might have noticed that I was not dismissing the costs of gambling. I was pointing out that merely pointing to the cost does not establish that a thing should not exist or that it should be regulated. Just as pointing to the benefit does not establish the opposite. Rather, that depends on whether one regards the benefits as worth the costs, which is not something established scientifically, but is a political matter based on your preferences and ideology.

> The rules and conditions of the game must be fair, even if the outcome of the game isn’t.

What counts as fair depends on the standard you use. I say what is fair that which serves a social function. Insider trading serves a social function because it more efficiently communicates knowledge about production to others. The arbitrage of insider trading which people abhor motivates insiders to eliminate those information asymmetries by engaging in insider trading. The specific profit that insider trading endows to insiders which people lambast as unfair is, in fact, the source of its fairness, because it communicates knowledge previously unknown to the market.

Communication of knowledge is also a productive activity. Laws which restrict it are unfair because they preserve or limit the means by which information asymmetries are eliminated. Laws against insider trading force information asymmetries to remain, causing a permanent rent to exist. The insiders, rather than reaping a temporary profit that communicates information, now are motivated to benefit from their information in ways that do not share it with society at large; their insider information becomes an economic rent, but one without any social function. This is quite unfair.

The social function of prediction markets is similar to that of insider trading. If you want to perpetuate unfair rentseeking, then please go ahead and regulate it.

Despite your reply obviously not being good faith, I will correct errors for others.

> Housing is not an asset to society or the economy, it's a drain that wastes money on preserving human life.

You are equivocating between asset in the sense of 'generally useful thing', and the sense I used above which is a capital good. Housing is obviously a useful thing and necessary, just as all other consumptive goods like food, clothing, etc. That makes it an 'asset' in the former sense to people (there is no such thing as useful to the economy, which is just an abstraction). But housing, food, and clothing are not assets in the latter sense. I.e., paying for housing is a consumptive act and not a productive act. There is nothing good or bad about either, the distinction is simply a distinction of economic function. Eating is important, but eating uses up resources; it is consumption. Cooking is important, but it is not eating, you don't get anything out of it until you eat; it is production. Both rely on each other, neither can be given up completely without harm.

Thus, a proper balance must be struck, because it would be foolish and self-destructive to only consume. If there was only consumption, then this would simply sacrifice your future and you would not be able to survive after you have used up what was produced before. The question is about whether you want a stable, regular, and lasting way to be able to have valuable things like housing, food, and clothing. To do that, you have to refrain from consuming your entire stock of assets, you have to refrain from using up all the resources you have. But that is what you would to if you took all the capital that companies have saved up and consumed it. The purpose of my original post was to point out that you can't look at production as if it were consumption, they have different roles and if you mistake production as an opportunity to consume, it is self-destructive.

Replying by ignoring this distinction and instead making a strawman will not prevent your perspective from being self destructive.

Then capitalism cannot exist and never has, because there is no such thing as something which produces wealth merely by possession. Mere ownership (as in a legal title) does not and cannot yield an income. To have a yield, something must be put to use. Without a use, there is no yield. Capital (in the sense of the monetary value of assets) is merely an index for the utility of assets in producing a yield. There is nothing special about the yield of capital; there is properly speaking no yield to capital at all, only a yield for the assets which the capital indexes. Entrepreneurs gain wealth by choosing which uses to put assets at their disposal. It is only when assets are put into production that they yield a profit or loss. And wealth accumulates only when there is sustainable profits. Mere posession would not involve exchange, let alone production, and therefore could not yield any profit. There is no "free" or "automatic" generation of income. It is the result of conscious activity on part of the owner, as is capital itself.

The distinction between capitalism and earlier forms of production is that money provides a means to index the yield of assets by capitalizing the value of those assets. The ability to quantitatively track the yield provides the ability to determine whether you are able to replace the asset or if you are consuming it. Accumulation can be planned by resolving to consume less than the yield of the asset. Capital and capital accounting, too, has existed nearly as long as civilization has existed. But the cause of the yield is in principle no different from the yield of resources in pre-history, which is refraining from consuming more than you produce. What is unique is the ability to determine the economic yield of things quantitatively, not procedure by which wealth accumulates.