felipeko

Yet most patented inventions are pretty obvious on how to copy without the need to look at the patent, same with this case.

So we have no benefit of "open access to the mechanism" but with the deleterious effect of the "temporary (1/5 of a long human life) monopoly".

It is a good thing to be encouraged to saving instead of spending.

No one needs incentive to spend. You will spend if you have plenty to spend. Having a currency which gains in value will take you there.

They can make this difference disappear by accepting bitcoin then.

There's no "could be" here. Not wanting to go to jail is a subjective preference.

That most people prefer the same thing, does not make value objective.

If it did, Bitcoin would also have "objective value" from its scarcity, difficulty of confiscation, ease of move between borders, and many other properties which are preferred by most.

Value is always and everywhere a subjective phenomenon.

Value is subjective.

For me, Bitcoin has value because it can't be inflated, and I can carry it on my head over any country's frontier without governments harassing me because of it.

Sure, Bitcoin is a means to an end, I can only "use" it by exchanging it for something else, but so is any other currency.

Yes, that is my understanding.

But I'm asking in the case of naked short, which is what is being defended as "superior system" in this thread.

But it will make it more expensive than otherwise to raise capital. That can make or break any company.

And what happens in the shareholder meeting?

Would the previous majority shareholder group lose their majority even if they had sold no shares?

Or would the new majority shareholders have no decision making power even though they have more "shares"?

Exactly.

It is understandable that having an model of an observer can be useful to a brain.

But how/why does that opens a window to an actual observer, and not just a model, is the question.

And we only know that - an actual observer exists - through first hand experience. It is our most immediate and certain knowledge (Cogito, ergo sum), everything else can be questioned. Yet, there's nothing in physics or computer science that gives a hint to this being the case.

By inner experience, we mean that there's a subject which gets to have perception of such models.

There's no need for such subject to exist.

For example, most people assume that, so far, computers do not have any inner experience.

A computer could, conceivably, execute the same functions as our brain, yet have no inner experience of anything. Numbers get in, numbers get out, without any inner experience being needed.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I am anarcho-capitalist, and I have no trouble being absolutist about freedom of speech inside one's own property.

So there's that.

There's nothing intrinsically superior to either SCOTUS or any group or organization's interpretation.

I'm pretty sure you are able to interpret it as not allowing even in the worst and most extreme cases, you just don't want to. There's no need for an argument from authority.

Is allowed under some interpretation of the first amendment. It is not allowed by the first amendement per se.

I don't think the Brazilian government has this responsibility as it is the most at fault for Brazil's lacking free market.

Maybe when it becomes a champion on that, removing barriers of entry, protectionism, subsidies and it's public companies monopolies, then it can be a fair judge on this issue.

I'm not denying that it is harder to fake a death than to just order a hit. But if he had a dead man's switch, it could be worth the cost.

And with how unusual the whole 'suicide' was, accepting the official story at face value is arguably lazier than suspecting it.

I don't see what is the point of your criticism. Either the epistemological grounds of Austrian economics is correct or it is not.

It should not matter what austrians feel about central banking.

You can predict trends, not laws, using large groups observation. Austrians would not deny that. Trends are not a useful tool for economic policy, are only good tools for entrepreneurship.

I may be way of my field here, but my understanding is that the whole point of the Austrian school is that human behavior is (purposeful, but) unpredictable.

This is a testable claim, and you can bother to observe, experiment and test this claim. Austrians should accept they are wrong if you can empirically prove that humans behavior is predictable.

But if this claim is correct, there's no reason for you to do empirical economic observations to prove or disprove economic laws. Any empirical conclusion will have no predictive power as a law, only as a trend.

Not only that, but any logical consequence of human behavior being purposeful and unpredictable is as correct as the original claim.

Is anything here that I am missing?

If you are expecting a currency crisis, the best asset to buy may be gold. And people having been buying it a lot lately.

A functional government? Does this even exist?

Privately owned courts do not have the institutional force of the state, their decision is as strong as their reputation.

Only if the billionaires don't spend, invest or hold it in a bank.

Any of the three, it will go back to the market and result in inflation.

I make "no perfect market" or "perfect information" assumption.

I am pretty confident that people will take stupid risks, as I am confident that people who want to be safe - buying from reputable sources - will be able to.

The other drug market has fewer people selling than otherwise, at a higher price (for the quality) than otherwise.

I'm not sure how you are able to the opposite conclusion.

Your tone seems very uncalled for.

All I am arguing is that if you prosecute people from selling drugs, or make more regulations, fewer people will sell drugs - at a higher price.

It shouldn't matter people are cunts, if they have competition they will have to provide better satisfaction.

As of now, american people are prohibited from importing drugs, and that's exactly what utter cunts lobby and fight for.

As far as I am concerned, the problem is not with people who make drugs and want to profit from it, but with people who regulate competition away.

If people weren't prohibited from buying whatever the drug they want at their own risk, they wouldn't be forced to monopoly prices.

There's Anarchism as the social/economical/political movement and then there's anarchism as the greek word for "no leader/government"...

Anarcho-capitalism is not a type of the former, but it is a type of the later.

The libertarian type of anarchism is called anarcho-capitalism.

It's based on property rights and the non aggression principle.

You should be able to answer things about it:

Is it a fundamental or emergent property of the universe?

What is the smallest/biggest structure possible for a consciousness to happen? (we should be able to tell what is conscious and what is not)

Can/do laws of physics account for it? (consciousness is not a necessary thing in physics, we are all p-zombies for physics laws, but for some reason it is able to affect the causal chain, as we are talking about it)