Tab Content
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:23 PM
    That's one way of looking at it. I'm more inclined to the cynical view that these trifling reforms are PR stunts designed to put a small government shine on a big government turd. ...not sure where that came from.
    23 replies | 315 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:11 PM
    That's a forcible redistribution of wealth to bad credit risks from good credit risks and/or creditors. As long as there's a competitive labor market, people will be paid according to their productivity.
    6 replies | 198 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:00 PM
    I don't follow. The comparison was between a Bernie who proposed a tiny cut here and a huge increase there and a Trump who is actually doing just that. ...the point being that neither would/does deserve credit from we small government advocates.
    23 replies | 315 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:25 PM
    Of course, but let's not exaggerate its importance or let this blind us to the fact that this administration is making government larger overall. If Bernie comes out with a $2B savings in some program while proposing a $1T increase elsewhere, he doesn't deserve our support. Among other things, that's how destructive myths (like, Hoover or Reagan were small government guys) get started.
    23 replies | 315 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:20 PM
    I know. So, why undertake this experiment only to end up back in the same place again, with the added bonus of having lived (or not) through a civil war? It's like burning down your house for the pleasure of spending the money to rebuild it exactly as it was. That's the minarchist ideal.
    18 replies | 1597 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:09 PM
    Services rendered for the household (housekeeping, etc) should be treated the same as property brought into the household, sure. But counting income forgone (job lost to take up housekeeping) isn't appropriate. I don't see any reason to give a person credit for work which they didn't actually do, just because they could have done it. By that logic, if John makes 100k/year working 40 hours per week, should he really get credit for 200k, if he could have gotten a second full time job at the same pay? That both makes the calculation more difficult (based on speculation) and gives people credit for ability without taking into account effort (you get credit for being able to make a lot of money, even if all you do is drink in the backyard).
    6 replies | 86 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:50 PM
    And that's all well and good, but, like the fiscal savings, it'll be a drop in the bucket.
    23 replies | 315 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:45 PM
    For months people here have been calling for the feds to force tech companies to be "neutral" and/or break them up with anti-trust laws. Did you read all of the posts in this thread? Here's one of several examples. And this has been a major national talking point among GOPers (watch any episode of Tucker Carlson, for example). So, no, I'm not jousting at windmills, even if I was mistaken about SS being among those calling for these interventions.
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:40 PM
    Agreed
    73 replies | 1468 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:37 PM
    I can appreciate that reasoning, but it isn't going to persuade minarchists (such as myself). The minarchist view is that anarcho-capitalism will devolve into warlords fighting over control of territory. When a warlord establishes control of a particular piece of territory (as one sooner or later inevitably will), a state is born. We can think of an experiment in anarcho-capitalism in four distinct phases: 1. the status quo (the state exists) 2. the experiment begins (anarcho-capitalism exists) 3. break-down (anarcho-capitalism devolves into warlords fighting for territory)
    18 replies | 1597 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:20 PM
    Stop letting facts get in the way of a good political narrative, you anti-American you..
    35 replies | 379 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:14 PM
    As some of you probably know from personal experience, the laws in the US governing the post-divorce division of assets and alimony are often preposterously unjust. Since there have been some significant reform efforts in recent years, I thought this would be a good topic for discussion. How do you think the post-divorce financial settlement ought to work? I lay out my own thoughts below. 1. Marriage is a contract. Putting aside its informal religious and cultural aspects (which have no legal existence), marriage is fundamentally a contract between consenting adults. If a contract concerning post-divorce finances (i.e. a pre-nup) is in evidence, the courts should enforce it. It is reprehensible that courts routinely set aside otherwise valid pre-nups on grounds of "unconscionability" (i.e. the judge's subjective and inchoate dislike of the contract). But this only takes us so far, since evidence of a contract will usually be missing or incomplete. In that case, there must be default rules for the courts to follow to settle the dispute. In general, default rules should represent the contract terms which we think reasonable people likely would have adopted if they had thought about it. DEFAULT RULES 2. At-Fault v. No-Fault. First, the court should determine who, if anyone, is at fault for the divorce. If neither or both parties are at fault, then the divorce is classified as no-fault. If only one party is at fault, then the divorce is classified as at-fault. A spouse is at fault if he or she commits one of a handful of severe offenses: e.g. adultery, serious physical abuse, or massive waste of joint assets (e.g. draining the bank account to play the ponies). There may well be others, but this is to be a short list of severe offenses. 3. Dividing the Assets. For no-fault divorce, each party should be entitled to a share of currently existing assets equal to the share of assets they brought into the marriage. For example, if Bob generated $1M over the course of the marriage, while Mary generated $100k, Mary's share would be 1/11th of whatever assets exist at the time of divorce. For at-fault divorce, the victim-spouse should get the larger of (a) her share of the assets as calculated above, or (b) half of the assets.
    6 replies | 86 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:10 AM
    If a politician cuts spending 1% here and increases it 10% there, he doesn't get credit for cutting spending. Congress didn't make him propose spending increases or sign those proposed by others.
    23 replies | 315 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:58 AM
    Of course, but we can make some pretty sound predictions about how market actors are likely to behave. For instance, if I print up some r3v bucks, exchangeable only for stuff in my refrigerator, odds are very few people are going to buy them. Once my refrigerator is empty, odds are no one is going to buy them.
    83 replies | 2861 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:49 AM
    There are a lot of people roaming around making the same "teh evil corporations are gonna enslave us" claims that you've been making and calling for the feds to enforce some kind of "neutrality" regime on social media, break them up with anti-trust laws, or otherwise steal their property. If you're not in favor of such things, that's good. As for liability for illegal content, I think we agree that they ought to be liable for failing to remove illegal content once discovered. As for breach of contract, however, there almost certainly hasn't been any, given the nature of the TOS. If you can find a platform that doesn't have something to the effect of "we can kick you off the platform for any reason," I'll be surprised. I recall going through at least one actual TOS in another thread (maybe paypal?) and finding just that.
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:43 AM
    A very slightly slower rate, like 0.2% less per year; and then the poverty line doesn't affect eligibility for the two largest welfare programs. Some rough math suggests we'd save about $420 billion over the next 20 years. Ironically enough, $420 billion is exactly the estimated increase in federal spending from FY2018 to FY2019. Or, for another point of reference, interest on the debt accrued since Jan 2017 will cost about $867 billion over the next 20 years.
    23 replies | 315 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:02 AM
    The value of a currency is determined by what can be bought with it. This is why, for example, it would be very bad news for the dollar if it were dropped by the foreign countries that currently use it. The same applies to bitcoin.
    83 replies | 2861 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 11:41 PM
    Okay, and? As I said in my original response, outlawing bitcoin anywhere will make bitcoin less valuable. Above you claim that outlawing bitcoin would be good for bitcoin, because magic. Suffice it to say, I disagree (as should have been obvious).
    83 replies | 2861 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 11:31 PM
    ...? What did I ignore or take out of context?
    83 replies | 2861 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 11:24 PM
    I just said in the post you're quoting that they don't need to confiscate bitcoin. Make bitcoin considerably less useful as a medium of exchange Assuming the anonymizing technology works, the weakness (as to preventing detection) lies in the physical supply chain for the goods.
    83 replies | 2861 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 10:54 PM
    Alright, so have the laws requiring them to take down such content enforced. Now, why is it that you want some additional regulation of social media platforms, and what does any of this have to do with censorship?
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 10:38 PM
    If that's all your saying (they must remove illegal content within a reasonable time of discovery), I agree and, AFAIK, that's already the law. ...this would be the equivalent of holding the rental company liable for renting to a known maniac. If it's not being enforced, then enforce it (assuming the underlying crime ought to be a crime). ...which brings us to the other half of my original question, just what underlying crimes are you concerned about?
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 10:33 PM
    Yea, it's odd. And, none of these votes were particularly close, so it's not like she was voting the right way only when it didn't matter, as some do. For the closest one (restricting NSA spying, 12 vote margin), she voted the right way.
    73 replies | 1468 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 10:16 PM
    If you're saying that a platform owner should be required to remove illegal content once discovered, I agree, as does the existing law. But you're going much further than that, aren't you? You're saying that the platform owner should be liable simply because the illegal content was posted, or because he failed to take it down within some time of it being posted though he was unaware of it.
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 10:06 PM
    Got it - if a platform owner ever does any moderating (on a subjective basis), he is liable for any content posted on the platform. Now, to see how insane that is, let's apply the same logic to other fields, beyond publishing. Suppose I own a car rental company. I don't do much to vet my customers, but I do occasionally refuse to serve one who I dislike for purely subjective reasons. If one of my customers commits a crime with one of my rental cars, I should be liable, because I use subjective criteria to decide who to rent to?
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 09:47 PM
    So wait, are you saying: (a) platform owner is liable for any content posted if he ever does any moderating (whether he review that particular content or not) or (b) platform owner is liable only for content which he came actually across in the course of moderating?
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 09:39 PM
    If the platform owner doesn't/can't actually moderate content, what *decisions* are we talking about?
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 09:15 PM
    If I own a forum, do I have "editorial control" of posted content if I: --review every post before publishing --review 1/10 posts --review 1/1000 posts --review 1/1M posts --review 1/1B posts --review no posts? What kind of control did a traditional editor (i.e. of a print publishing venue) have when these rules were made?
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 08:59 PM
    A) Under what circumstances should Person X be held liable for Person Y's speech? B) What is the underlying crime, committed by Y, that you're concerned about? ...don't cite me the current statutes, I'm asking how you think the law ought to be.
    85 replies | 567 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
15,209
Posts Per Day
7.86
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
3
Most Recent Message
04-18-2018 10:10 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 04:24 PM
Join Date
03-06-2014
Referrals
0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

06-14-2019


02-02-2019

  • 04:02 AM - Hidden

05-21-2018


04-18-2018


04-08-2018


03-17-2018


01-22-2018


01-08-2018


12-30-2017


12-02-2017


09-23-2017


08-27-2017

  • 10:31 AM - Hidden

08-22-2017


08-06-2017


07-31-2017


07-18-2017


07-14-2017



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 319 1231151101 ... LastLast

06-24-2019


06-23-2019


06-22-2019



Page 1 of 319 1231151101 ... LastLast