|
Jack of Hearts posted:Thinking it through, if you said "anyone can practice medicine" but required a reasonable minimum malpractice insurance policy to do so, I doubt the system would be noticeably different from its current state. From an insurance perspective, it would be virtually impossible to effectively price risk on people who hadn't jumped through all the same hoops as, y'know, actual doctors. So actually I want this to happen, because it's a controllable, testable prediction made by libertarians which will almost certainly turn out to be completely wrong. Well the problem with your example is the simple question of who requires them to have insurance. If it is the government then the question becomes, why the gently caress would we do it this way instead of just mandating that they be medically trained rather than relying on insurance companies, especially in light of the fact that there are plenty of not so great insurance companies such as AIG.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Caros posted:This is actually a comment about how Nintendo Kid went on this huge page spanning rant about AM radio quite a number of pages back. Had I remembered that he was the AM radio guy I'd have told him to get hosed a lot earlier than I did. What was the deal with AM radio?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:What was the deal with AM radio? oh my god no
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:What was the deal with AM radio? Click The little ? next to Nintendo Kid's name and go to about Page 3 and search Radio. Rejoice in the knowledge that you, while possibly imperfect as a human being, are not so fundamentally flawed as to be the one foul human known as Fishmech. Alternately, If you want a picture of the AM radio discussion, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Caros posted:Well the problem with your example is the simple question of who requires them to have insurance. If it is the government then the question becomes, why the gently caress would we do it this way instead of just mandating that they be medically trained rather than relying on insurance companies, especially in light of the fact that there are plenty of not so great insurance companies such as AIG. No rational human would volunteer to lead an insurance company when such employment might leave him personally liable for billions owed to policyholders after the company is left insolvent by a terrible natural disaster or stock market crash. The only people who'd volunteer for the job are madmen eager for personal prestige yet wholly ignorant (or openly contemptuous!) of risk. No rational human would put ten dollars into that company if he stands to thereby lose his car in a downside event. The only investor who would touch the company is a pump-and-dump artist who intends to get in and out quickly. But that's all moot, because no rational consumer would ever buy a policy from a lunatic-led insurance company whose bookkeeping consists entirely of exaggerations and wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:There's also the fact that becoming licensed requires becoming educated, whereas any idiot can claim to be a natural healer. Removing these requirements doesn't just hurt individual patients, it hurts society as a whole; fewer people get vaccinated for easily preventable illnesses because a quack told them not to, which puts people who can't be vaccinated at far greater risk through no fault of their own See, this is what I don't get about libertarians. It's one thing for them to argue about poo poo like lowering taxes on the rich and what have you (even under the guise of allegedly benefiting the poor), but trying to eliminate government involvement in making sure doctors know what they're doing? The former might not matter to them because hey, gently caress poor people and libertarians had no interest in helping them to begin with. But the latter? That presumably effects libertarians too. If they suddenly find themselves waking up one day and coughing up blood, would they really want some random dude who claims he's a medical doctor when in fact he's actually just a faith healer? I mean, there comes a point where supporting libertarian principles becomes self destructive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Caros posted:Click The little ? next to Nintendo Kid's name and go to about Page 3 and search Radio. Rejoice in the knowledge that you, while possibly imperfect as a human being, are not so fundamentally flawed as to be the one foul human known as Fishmech. I just wanted the five second version, not the "let's read Fishmech's posts" version.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:Insurance companies don't exist. jrodefeld opposes the concept that a corporation could have rights such as "property ownership" and hence the company's assets exist only vicariously through the participation of its officers and shareholders. That... is actually a really good point. Without limited liability an insurance company is pretty much dead on arrival, and there are a lot of things that really don't function in the modern world without insurance. Thanks for pointing this out, always nice to see a new angle on things. quote:I just wanted the five second version, not the "let's read Fishmech's posts" version. You see the IE vs Netscape discussion from the last few pages? Basically that except arguing over why certain forms of radio were never fully developed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Caros posted:\You see the IE vs Netscape discussion from the last few pages? Basically that except arguing over why certain forms of radio were never fully developed. And in the end we all agreed that it was the state's fault, right? Right? Right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Caros posted:That... is actually a really good point. Without limited liability an insurance company is pretty much dead on arrival, and there are a lot of things that really don't function in the modern world without insurance. Between the loss of limited liability corporations and insurance, are there any social institutions that would survive? I mean, the supermarket, hospital, and grocery stores are pretty much hosed. Maybe schools (in the one-room-schoolhouse sense) and churches? Family farms? Would they even recognize civil marriage?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Thinking it through, if you said "anyone can practice medicine" but required a reasonable minimum malpractice insurance policy to do so, I doubt the system would be noticeably different from its current state. From an insurance perspective, it would be virtually impossible to effectively price risk on people who hadn't jumped through all the same hoops as, y'know, actual doctors. So actually I want this to happen, because it's a controllable, testable prediction made by libertarians which will almost certainly turn out to be completely wrong. But then you run into the problem of needing to license the malpractice insurers. All of the all-natural homeopaths can get together and insure each other while agreeing to never file a claim, for instance. If individual homeopaths wind up getting sued and having to file claims against each other, resulting in bankruptcy, who gives a poo poo? It's not like that's going to stop a crazy person from "practicing" and then offering to cover each other again. The difference that I see between your proposed system and the current one is a lot more people dead, sick, or bankrupt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hoppe is the one who believes both liberal democrats and communists are so inimical to a free society that their very existence is a threat and they're to be enslaved, imprisoned,or killed, in that order depending on the amount of retaliatory force it takes to render them harmless. Has there ever been a thread on this guy? I've read a bit about him and it's so  as to induce morbid fascination.Although I have to wonder, if you're that as down the rabbit hole as Hans-Herman Hoppe, what does "freedom" even mean to you because it's not anything like anyone else's idea of freedom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Has there ever been a thread on this guy? I've read a bit about him and it's so At that point, "freedom" is all about the right to poo poo all over your lessers without ever having to suffer consequences for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Has there ever been a thread on this guy? I've read a bit about him and it's so Considering Hoppe is one of the people jrod
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
But don't you dare say he agrees with Hoppe! Instead, watch as he defends each of Hoppe's ideas in punishing detail
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But don't you dare say he agrees with Hoppe! Instead, watch as he defends each of Hoppe's ideas in punishing detail For me it was Molyneux, that was the moment I broke a little inside.  - Well sure you managed to quote mine a couple of instances of Stefan Molyneux saying that a woman hoovers up money with her Vagina, or how women choosing the wrong men is the cause of all societies problems, or that women shouldn't receive alimony because if I quit my job I wouldn't get paid so why should they if they quit their job of being hosed by their husbands. Sure you managed to quote these horrible things, but with a body of work as vast as his you are bound to find the occasional virulently misogynistic comments. That doesn't mean he is a misogynist!Helpful hint Jrod, if you go back through the work of most philosophers, you typically won't find them saying that a woman who decides to be a single mother after her husband leaves her is engaged in child abuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
I was reading the transcript of Dan Geer's black hat talk in august today and he brought up the point that right now there is a very weird an abnormal state for liability regarding software. It made me realize that, related to insurance and risk just mentioned that software as we know it wouldn't exist because the results of software liability in libertopia as its commonly applied would result in some sort of bizarre liability bomb that no one would be willing to take a risk on. Once again proving that in libertopia modern technology is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I was reading the transcript of Dan Geer's black hat talk in august today and he brought up the point that right now there is a very weird an abnormal state for liability regarding software. It made me realize that, related to insurance and risk just mentioned that software as we know it wouldn't exist because the results of software liability in libertopia as its commonly applied would result in some sort of bizarre liability bomb that no one would be willing to take a risk on. Can you expand on this at all because it seems pretty interesting but I'm not sure if I follow. Is the supposed liability something along the lines of 'someone used my software to do x bad thing and so I'm liable?' You know, sort of akin to why iTunes feels it necessary to state that you can't use their software in chemical, nuclear or biological weapons development?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Considering Hoppe is one of the people jrod Is there a greatest hits sort of link? Megathreads take a long, long time to look through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Caros posted:Can you expand on this at all because it seems pretty interesting but I'm not sure if I follow. Is the supposed liability something along the lines of 'someone used my software to do x bad thing and so I'm liable?' Customer: iTunes deleted critical files in my OS when I tried to minimize it. I had to reinstall everything and I lost three days of productive work. I demand recompense. Apple: Yeah. That problem was reported during beta testing. I knew about it but shipped the product anyways. Customer: Okay, so give me some money. Apple: Nope. You agreed to the clickwrap license. gently caress off; you get nothing. Here's the transcript. Ctrl-F "3. Source code liability -- CHOICE" Geer's proposal is pretty libertarian, though: companies can avoid all liability by releasing their code. Even if it's undocumented, hopelessly spaghettified, or parallelized to the point that no mortal could trace it. Hell, they might even be able to fulfill this requirement by delivering Assembly. If the consumer has the theoretical ability to read the source code, spot a weakness, and patch it... then nobody can hold the company at fault for negligence. The most that they can ask for is a refund. What if you're not a programmer? Well, maybe you should have done something useful with your life instead of getting that Master's degree in basket-weaving. Caveat emptor, bitches! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Under The Code of Hammurabi, if a man builds a house, and that house collapses and kills the family within, then the builder and his family must be put to death. Valhalla DRO draws inspiration from this source. If your lovely code fucks up and damages any files in our Strategic War Computers, the coder's brains must be damaged in return. Thus it was decided at the third Moot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:Geer's proposal is pretty libertarian, though: companies can avoid all liability by releasing their code. Even if it's undocumented, hopelessly spaghettified, or parallelized to the point that no mortal could trace it. Hell, they might even be able to fulfill this requirement by delivering Assembly. If the consumer has the theoretical ability to read the source code, spot a weakness, and patch it... then nobody can hold the company at fault for negligence. The most that they can ask for is a refund. I'm assuming that Geer is aware that there are contests that involve writing code that does something other than what it appears to do, which would mean that even having the source code, knowing how to read it, and taking the time to do so does not necessarily lead to one understanding what the code actually does. Naturally a gently caress You Got Mine libertarian who could write this kind of code would want to be released from all liability
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm assuming that Geer is aware that there are contests that involve writing code that does something other than what it appears to do, which would mean that even having the source code, knowing how to read it, and taking the time to do so does not necessarily lead to one understanding what the code actually does. Naturally a gently caress You Got Mine libertarian who could write this kind of code would want to be released from all liability This sounds really neat, actually, could you link me to one of these contests?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:Here's the transcript. Ctrl-F "3. Source code liability -- CHOICE" Is Greer even a programmer? The whole idea just sounds absurd on many programs, since you can't always pick and choose what bits of code to run willy-nilly. The other problem too is that if reviewing the written code was all it took to properly debug the code, we wouldn't have an industry built around testing software. After all, just by reading it, you should be able to see that there are bugs! Right! Except you come across old assumptions that were correct until you had to do something different to accommodate some other change and then suddenly we can now enter into a scenario that you could never have gotten into 5 years ago when we originally developed said module with said assumptions. And of course, that defeats the whole purpose of buying software. See, the reason why I pay you for something is that I don't want to do it myself. I pay you for eggs because I don't want to go and raise chickens myself. I pay you for software because I don't want to develop my own. I pay you for software because I don't wish to develop my own. Just handing over the source code and saying "You're on your own" defeats the purpose of selling me the software. The fact of the matter is that a lot of software is complex, and how all the code interacts can be very nebulous to anyone who isn't an expert with the project. His proposal would kill the software industry. Why would I want to have someone else develop financial software for me if I can't hold him accountable if there's a major bug in it? Would I want to use software in a hospital if I can't hold the software maker accountable for a bug that kills a patient? Would I want to fly an airplane with computers if the software manufacturer said "Yeah, so yes, the altimeter software divides your descent values by half if you go above 20,000 feet while heading east on Tuesday. You should have found that bug when you reviewed the source code!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:This sounds really neat, actually, could you link me to one of these contests? http://www.ioccc.org/
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Is Greer even a programmer? The whole idea just sounds absurd on many programs, since you can't always pick and choose what bits of code to run willy-nilly. This elludes to what I was talking about and Geer freely admits that he expects push back from people as to why his plans wouldn't always work, but he does have a better idea than the status quo, quote:Today the relevant legal concept is "product liability" and the fundamental formula is "If you make money selling something, then you better do it well, or you will be held responsible for the trouble it causes." For better or poorer, the only two products not covered by product liability today are religion and software, and software should not escape for much longer. The liability bomb I spoke about earlier is that one of the main thrusts of Geers speech, that the cybersecurity world is already becoming too complex for us to manage as a society, without some fundamental changes on how we do business with computers and nation states. My contention is that when you consider how things work now, we've only manage to get along this far with the half assed liability regime because of the benefits of the state -- that is to say statism and that libertarians already being more litigious as gently caress wouldn't make it even as far as we have in the world we see before us. Just like Geer's suggested solution: quote:The software houses will yell bloody murder the minute legislation like this is introduced, and any pundit and lobbyist they can afford will spew their dire predictions that "This law will mean the endof computing as we know it!" Software design as we know it would undergo a huge restructuring and change in methodology, and this is going forward into a state supported future. Where the courts actually have purpose and function. In libertopia the answer would be some sort of DRO software development house as the only even remotely plausible solution because FOSS and the concept of the commons aren't really possible because no one would want to take on the liability of -anyone- else's code. Now DRO's are also running around with their own half rear end tested versions of Novel for Networks or Windows and our property liability concerns in libertopia go from unmanageable like they are today to anyone using computer software at all being some crazy bearded guy in a bathrobe and tribly who messes in dark arts no one dares to tamper with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
A libertarian advocating open source software, which is practically communist. What. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:A libertarian advocating open source software, which is practically communist. What. Hey, remember. Intellectual property doesn't exist, at least according to our lord, Jrodefeld (one day he will return to rein for 1,000 years). If you have an idea and express it, everyone else should be able to share that idea without you getting paid for it. So, Open Source is within the views of some insane libertarians who think "Hey, copyright is stupid!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
So in libertopia is it your own fault if you get bit by the heartbleed bug? This is all very confusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Well of course, if you were a true captain of industry you'd always personally inspect every line of code.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Oh no, you have cancer??? Be happy, you'll serve as an acceptable warning to others to not get cancer
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:So in libertopia is it your own fault if you get bit by the heartbleed bug? This is all very confusing. In libertopia it's your own fault if anything happens to you, since the evil state, source of all unwarranted harm, has been banished. This applies to all situations in True Libertopia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:So in libertopia is it your own fault if you get bit by the heartbleed bug? This is all very confusing. In libertopia the heartbleed feature is expected. But because of the rather tedious End User License Agreement only allows authorized Jarls to gaze into the code, Valhalla DRO ha- code:
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Oh no, you have cancer??? Be happy, you'll serve as an acceptable warning to others to not get cancer Remember, access to health care causes people to live unhealthy lives. Poor people never get sick, because they don't have as much access to health care, and thus live healthier lives. Also living a healthy life means not getting the flu or a chance condition like Parkinsons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Under The Code of Hammurabi, if a man builds a house, and that house collapses and kills the family within, then the builder and his family must be put to death. Out of everything brought up by Valhalla DRO, I have a feeling building a legal system that has "the strong should not harm the weak" in its preamble would make it a pariah state in libertopia faster than a million skull thrones. DarklyDreaming fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Are we saying that the law should be "If your house collapses and kills a member of your family, then the rest of your family should be put to death since clearly you are either too stupid to choose to live in a structurally sound house or too weak to withstand a house collapsing on you." That will prevent our state from being taken over by parasites.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Hey, remember. Intellectual property doesn't exist, at least according to our lord, Jrodefeld (one day he will return to rein for 1,000 years). If you have an idea and express it, everyone else should be able to share that idea without you getting paid for it. This is probably the most bizarre thing I've heard in this libertarian (!!) thread. How the hell do people who value property rights above all else not care about intellectual property?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Out of everything brought up by Valhalla DRO, I have a feeling building a legal system that has "the strong should not harm the weak" in its preamble would make it a pariah state in libertopia faster than a million skull thrones. More like "the incompetent shall not harm our ability to make war upon others." The jarls don't care if you get that iTunes refund unless you pay them to care. The Code of Hammurabi had different punishments for crimes depending on what class you were in and who your victim was, ya know!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:This is probably the most bizarre thing I've heard in this libertarian (!!) thread. How the hell do people who value property rights above all else not care about intellectual property? They're all middle class nerds who think they should be able to torrent music and video games without penalty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:This is probably the most bizarre thing I've heard in this libertarian (!!) thread. How the hell do people who value property rights above all else not care about intellectual property? If we're talking about jrodefeld's rejection of IP rights then I'd say "it doesn't really count." It's not a position that he's reached after a lifetime of experience or a careful course of study. It's just a mises.org headline that he read and immediately believed. And, as we saw with the "government involvement in the healthcase market always raises prices (note to self: Google that 'price elasticity' thing that they keep bitching about)" assertion and his "repeal the AMA" proposal, his belief is not predicated on actually understanding an issue. If we're talking about Kinsella's work then more nuance is needed. It's a 60-page essay which addresses the topic from a number of perspectives (e.g. natural law, contractual obligations, the absolute supremacy of physical property rights, rejection of legal fictions, the possibility of independent discovery/invention by multiple parties, and the asynchonicity between the lifespan of IP rights and the physical objects in which they are embodied). It's fairly solid work; you can criticize it on utilitiarian grounds ("a world without new novels or symphonies or medicines would be lovely") but it adheres to libertarian principles and avoids self-contradiction. It wouldn't really be productive to nitpick the details here because Kinsella isn't around to answer questions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 01:36
|
|