mirena bitcointalk slr

View bitcoin latest comments here. So the idea of law would not values or be meaningful. Why is Austrian economics better? Google self driving car? But my understanding is that now the character of Mickey Mouse is trademarked. I'm stephan track kinsella be a bestseller and achieve fame and fortune.

como conseguir 1 bitcoin por dia В»

dogecoin marketplace cinema

I'm not accusing you of a sense of entitlement. Clean Back in the U. Only the customer, if they were genuinely mislead, would have a case if any. To progress you must help other people progress. I'm particularly interested in this one: Sure, I understand that you don't 'believe' that, per our other past discussions, however EcoticMandibles does, and that is what I responded to.

bitcoin hide assets divorce В»

qt bitcoin trader machines

I agree with kinsella on the contract within the ebook, values seems like a big stephan that would just end up bitcoin apart anyway. So while He may predict to a large degree what any one of kinsella may do, He does not know bitcoin exactitude. Cause if you don't have that right, intellectual property exists without initiating values. You may want to donate that kidney. Praxeological or stephan history?

bitcointalk pump and dump penny В»

Stephan kinsella bitcoin values

To name one in particular here, is the ability for micro-payments, micro-lending, and micro-investing. The network and the many platforms springing up, open up a whole new world of finance without minimums, barriers, and borders.

By the way, when I say decentralized that means these technologies are not run from a single source. The bitcoin network, for example, is run by every single person who runs the software. Every person helps facilitate and validate transactions, making the entire thing possible — with no central point of failure or corruption as with a company, bank, or government. And please post a question, leave a comment, send me feedback, subscribe, share, like, or donate!

August 19, August 2, GRL Admin agorism , bitcoin , governance , government , law , microfinance , permissionless innovation. Enter Bitcoin; crypto-currency in general, and the technology of cryptographic proofs. Check out the links below! Print Share on Tumblr. I know that scarcity is key, but intangible products like music and writing require tangible resources to create.

Because without scarcity no conflict is possible. So the idea of law would not arise or be meaningful. The fact that it takes resources to create useful information has nothing to do with property rights. Creation is not a source of property rights.

Original appropriation first use and contract are. To create somthing or produce something, really just means: But you had to own the factors to do this. You own the result because you already owned the material that you rearranged. For the same reason you can't print money without diluting hte purchasing power of other money.

For the same reason you can't just add positive welfare rights to the set of negative rights without the former taking away from the latter. A right to an intangible thing always just means that tangible state force is used to take away from the "infringer" some of his material property say, money.

So it's jsut a disguised transfer of wealth, a taking of property, a redistribution of wealth. THe way it was done by Italy and Switzerland in the s when they became pharma powerhouses without patent protection -- see chapter 9 of Boldrin and Levine. Yes, you invite competition once you make and sell a popular drug or product--that's the free market. Thanks, I'll forward anything interesting I read in that chapter to my research chem professors.

I'm sure they'd be open to it and find it interesting. I just wanted to say thanks for your article a year ago now on affirmative action. It really changed my perspective.

So if I develop a new smartphone that takes me years to do and lots of money, how do I survive in a marketplace where anyone can take apart my designs and copy what I made? I may have first mover advantage in the market, but there's no guarantee the profits from that will enable me to recoup my initial investment. Or should every industry bottleneck its product by some anti-piracy measures selling only to trusted clients, adding anti-piracy measures into discs like product keys, etc?

I know you probably get this question all the time, so if you just pointed me to some paper in which you address this, that'd be great. They often have implicit assumptions so lead to equivocation.

In an advanced economy you can specialize and use others as means and profit by selling some good or service that people desire. Thisi s always done in the face of competition and the possibility others will learn from you, emulate you, compete with you, copy you, improve upon you.

Every entrepreneur faces this issue. You have to be aware of the costs of free -rider issues and have to always excellently serve your customers and keep innovating to maintain a profit, which the market is always pushing by competition to keep low. Incidentally the biggest problem for independent smartphone designers are the walls of patent thickets held by the big players--Samsung, Apple, etc.

Patents create cartels and oligopolies and erect barriers to entry and to competition. I think his views have been mischaracterized. I think Hoppe is showing how state intervention leads to problems. More specifically, the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations.

AS for homosexuals -- I think again Hoppe has been unfairly characterized. He is predicting one aspect of the way private associations might treat people in their midst who actively seek to upset the traditional family-centered order.

A priest is not married but can live among a community of families; he does not oppose the institution of heterosexual marriage. Other people with different modes and preferences would of course be tolerated. Hoppe's views are not anti-gay at all; he is talking not about his own preferences but aobut the likely way culturaly conservative groups would use private property and contract to select for people who are largely supportive of the basic institutions of such a society.

Gay people of course can do this too. He is referring to activist types who are actively trying to undermine and oppose basic institutions that he thinks would predominate in some private communities.

I see no problem with this. As for his immigration views he is explicitly an anarchist and his views that people have a problem with are "second best" type views--and besides, a large number of libertarians have long been in favor of some immigration restrictions, yet they are not singled out for derision as Hoppe is NOt exactly a frequency is just a number , but airwaves, yes, I think -- see http: THe studies point the other way.

They just deny him access to their property and that right would be enforced as normal. BUt yes, they are legitimate, meaning they are enforceable--but all this means is that they specify a payment of money damages in the event of a specified event divulging information. As to who was the first libertarian, I don't really think you can point to any "first libertarian.

While I won't exactly categorize him as a libertarian though some have made well-thought out and good cases that he can be categorized as such , Jesus Christ's teachings, other than bringing salvation to mankind through His death and resurrection as I am a Bible-believing Christian , involved the primacy of God's Kingdom over the world's kingdoms. James Redford's essay which I linked deals a lot with the libertarianism of Jesus.

And Norman Horn, in his "New Testament Theology of the State" which is available on Lew Rockwell's website as well as his own , deals with the libertarian teachings of the Scriptures, especially in the New Testament. In fact, His entire life can be categorized as defiance to the State, from His birth down to His very death and resurrection the former of which was caused by the Roman government and the Jews who worked with the government.

While I am not a Taoist, Lao-tzu can be categorized as a libertarian, and Murray Rothbard made a good case for this in one of his articles. Lao-tzu was an individualist, in contrast to many of the collectivists in Ancient China. Unlike the notable apologist for the rule of philosopher-bureaucrats, however, Lao-tzu developed a radical libertarian creed.

For Lao-tzu the individual and his happiness was the key unit and goal of society. If social institutions hampered the individual's flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao-tzu, government, with its "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox," was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and "more to be feared than fierce tigers.

Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; "inaction" was the proper function of government, since only inaction can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, Lao-tzu declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. After referring to the common experience of mankind with government, Lao-tzu came to this incisive conclusion: The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.

The wisest course, then, is to keep the government simple and for it to take no action, for then the world "stabilizes itself. I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves…. Lao-tzu arrived at his challenging and radical new insights in a world dominated by the power of Oriental despotism.

What strategy to pursue for social change? It surely was unthinkable for Lao-tzu, with no available historical or contemporary example of libertarian social change, to set forth any optimistic strategy, let alone contemplate forming a mass movement to overthrow the State. And so Lao-tzu took the only strategic way out that seemed open to him, counseling the familiar Taoist path of withdrawal from society and the world, of retreat and inner contemplation.

I submit that while contemporary Taoists advocate retreat from the world as a matter of religious or ideological principle, it is very possible that Lao-tzu called for retreat not as a principle, but as the only strategy that in his despair seemed open to him. If it was hopeless to try to disentangle society from the oppressive coils of the State, then he perhaps assumed that the proper course was to counsel withdrawal from society and the world as the only way to escape State tyranny.

John Locke and the Levellers: John Locke, despite his inconsistencies, can be proved to be a libertarian , as he advocated property rights, the homesteading principle, classical liberalism in fact, he is considered the father of it , and other great libertarian principles.

There are still anomalies in John Locke's career and thought, but they can be cleared up by the explicit discussion and implications of the impressive work by Richard Ashcraft. Locke's father, a country lawyer and son of minor Puritan country gentry, fought in Cromwell's army and was able to use the political pull of his mentor Colonel Alexander Popham, MP, to get John into the prominent Westminster School.

At Westminster, and then at Christ Church, Oxford, Locke obtained a BA and then an MA in , then became a lecturer at the college in Greek and rhetoric in , and became a medical student and then a physician in order to stay at Oxford without having to take holy orders. Despite or perhaps because of Locke's Puritan background and patronage, he clearly came under the influence of the Baconian scientists at Oxford, notably including Robert Boyle, and hence he tended to adopt the "scientific," empiricist, low-key absolutist viewpoint of his friends and mentors.

While at Oxford, Locke and his colleagues enthusiastically welcomed the restoration of Charles II, and indeed the king himself ordered the university to keep Locke as a medical student without having to take holy orders.

While at Oxford, Locke adopted the empiricist methodology and sensate philosophy of the Baconians, leading to his later Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Moreover, in Locke, this later champion of religious toleration, wrote two tracts denouncing religious tolerance, and favoring the absolute state enforcing religious orthodoxy.

In , Locke was elected to the Royal Society, joining his fellow Baconian scientists. Something happened to John Locke in the year , however, when he became a physician and in the following year when he became personal secretary, advisor, writer, theoretician, and close friend of the great Lord Ashley Anthony Ashley Cooper , who in was named the first Earl of Shaftesbury. It was due to Shaftesbury that Locke, from then on, was to plunge into political and economic philosophy, and into public service as well as revolutionary intrigue.

Locke adopted from Shaftesbury the entire classical-liberal Whig outlook, and it was Shaftesbury who converted Locke into a firm and lifelong champion of religious toleration and into a libertarian exponent of self-ownership, property rights, and a free-market economy. It was Shaftesbury who made Locke into a libertarian and who stimulated the development of Locke's libertarian system.

John Locke, in short, quickly became a Shaftesburyite, and thereby a classical liberal and libertarian. All his life and even after Shaftesbury's death in , Locke only had words of adulation for his friend and mentor. Locke's epitaph for Shaftesbury declared that the latter was "a vigorous and indefatigable champion of civil and ecclesiastical liberty.

Instead, many felt they had to hide this relationship in order to construct an idealized image of Locke the pure and detached philosopher, separate from the grubby and mundane political concerns of the real world. Professor Ashcraft also shows how Locke and Shaftesbury began to build up, even consciously, a neo-Leveller movement, elaborating doctrines very similar to those of the Levellers.

Locke's entire structure of thought in his Two Treatises of Government, written in — as a schema for justifying the forthcoming Whig revolution against the Stuarts, was an elaboration and creative development of Leveller doctrine — the beginnings in self-ownership or self-propriety, the deduced right to property and free exchange, the justification of government as a device to protect such rights, and the right of overturning a government that violates, or becomes destructive of, those ends.

And the Levellers can be considered the first modern libertarian movement, as historian Jeff Riggenbach showed in his lectures and articles which can be accessed for free at mises. You know the rest: But these are some of the chief influences on libertarianism I would include. Outside of ancap circles, anarchism is often associated with non-hierarchical social constructs. I assume you aren't opposed to hierarchy on moral or philosophical grounds, but are you sympathetic to the attitude among some anarchists against hierarchy?

Are you sympathetic to the more colloquial definition of anarchy that is more about disobedience in general? I am sympathetic insofar as I would also oppose hiearchies and authority structures and institutions that arise only because of intervention in the economy and society. But I think that absent the state and even in a free society there would be lots of hierarchy, authority, and natural order, lots of inequality and diversity.

I see no reason to oppose this at all. But I do agree we should get rid of the state and thus the effects it has in distorting society and culture. I spend 12 years writing a novel. I start selling it. I'm on track to be a bestseller and achieve fame and fortune. But then some random publisher decides to copy its contents word for word and start selling it on its own, giving me nothing for my part of the work the writing, the "intellectual property".

We always hear about copyrights and patents, but never any comments on trademarks. What are your thoughts on trademarks? Trademark should be abolished too. It's horrible but not as damaging as patent and copyrihgt. What happened between you and Diana Hsieh? I have heard her mention you a couple of times throughout the years as someone she never wanted to deal with again.

I wouldn't think you would really run in the same circles. Were you friends and then fell out over her fear of Anarchists? Why does the first N stand for? THere are a variety of reason some people still support IP. Some are Randians and are stuck with her view. Some are Constitutionalists, and support it because it's in the Constitution. Some are utilitarians and have been misled into thinking it supports human welfare and innovation.

But I think the main reason is lack of clarity on property concepts and consistency in thinking. And ignorance of how IP works. They have been told IP is necessary and part of the free market and capitalism, and they accept this as a given, and this gets them off on the wrong foot. I am not aware of many libertarians supporting child ownership.

But there is confusion over fundamental concepts and principles like "property" and ownership. My view, in short: Say I die and want to leave my 1 year old grandkids with k for their 21st birthday. So I give the money to a lawyer who is to give them the money on the 21st birthday.

I view parenting as the lawyer who has the task of protecting the value, and perhaps investing the k, leaving them with k on the 21st birthday. Hopefully this makes since. The lawyer doesn't own the k, but is tasked with protecting the value. Parents don't own the kid, but they are entrusted to develop the kid to adult hood. What politicians are genuine and should be supported? What should we actually do to create change? What is the libertarian view on violent revolution? Are we reaching a 'tipping point' for the occurrence of violence?

Depends, but see my recommendations at http: A few things, as far as I can see. Don't lie to yourself or others by adopting rah-rah political slogans that are just temporary. SEcond, be excellent and learn. Then you can inspire others. Third, don't martyr yourself. Don't sell cocaine, even though it's your right--it's too dangerous.

Bitcoin is an example of this. I think at present this would be futile, since it can only succeed if more people are libertarian than are at present.

I'm a high school student, and I'm in history class right now, watching a documentary on World War I. What is a big misconception about WWI that statists hold?

I have always liked the super-praxeologists, the ones who actually use and integrate it into their analysis--other than Mises, Rothbard, and HOppe, there are Guido Huelsmann, Joe Salerno, and Jeff Herbener. One of my favorite pieces is the one by Herbener on the calculation problem and arithmetic -- http: I try not to pretend to expertise I do not have, and I am not a historian. I would point to Hoppe's revisionist historical views in his introduction to his Democracy book -- http: When talking to someone who is very skeptical about abolishing IP everyone but ancaps?

Most powerful demonstrative example? My question is, do you believe plagiarism would be handled in an IP free society the same way as it is today? What differences do you think there would be? This was the only topic of concern my audience had after the speech. I think plagiarism's standards would morph as internet research becomes more prevalent, but it would be the same: This is not a rights issue, and plagiarism has almost nothing to do with patent and copyright, nor does fraud.

People who support IP often try to conflate these issues--this is just dishonest equivocation. Just because you oppose dishonesty, or support contract enforcement, or oppose fraud, does not mean you support copyright. I think plagiarism in a free society would still be shunned. If you crib a chapter from Great Expectations when you write a thesis in an English class, I expect you might get an F and get a reputation as a liar. This has almost nothing to do with copyrgiht.

What would be your advice for an entrepreneur with proprietary material who is seeking VC for staying principled? How does someone or should they communicate to potential investors that they don't want to go after people who use their ideas? Difficult and complicated issue--the issue of how we live in an unfree world. I think you have to play the game to some extent--get your patents and trademarks, to satisfy the investors etc. But you do not have to use them offensively or aggressively.

Look at Twitter's heroic policy -- http: I saw Neil J. Schulman shout you down at Libertopia ' What is it Schulman really doesn't get or needs to understand about IP law? Do you think he's just blinded by his position as a content creator and the fears associated with making a living via that?

BTW I do not recall thinking Neil was rude. I was okay with it. He's earned his due to pipe up. I like Neil and am friends with him, so don't want to make it personal. I guess we can assume someone is wrong and then psychologize about why.

My guess is that in some cases like his, it's a combination of personal self-interest combined with unclear thinking about the foundations of property rights, say, with influence by people like Ayn RAnd who were very confused on the basis of property rights--she took the Lockean labor stuff and metaphors too seriously. Delivered to you each week, Marjorie Alexander brings you environmental changemakers whose campaigns, companies and projects have changed the planet for the better.

They discuss their personal history in nature, journey to go green, light-bulb moment, sustainable habits, lessons from launching their project, and much more. Bitcoin Ownership and the Global Withering of the State. Preparando audio para descarga.

Escucha Cuando quieras y donde quieras. KOL What is Libertarianism? IP Should Be Abolished!