I do. My children don't have a cell phone and don't need one. They have iPod touches, but they aren't allowed in their rooms with them and most definitely cannot sleep with them (this is more about my paranoia of wifi signals than of privacy). All digital devices get put in a common area in the evening.
And no moral authority to confiscate wealth from hard working Americans to fund it.
You're assuming that people would only pay for services that directly benefit them
And it is not what everyone does nowadays? How many around you are screaming they do not want pay taxes to "sustain vagabonds" (aka, people who by most who try are not getting employment)?
Compulsory wealth redistribution is not a "service". I regularly pay for things (voluntarily) that do not directly benefit me. Foodbanks, local charities etc. That is how it should be done - not via state enforced extortion.
Yeah, right.... Just imagine a world where the police are private, and where they only serve the places that are profitable. Now, imagine that this private police services are expensive (after all, profit is now above the service itself), and you can not afford her services. Nightmare scenario for those who have income, but can not pay.
You're assuming that people would only pay for services that directly benefit them. That wouldn't be the case. It's in everyone's interests to see people protected from harm.
You would pay for direct benefit, but do not want to pay when it indirectly benefits you.
I've not said that at all. What I have said is that I will pay fo things that I use, and also for things that I find valuable. "Valuable" doesn't mean I directly benefit from it. This is why I donate to food banks in my area and spend many hours a week with youth organisations. I do this voluntarily because it is the right thing to do.
According to what you wrote, you would prefer that no space program got off the ground.
I've not written that at all. I don't think it is ethically justified to force people to pay for things like a space program.
Or, you assert that enough monied altruists would have donated to accomplish the same feat. Either is preposterous.
But then you say you would give voluntarily. Do you see direct benefit?
Direct benefit? No, I don't see that. But then again I don't need to see a direct benefit in things I choose to give my time and money too. I'm not sure where you get this idea that people should only pay for things that directly benefit them. I sure haven't made that claim.
Ah, it boils down to the libertarian view. Even if you see the value, you do not want to force other people to act in their own self interest.
Next time, just say "libertarian" and save us the time. Your argument is based on dogma, not logic, and you will gain no converts by arguing based on logic. Stick to dogma.
It's not dogma, it principle. The principle is that it's wrong to initiate force against someone else, and that the state should exist to protect people from such harm.
Firefighting isn’t profitable. Police services aren’t profitable. Parks and playgrounds aren’t profitable.
People who want those things would pay for them whether they are profitable or not. Just like NASA.
Plowing the streets and sidewalks isn’t profitable. Public art isn’t profitable. Keeping the air and water clean aren’t profitable. Teaching children isn’t profitable. Maintaining our highways isn’t profitable.
Yet we spend our money on these things. Why?
Because people value those services. It's not rocket science (excuse the pun).
Would you volunteer to pay for fighting fires in a neighborhood on the other side of your town? Or how about to pay for a highway that connects two cities you’ve never been to? Or to educate someone else’s children?
No, but I would willingly pay for those things that direct benefit me. I would also assist in areas where people don't have the menas to provide such things.
People are selfish, obviously including you.
It's not selfish to expect people to pay for what they use and not for what they don't use. "Selfish" is expecting (and forcing) people to pay fo things they don't want. The least selfish option is the one based on voluntary and compassionate action. Compulsion is selfish.
We don’t want to pay for things that don’t obviously benefit us. But we still want to live in a world where we have things like clean water, educated children, and people to put out our burning homes. Paying for scientific research is the same thing. We have governnments that tax us so that they can provide exactly those services that nobody is willing to voluntarily pay for.
If no one is willing to pay for them then no third party should be able to force us to pay for them. That's ethically corrupt.
If you want to live without them, why not try moving to Sudan or tribal Pakistan? Try living without the modern society you’re accustomed to if you really don’t want to pay for it. Give it all up. When you have, maybe then you can come back and tell us about how everything should be paid for on a strictly voluntary basis.
Ah, the old "if you don't like it you can leave" argument. That's not an intellectually honest tactic when discussing the protection of liberty and individual freedoms.
I still maintain that if individuals believe strongly enough in what NASA does, then they will willingly pay money to them. I would. What I do not support is the state forcing people (using extortionate means) to pay for such things.
If it's not profitable then they shouldn't be forcing hard working people to pay for it. Make payments to it voluntary.
They should 100% privatise it. Then the people who want to support it financially can, leaving those who do not want to to, well, not. That's the only fair and honest approach.
I disagree. It's none of the governments business. If I want to voluntarily trade with another person using bitcoins (or chickens, or shells) then no third party has a right to get involved. This applies double-so to the government.
I would say that any automatic mechanical device that is controlled be electronics could be considered a "robot". Tha't a pretty broad category though and would include many everyday things like a microwave oven, a washing machine, a hard disk drive etc.
I have a home built CNC machine, I'd consider that to be a robot.
The market exists because most people don't realise what they're being sold until it bites them and that's the problem. They've changed the game without changing the advertising and they need to be more transparent to customers as to what they are offering. They won't do this though because they know people wouldn't buy then.
Buy has historically meant buy to keep. The buttons on sites peddling a lot of DRM content say buy, not rent, yet really it's a rental. That's the problem.
As you have alluded to a part of the problem is that people don't read the terms of the service or product they are paying for. That I don't understand other than to attribute it to apathy. I read all licenses I agree to (unless I've read it before), and I won't trade with companies on terms I don't agree to.
You make it sound as if I have a right to the content other people produce. I don't and never did.
Fair enough, i can agree with this. But the copies of the content other people produce are different story.
Sure - because I don't have a contract with anyone with regards to the content. No-one should be able to tell me what bits I can have sitting in my computer (unless I specifically agree with someone not to have their particular sequence of bits).
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
