The article I link to points out efficiency has many different usages even within economics. If you mean market-clearing or liquidity, I'd say that instead.

I'm not sure how you provide "liquidity without a profit motive", or how it is relevant to the discussion, but the idea is absurd. A person selling a product does so because it necessarily benefits them in some way. Markets are discrete, not continuous, even if our math is.

I appreciate Black's contributions to our understanding of modern pricing, but here I have no clue what he's talking about. The basis of all modern economics since Carl Menger is the law of marginal utility, which implies the subjective theory of value. I can't tell what is meant by "value" here but it's certainly not in the meaning of virtually all economics for the past century.

That's not the definition of efficiency, since efficiency too is subjective... Black is describing one possible method of evaluating efficiency, which like any, is completely arbitrary.

If someone is using your VIN to make keys after, then the key isn't an arbitrary secret.

If someone has a picture of your key, then they know your secret outright, even if it is arbitrary.

What you describe is no better than me copying your passwords off a Post-It note you left on your monitor.

A proper key is not "obscurity" -- it is secret! No, those are not the same things, a key has no logic to obscure. This discussion is no longer at the point were we can employ layman's definitions and continue to talk sense.

You're blurring the definition of security and obscurity, which is already well defined. Obscurity refers to the logic of the system. Your system must be secure even if an attacker knows everything about how it works, because there is a separate part, the secret key, that is completely arbitrary and assumed to be kept secure. A key is only secret, arbitrary data; a cipher is only well-known logic; security though obscurity by definition means mixing your secret data with your public logic, a bad idea.

The biggest purpose of cryptography is to take big secrets (plaintext) and make them small secrets (private or secret keys). How it goes about doing that shouldn't be obscure.

A home invader shouldn't be able to break into my house even if they know everything about my lock and door, what matters is that they don't have the key (which has no mechanical components - it's not part of the system until I want to unlock the door).

Except for the fact that the output of a software program isn't copyrightable. Licenses only permit/restrict distribution, not "conveyance", so that provision is unenforceable.

It seemed more likely that you mean "private corporations are incapable of providing these services".

Literally, yes, this is probably correct. But that's because the government, as I demonstrated, has completely monopolized the industries you refer to, not due to any lack of interest from businesses.

If the government took over the letter shipping industry, we'd make the same remark "I don't see private corporations sending letters to people's doorsteps anytime soon." Oh, wait. That's what we have now: Sending letters is illegal.

Different example: If the government took over the airline industry, we'd make the same remark, "I don't see private corporations flying passengers any time soon." Wait, isn't that exactly what British Airways is?

No, I mean actual paved roads going from major city to city. Commercially, they're known as turnpikes.

It's just a comment, not a conclusion, so there's nothing to non sequitur' (your remark that government not paving roads would mean private dirt roads for a commute is an example of a non sequitur). I'm just backing up my point that historically, government has not funded transportation, and there's plenty of examples of long-distance private transit.

Rule of law is very well and good. I never disagreed.

I didn't mean to imply I want corporations busting down my door in a SWAT raid. At that point, there is no distinction between the two. Government is the entity that has monopoly on use of force, or authority to assert a monopoly at its choosing; corporations are voluntary. I explicitly referred to use of force.

It is a straw man, you misrepresent the position. I say I don't want people who can knock down my front door in a SWAT raid just to test the quality of my water. Corporations, though it happens far less frequently, have also been known to force their ways into people's property. (Arguably at that point they are no longer a corporation but a state. That's a matter of definition.)

But nonetheless, just because you cannot imagine a time when these services were funded without taxes, doesn't mean it's impossible.

The government doesn't provide us "safe food". They do far less than you actually think, and for much of history, there was none. Yet we had refrigeration standards for produce, and the government doesn't have a very good history identifying actual injuries (among other things, claiming that ketchup was poisonous and Coca-Cola somehow dangerous, though I guess NYC still does, for different reasons). It's still unlikely that we'd have a rash of poisoned food, if the insurance companies have anything to say about it (they're ultimately picking up the bill). Some industries aren't regulated by the Federal government at all, like electronics (except for RF requirements, and even that is tested by private labs). Those big fancy warning labels aren't added to hairdryers because some government agency mandates it.

Likewise for roads, for much of history, the government did not pave or maintain roads. The first government funded transportation in the US was actually water canals.

Nor did they provide firemen. To this day there's still private firefighting services and private roads - covering rather large geographical regions. Until just a few years ago, paramedics here were privately operated (the fire department bought most of the providers out, and while the quality didn't significantly change, though it's a tad bit more expensive - government monopoly, what a shocker).

But apparently this is all impossible, you say?

Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction.

Corporations get stuff done because someone with money thought up an idea.

Governments get stuff done because someone with a personal army thought up an idea.

Now I don't know about you, but I'll take the guy with money any day. I see a kind of big difference between a door-to-door salesman ringing my bell, and the IRS, FBI/NSA, or EPA ringing my bell. (If they're polite enough to not just knock the thing in first.)

The senate eventually passed a bill, but not before the House sent nearly a dozen bills their way.

Grandparent's words, not mine.

You can't add a rider to a budget that takes positive action, that wouldn't be "germane". You can, however, remove things from the budget. Democrats didn't like it and so they voted the budget down until they got what they wanted.

You can't use the budget to take positive action like killing babies or even raising taxes.

You can only use the budget to end existing government programs.

It has been done many times before, this is the first time in history one party has shut down the government over such a provision.

Rest assured there's plenty of people who oppose automobile protectionism for the same reason they oppose Obamacare.

Corporatism sees no political party lines.

(And I hate to break it to you, but it's Senate Democrats who voted down the budget for two weeks.)

Aww, and here I was thinking that we had to have a perfect society. But no, I guess we have to throw in the towel and give up on even trying.

Not to start an argument, but that's just unfair. You can hardly say the Tea Party types have tried to "retard legislation" (as if that's a bad thing). It's Harry Reid who for two weeks flat out refused to engage in any sort of discussion.

And in general, if a bill is unconstitutional, you can't negotiate away that fact. It's like "You wanna kill two people, I believe in not killing, so let's settle for killing just one person." It's absurd, and it invites the other party to just double their initial offering.