As a Texan, I somewhat resent this statement. Some of us were lucky enough to have parents who valued education, despite the State's constant de-funding of it.

Also, there are dumbasses everywhere in "amercia" it would seem.

My first thought was from The KLF. But that's just me.

Both of the items you mentioned have intrinsic value. Intrinsic means: Innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential. The value of both of your objects is tightly connected to the object itself. People find these objects valuable based on what they are, not some outside authority's fiat. The value of fiat currency, however, is not intrinsic: The value is tied to the reputation of the backer, and is typically legally mandated by that backer. If that reputation goes down the drain (e.g., a nation-state collapses) or that law is repealed (e.g., "demonetization" of old currency), the fiat currency isn't worth the paper it's printed on... except, perhaps, in the distant future as "numismatic" value for collectors.

As for your distinction between "useful" objects like shoes vs. "useless" objects like a famous photograph, this is meaningless economically. Things have value simply because people want them, and are willing to trade what they have for what they want. To someone who doesn't wear shoes, those shoes of yours are equally as useless as a Trump photograph. Equally, to someone who collects photographs of celebrities, that Trump photo might be highly useful. If someone were collecting such photos and you tried to sell them a pair of shoes instead, they'd probably laugh at you and walk away.

You think one object is "useful" and another "useless." Other people's ideas of utility differ. There is no universal standard of "useful" that automatically translates into value, and that so many people think there is, and want to impose this concept onto free markets, is probably one of the biggest problems with modern economics and centrally-planned monetary policy.

No problem, Si Begg might also be something you like, although his stuff is rather erratic in quality. If you like your metal, have you ever heard of Bong-Ra? :)

Will check it out, cheers :)

This is why i use openDNS on my kids computer. You do realize children are not capable of making their own decisions 100% of the time right? You do realize that some things should be censored from kids so that they can have a childhood right?

I agree. And that is your responsibility as a parent. But I do not agree that the world at large should be barred from certain subject matters simply because your child should not see it.

What should we do about Wikipedia's porn problem? Recognize that there is no "problem"---that this is no more a "problem" than any other content on Wikipedia that some people don't like---and move on to something that's actually important?

Buttbuttinate. That is all.

Sure, but the government is only regulating itself (and their political subdivisions). I read the bill; all they're doing is regulating what their boards, agencies, commissions, &al., may in turn do.

I guess this is yet another unintended consequence of having the government create such boards, agencies, and commissions in the first place. The government creates regulatory agencies with the hope of doing something good, people and businesses come to trust the word of such agencies (e.g., insurance companies making risk determinations), and then the agencies get captured by interests that co-opt them. Now they agencies are untrustworthy, but since they're a government monopoly with no competition, what are people to do?

The libertarian idea is guided by the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which states that only the initiation of force or fraud against another is immoral. Anything else is permitted, including using force or fraud to stop someone who has initiated such against another. Another way to frame it is that it's never moral to interfere with another's freedom of choice. This all stems from the idea of self-ownership: That a person is absolutely the owner and controller of their own mind and body, and that no one else can own or control them without their consent.

The NAP therefore prohibits stuff like theft, kidnapping, assault, rape, and murder. All of these actions are initiations of force or fraud, all of them are interfering with another's freedom of choice, all of them are disrespecting a person's absolute self-ownership. The NAP does not allow for common laws such as paying nonconsensual fees to the government (taxes, licenses, permits, &c.), requiring permission from the government to engage in various activities (drive a motor vehicle, engage in certain professions, develop a piece of land, hunt, fish, purchase or carry a firearm, &c.), and prohibitions against things such as drug and alcohol use, assisted suicide, or any consensual sexual activities. In fact, since all of these laws interfere with a person's freedom of choice, the laws themselves are violations of the NAP.