Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:When Banks Were Able to Print Their Own Money (Score 1) 132

by fredprado (#47425055) Attached to: Judge Shoots Down "Bitcoin Isn't Money" Argument In Silk Road Trial

f course, as 19th-century observers frequently noted, a poorly capitalized bank that printed notes it couldn't redeem was, in the end, little different from a counterfeiting operation.

As is any government that prints too much money and causes inflation.

Comment: Re:Well, duh... (Score 1) 210

And most of the buts and trade-offs, if not all, are arguably unnecessary and exist solely to give control to bureaucracies over individuals. Other are not in opposition to the rights themselves. Libel laws, for example are not necessarily an exception to free speech, unless they demand the take over of the offending information. Civil consequences for the damage you make by lying are in perfect harmony with total and unrestricted free speech.

Rights as long as they are included in the law should be as unconditional as possible, always, and the difficulty of doing that is just another motive why rights should never exist in the law. The law should be negative only and anything it doesn't deny should be an inviolable individual right.

Comment: Re:Well, duh... (Score 1) 210

It does not need to be a Human Right. Even because the Human Rights Chart makes all countries in the world offenders if taken seriously. What I mean is that as long something is defined as an individual right by any legal chart applicable, it should be absolute as long as the law exists, not dependent upon the whim of the majority, a bureaucracy or whatever.

Comment: Make it like chess (Score 1) 220

I am all for a single competition for both sexes, as long as we don`t have people whining that women are being discriminated because there are not "enough" of them at the top.

But if they really think they need a female only competition make it like chess.

Chess has a female ranking and a universal ranking. Any person, woman or man who wants to compete in the universal ranking can as long as they have the necessary ELO.

Comment: Re:Let them drink! (Score 1) 532

by fredprado (#47338165) Attached to: NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks
Sure they do. There are laws that regulate every single aspect of society nowadays. What can and cannot be done and how. It is no wonder that you need expensive lawyers, able to find and twist the many loopholes such a complex law code has to have any chance of success in a lawsuit.

And you are completely wrong in your assumptions. The more regulations you have the easier is to keep competition out. It has always been this way and you won`t ever find an example of the opposite.

Comment: Re:Let them drink! (Score 1) 532

by fredprado (#47338015) Attached to: NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks
And why courts would be that way? Maybe because the legislation is overly complex and extensive trying to regulate everything, and government is too busy trying to do 196797698 things that it shouldn't be doing toi do the thing it should correctly.

If the houses in your examples burn it will be a trivial matter to determine the cause and there will be a lot of witnesses. The company will have to pay a lot of money in compensations which will make it much cheaper for them to do it right, even because the maintenance costs for doing it wrong are considerable. Regulations are irrelevant here, the responsibility for any accident generated by their equipment is theirs and that is enough.

The funniest part on your example is that the worse and most irregular electrical installations are those made by State owned power companies in countries where the State tries to do even more than in US, and in these cases there are no consequences at all, you can't even sue them with any hope of receiving anything.

Regulations only serve to create gargantuan regulatory bodies, which basically exist to sell favors, block competition and perpetuate themselves. Bodies that do not grant any measure of increased security compared to a judicial system that works.

Comment: Re:Let them drink! (Score 1) 532

by fredprado (#47337635) Attached to: NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks
You prevent the poles from becoming like this with the due legal responsibilities for any accidents they produce, and this responsibility does not depend on the existence of regulatory agencies and much less of limited concessions. The same applies to your shooting example. You don't have a regulatory agency verifying if people are shooting well with their registered guns, but if they do misuse them they go to jail. Regulations solve nothing, even because regulators are always for sale. Consequences do.

The truth is: there is no monopoly in the face of the Earth that was able to survive more than a very short time without the help of a government.

The State has very clear roles which is to keep peace (police), protect people from external threats (military) and solve disputes that can`t be solved by mutual agreement (judicial system). That is very far from doing nothing and the only reason that justifies the existence of a an entity that is based on violence and coercion. Everything else is better done by the private initiative, especially when the State keeps out of it.

Comment: Re:Let them drink! (Score 1) 532

by fredprado (#47336253) Attached to: NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks
You have one power company because the STATE forces you to have a single one. If the state did not regulate and use the concession model you would probably have more, especially if the business is a lucrative one.

Having to work not to starve does not make it non consensual. From the damn of mankind it is a choice every single human being has. Sorry, but nobody has the duty to work to feed you.

In a free market you don't need to sign to work for someone else or starve, you can work yourself without signing for anyone. It is the STATE that forces you to sign by making expensive and too risky any endeavor you decide to start. For example, if you want to be a taxi driver good luck, you won't get a license. Want to open a hair cut shop? I hope you know somebody in the mayor office. And so on.

Oh and if you point a gun at me and say: "Your money or your life", you will be the State, because that is exactly what the state does.

Comment: Re:Let them drink! (Score 1) 532

by fredprado (#47335133) Attached to: NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks
All crazy laws are based on the assumption that it is the govern business to regulate everything and that by doing that it will solve all problems. And by everything I mean not only the economy, which consists basically of consensual deals between two or more individuals which should not be the business of the government in any way or form, but also any relation between individuals and even regarding how a single individual lives his life.

There are several mechanisms used to pass such laws, from the infamous "national security", to the "defense of poor victims of society", to the equally horrible "we are giving this right you didn't ask for and because of that we own you", among many others.

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson