Thursday, May 19, 2011
Right now, all roads, as far as I know, are maintained by private companies, but governments pay for those companies to maintain the roads. The same thing occurs as far as how the military gets its weapons; companies build the bombs and bullets, while the government pays for those bombs and bullets to be made.
The difference between public and private roads is who pays for the roads. If you want roads, you will pay for them; why should those that don't use the roads pay(be taxed) for them?
If governments were to (1) stop paying for roads and were to (2) stop regulating roads, then individuals, companies, and communities would pave and maintain roads as they see fit. This would be organic and decentralized, rather than planned and centralized; it is no wonder roads are terrible everywhere I seem to drive, except in my apartment complex, driveways, and parking lots.
Also, I've come up with a proverb (if it can be called that):
Private property is the basis of prosperity; politics is the basis of poverty.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Therefore, I am beginning to think that math class is inefficient, since writing out the equations and showing your work when using a computer program is so much faster. I agree that if someone is going to go into a science for their career, then being able to solve mathematical equations by hand MAY be useful.
However, I cannot see any point in continuing to write out one's math when one could use a computer program to do the same work, but more quickly. I haven't found any such programs, though I imagine that one could make a lot of money. Let's call this program AutoMath.
AutoMath's gui would provide a list of equations, a custom equation field, the ouput, and an option to output each step from equation to answer. Also, AutoMath should be able to read and output equations written in LaTeX. Obviously, this would not help those instances where you have a word problem, but that could be another program entirely.
AutoMath is a labor-saving device, of sorts, that makes any mathematical work faster, which would be a desktop version of what is already used in financial, military, avionic, and aerospace industries. For instance, the Moon-lander used in 1969 had a computer that solved equations constantly through out the historic landing on the moon. Also, financial institutions use extremely sophisticated mathematical models to attempt to either predict prices or to attempt to buy and sell products and services at the best possible time.
Industries already use the concept behind AutoMath, though AutoMath is meant to be used by math students and scientists. Programmers may or may not find it useful, since a few lines of Ruby could do the same thing.
One last thing: I see this absence of a kind of AutoMath, especially for students, is an atavism that may hopefully vanish within the next generation, as the baby-boomers leave the work-force.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Been a while, but I guess there is no point in posting when I can't think of anything to post. To whit, I have found something I want to post, namely, regarding private positive law.
Theologians mention positive law as any laws that are made in addition to God's laws. A better definition may be that positive law is any law created be any human for the purpose of regulation of human behavior. (Regulation = the causing of regularity)
The most obvious instances of positive law happen to be those laws that governments make and enforce. Laws regarding how you may run your business, what medications you may manufacture, what plant fiber you may not ingest; the list is endless and endlessly absurd when it comes to government's positive laws. (seriously, who gives a crap if I have a sharp piece of metal in my pocket, I happen to collect sharp pieces of metal.)
Private positive laws are the most useful positive laws I have come across in my life time. Businesses tend to write out the majority of private positive laws (I think), though individuals do write their own positive laws. Contracts, whether between businesses, individuals, or both, provide for the most common form of private positive law, because, as I defined positive law above, a contract seeks to regulate human behavior.
When a singer signs a contract to sing so many songs for so much money, that singer has voluntarily chosen to cooperate with a business. The signing of the contract results in both the business and the individual to act in a regular manner, as the contract describes; this regularity would not occur unless all parties to the contract were voluntarily interested in acting regularly. This is the beauty of private positive law in the form of contracts, in that no amount of enforcement or coercion is necessary, so long as the government is no involved, of course.
As you can see, private positive law tends to be helpful in regulating human behavior so long as government does not become an issue.
Government positive laws started out as dictates from chiefs and kings. When the king wanted something, like a tribute or tax, he would declare that all in his jurisdiction shall do or be punished. This simple reliance upon violence (punishment) to regulate human behavior (pay your taxes) is the basis of every government positive law. The possible exception is when a law tells a department of government to do something, as a punishment is not mentioned. (Maybe the government employees know they will lose their job if they don't do as the government positive law says.)
In short, positive law regulates human behavior; government positive law regulates behavior based on violence; private positive law regulates behavior based on mutual consent. It is therefore sad that so many theologians look to government as the sole source of positive law, which is the most disgraceful form of it; maybe more people should be taught economics rather than merely the three R's.
I hope to expound more on private positive law in the future, as it shows how humans can live in tranquility without recourse to the wickedness of government.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
My perspective on the above has been changing most quickly since last summer, though my blog posts have not yet shown that change. Such a modification goes something like this: constitutionalist, minarchist libertarian, anarchist libertarian, autarchist, and now something around voluntaryism, agorism, and anarcho-capitalsim. The distinctions are mostly academic in nature once I got beyond anarchist libertarianism, though I find it interesting that voluntaryists, agorists, and anarcho-capitalists will occasionally bicker that one or the other isn't principled enough.
Principles, notably the non-aggression principle, are what make the libertarians in America different from almost every other political perspective in the world. Libertarianism takes not specific issue, like gay marriage or abortion, as its beliefs. Instead, Libertarianism takes the simple and universally obvious non-aggression principle as the foundation of positions on any particular issue.
This principled stance against aggression results in opposition from conservatives and liberals, but not because cons or libs think the non-aggression principle is wrongheaded. Rather, cons and libs see libertarianism as evil because of the positions it takes on the numerous issues in American politics. That is the basis of mudslinging, but it works to discredit potential libertarians, who have been convinced that only issues matter.
For instance, my mother recently mentioned that she considers herself to be a Pro-Life libertarian. That distinction comes from the fact that the Libertarian Party has a neutral stance on abortion. In case anyone was unsure, the Libertarian Party does not define libertarianism; the LP is merely a bunch of libertarians who want to see an L next to some names in Congress. This is why I have extreme doubt that the LP will ever gain any ground.
Speaking of gaining ground, Ron Paul did more for the spreading of libertarianism while he was on campaign in 2008, than most any LP party. That is because Ron Paul has gotten himself into places where the LP either cannot or will not go, like the widely publicized Republican Convention.
I think that the LP, Ron Paul, and any other libertarian should only have speaking tours. Ron Paul was not applauded at the places he spoke at because he was a great speaker, but he was honest, which is naturally lacking in the most prominent of politicians. I have never heard hide-nor-tail of LP candidates in my area, but I have heard lots about libertarian-esque speakers in places like Arizona and New Hampshire.
Now don't get me wrong, my lack of faith in libertarians getting elected is not accompanied by some desire to find the next-best-candidate. I have given up all hope in politics and therefore voting. Voting has become, to me, a sort of waste of time; I get to show my ID, stand at a booth, color in some circles or poke some names on a screen, watch the results on TV, then forget that I voted at all.
The only other time I can think of that I do similar things was the SAT, and I never saw any benefit in taking the SAT aside from avoiding flak from people who thought the SAT was direly important. What is odd is that most things I go out of my way to do revolves around the idea that I want to avoid complaints; maybe that is my don't-hurt-me reflex out of order.
At any rate, I no longer vote, and I probably will continue to see irony as people are disappointed by politicians who are caught doing illegal/immoral things(Spitzer, Blagoyavich, Bill Clinton). When I was about to do something stupid, my sister said that she would laugh if I get hurt, which I naturally ignored and proceeded to get hurt. She did not laugh, but said, "I told you so."
I wonder how Americans would react to a book that goes through the entire history of political disappointments in America. It would castigate both Republicans and Democrats while pointing out the irony of the event; Libertarian politicians may get a mention, if only to point out the futility of politics as a means of progress.
It was real and it was fun, but I still can't define a libertarian.
Monday, January 17, 2011
I highly suggest that you read the article linked above, because it makes the very clear point regarding online shopping.
Liberals would likely spin this as reasonable regulation to keep American consumers safe from things like identity theft.
Fundamentalist christian conservatives might spin this as proof that Obama is the Anti-Christ (read the article).
Neo-Conservatives would spin Obama's move as being a apart of a larger effort to fight terrorism, but in this case using identification of Internet users. (that would be utter bullshit)
True libertarians wouldn't spin this, only to point out the fruitlessness of the whole endeavor.
I think that Obama is trying to piss off Anonymous, which is getting easier and easier each time anyone in government even slightly suggests regulating the Internet (FCC + Net Neutrality) or harming someone who uses the Internet for anti-corruption purposes (Julian Assange). I have read pictures by Anonymous and they seem to go something like this:
The government/corporation is doing something we don't like;
We think that a DDoS attack from many locations is proper protest;
All who agree with the above are encouraged to participate in the DDoS on such-and-such date;
They won't get away with this atrocity;
We are many, We are Anonymous.
I may have not caught all of the subtleties of a typical Anonymous post, so plz don't complain; I am merely a blogger, not an Anonymous participator (as much as I would love to, I have more important things to worry about than protests of any kind).
At any rate, I believe that Obama is digging his own whole by unconsciously taking on Anonymous. I cannot wait for the 2012 election posters:
"Obama tried to kill the Internet."
"Boehner did nothing to stop Obama's massive power grabs."
John Boehner, the new speaker for the House, will prove himself to be an idiot in the next two years if he doesn't do at least two things:
1) Repeal the Food Safety Modernization act; (a very dangerous and very stupid bill)
2) Repeal Obamacare. (a very stupid and somewhat dangerous bill)
Any idiot can repeal those, if at the very least through the indirect means known as defunding the program.
However, repealing these two acts of Congress would only put America back onto a course without the problems these bills would create. That is, Americans have not yet began to seriously suffer from the effects of either bill, for now.
I will contribute my entire savings account and checking account to Boehner's re-election campaign is he gets at least one of the following passed through Congress:
A) A total repeal of the Income tax, with no replacement, not even the suggested Fair Tax;
B) An abolition of a Federal agency whose budget is at least one billion dollars per year;
C) A repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act;
D) A ban on the playing of Justin Bieber music in public, and/or distribution of his music.
I might work for Boehner for free for 7 years straight if he can successfully purge the United States Code; that would involve what I like to call simply repealing every act of the United States Congress, thus achieving the above A, B, and C. D is just icing on the cake, should he even consider it as even Constitutional, much less as being worthy of a second thought..
Don't get me wrong; I don't consider any Real Change to occur in my life-time, much less before the Second Coming. I can fantasize, can't I?
It will be a miracle if Boehner focuses on a non-partisan issue, like Federal regulation of everything short of my hear beat (obvious hyperbole should be obvious). This is nonetheless the reason why I have written-off any change coming from the Federal government.
I will begin focusing on the States as a source of change, because I see lots of real change:
-New Hampshire has abolished its knife laws.
-Arizona and Alaska have joined Vermont in what is now called Constitutional Carry, with some restrictions.
-Several states (38?) have considered or have already passed laws that challenge Federal regulation of intrastate commerce, specifically regarding guns.
Well, that is all for now, I have to sleep.