61–70 of 115 posts
No mention of intellectual property. It isn’t government regulation that prevents people from innovating. It’s government protection of their innovation that incents them.
Yet that also makes it so that innovation requires permission from your competitors, which is stifling.
No mention of intellectual property. It isn’t government regulation that prevents people from innovating. It’s government protection of their innovation that incents them.
Yet that also makes it so that innovation requires permission from your competitors, which is stifling.
Joe has a patent on the widget. I can’t make a widget without violating his patent. I get a patent on an improved widget. Joe can’t manufacture the improvement. He’s incented to cooperate with me and I’m incented to innovate. Incented, not stifled.
Just allowing copying incents manufacture but not innovation. Even China is moving in the IP direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more specific. It's saying regulation should be largely post-hoc or with clearly defined before-hand rules. Instead, many people need permits (&c) for things where they're already following the rules. That creates a procedural barrier to change of any kind, and therefore is a massive handout to incumbents and crushes the most valuable part of a competitive market.
While the libertarian agrees with you in principle, the rest of me has been mugged by reality and has seen more than a few environmental disasters that have resulted from essential zero protection from bad actors dumping in the commons. E.g. ocean microplastic is a huge problem and has a lot to do with absolutely zero oversight from regulators on what can be used as packaging material. This is a big problem that we n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must find the easy libertarians to debate. The answer is that maximizing liberty involves minimizing net aggressions, and externalities are aggressions. Therefore, a society is more free if the government proactively prevents/taxes/regulates certain types of externalities that are impractical to deal with in individual lawsuits (non-localized pollution fits this bill perfectly). In the case of smog, the most comm…
I've literally never heard a libertarian argue that before.
A libertarian generally opposes government involvement because it creates inefficient pricing errors in the economy, such as subsidies. The argument for a carbon tax is that, for those who believe in climate change, it will actually minimize the current pricing error by taking into account the externalities that the carbon will create.
The only question is then what the tax should be priced at, and by whom, in order to accurately reflect the damage.
Devise a social organization that focuses on protecting and encouraging this freedom
It reminds me of an article I read years ago in a magazine about solar power. A guy decided to go off grid with solar panels and battery back up. He was living in Chicago. He called around to find out who regulated this sort of thing, where he needed to apply for permits or whatever. He learned that there wasn't a governing body. So he realized that as long as he didn't do anything stupid (a la burn the building down…
I can't remember if it was on HN or reddit, but there was a comment//post about how a job site operated similar to this. To heavily paraphrase over the gist of the second-hand account from the boss: "Our workplace will be rule-free until people start abusing it. When someone goes overboard, a rule against their abuse will be created under their name which will be applicable to everybody; if you think that rule bullsh…
It reminds me of an article I read years ago in a magazine about solar power. A guy decided to go off grid with solar panels and battery back up. He was living in Chicago. He called around to find out who regulated this sort of thing, where he needed to apply for permits or whatever. He learned that there wasn't a governing body. So he realized that as long as he didn't do anything stupid (a la burn the building down…
I can't remember if it was on HN or reddit, but there was a comment//post about how a job site operated similar to this. To heavily paraphrase over the gist of the second-hand account from the boss: "Our workplace will be rule-free until people start abusing it. When someone goes overboard, a rule against their abuse will be created under their name which will be applicable to everybody; if you think that rule bullsh…
_"To truly innovate, one must be prepared to seek forgiveness not permission."_
The author has a great interview on econtalk about this which I found very interesting.