Functions of a Government

[Punished UMN]

most advanced NSG political theory

[Concejos Unidos]

I adhere to Adam Smith's theory, government should not interfere in economic relations

adam smith did not believe this. In fact, he very clearly talks of the need to regulate against combinations of producers (collusion) throughout the Wealth of Nations, and his sympathy for the physiocrats and approving remarks on the land tax show that his work falls far more in line with a proto-Georgist, almost proto-proto-socialist line, rather than the incoherent Austrianism some people ascribe to him. Adam Smith's belief was primarily that the government should not interfere with international trade with protectionism.

[Dumb Ideologies]

A long time ago i lived in china for half a year. i ate a wide variety of very delicious and affordable street food nearly everyday and didn't get food poisoning once.

They'll throw any old ingredients into a dish over there. You never quite know what you're going to be eating. Chop sui generis.

[Duvniask]

A long time ago i lived in china for half a year. i ate a wide variety of very delicious and affordable street food nearly everyday and didn't get food poisoning once.

They'll throw any old ingredients into a dish over there. You never quite know what you're going to be eating. Chop sui generis.

A young childhood friend of mine was quite delighted to show me some scorpions and beetles on display in food stalls alongside sheep penis.

[Elwher]

They'll throw any old ingredients into a dish over there. You never quite know what you're going to be eating. Chop sui generis.

A young childhood friend of mine was quite delighted to show me some scorpions and beetles on display in food stalls alongside sheep penis.

Don't knock it unless you've tried it. Sometimes the most disgusting sounding things are delicious.

[Harry Islands]

A young childhood friend of mine was quite delighted to show me some scorpions and beetles on display in food stalls alongside sheep penis.

Don't knock it unless you've tried it. Sometimes the most disgusting sounding things are delicious.

But is it healthy?

[Zerotaxia]

Yes, but there must be an actual contract (physical or digital) to enforce, not some sneaky EULA or "implied" agreement. No contract, no case.

An EULA is an actual contract, one either agrees to it or refrains from using the product. I fully agree with the implied agreement part, however

I would say it's more of a license or permit. It even says so in the name: End User License Agreement.

A contract is supposed to be a voluntary quid pro quo, i.e. A agrees to perform a task for B; B agrees to pay A or perform a different task in return. Most EULAs are one-sided in nature, i.e. they impose restrictions on the licensee but not the licensor, and furthermore such agreements aren't always fully voluntary or entered with informed consent. To me, "by using X you agree to Y" doesn't count as a valid consensual contract regardless of what the law says. In any case, EULAs have their basis in copyright, which is yet another coercive mechanism for the rich & powerful to railroad the working classes, so they (together with police) should be abolished and made unconstitutional. Buying something means you should be able to do whatever the hell you want with it; no strings attached.

[Talkeetna Alaska]

All hail Anarchy.

No, but seriously do we even need government? I mean, they don’t do anything but suppress our free speech and propping up big buisinesses that oppress us even further. The only role of a government is to suppress any and all power of corporations and corporate interests as well as anyone else in the government who even thinks about restricting the rights and freedoms given to us as citizens. If the government does nothing but silence the authority of other government members, our citizens would live free of outside interference and we would have our anarchic UTOPIA.

[Harry Islands]

All hail Anarchy.

No, but seriously do we even need government? I mean, they don’t do anything but suppress our free speech and propping up big buisinesses that oppress us even further. The only role of a government is to suppress any and all power of corporations and corporate interests as well as anyone else in the government who even thinks about restricting the rights and freedoms given to us as citizens. If the government does nothing but silence the authority of other government members, our citizens would live free of outside interference and we would have our anarchic UTOPIA.

Would everyone do what they wanted? hmm, that sounds more like chaos to me

[Talkeetna Alaska]

All hail Anarchy.

No, but seriously do we even need government? I mean, they don’t do anything but suppress our free speech and propping up big buisinesses that oppress us even further. The only role of a government is to suppress any and all power of corporations and corporate interests as well as anyone else in the government who even thinks about restricting the rights and freedoms given to us as citizens. If the government does nothing but silence the authority of other government members, our citizens would live free of outside interference and we would have our anarchic UTOPIA.

Would everyone do what they wanted? hmm, that sounds more like chaos to me

As long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, than yes, that is precisely what I am looking for.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

All hail Anarchy.

No, but seriously do we even need government? I mean, they don’t do anything but suppress our free speech and propping up big buisinesses that oppress us even further. The only role of a government is to suppress any and all power of corporations and corporate interests as well as anyone else in the government who even thinks about restricting the rights and freedoms given to us as citizens. If the government does nothing but silence the authority of other government members, our citizens would live free of outside interference and we would have our anarchic UTOPIA.

Oh yes

I want to see your town mob's or armed citizens reasons to be entitled to defend said person

Also, what if they're being attacked by some roving former military remnants in IFVs and APCs armed with their service rifles capable to at least 800m and flak and kevlar with combat training and possibly experience.

Hell, they also might have some mortars or even small artillery to shell the place before attack. And some of the team leaders armed with grenade launchers along side regular frag grenades.

Have fun.

Kingdom of Buckingham Palace and Wellington Barracks.
!

[Elwher]

An EULA is an actual contract, one either agrees to it or refrains from using the product. I fully agree with the implied agreement part, however

I would say it's more of a license or permit. It even says so in the name: End User License Agreement.

A contract is supposed to be a voluntary quid pro quo, i.e. A agrees to perform a task for B; B agrees to pay A or perform a different task in return. Most EULAs are one-sided in nature, i.e. they impose restrictions on the licensee but not the licensor, and furthermore such agreements aren't always fully voluntary or entered with informed consent. To me, "by using X you agree to Y" doesn't count as a valid consensual contract regardless of what the law says. In any case, EULAs have their basis in copyright, which is yet another coercive mechanism for the rich & powerful to railroad the working classes, so they (together with police) should be abolished and made unconstitutional. Buying something means you should be able to do whatever the hell you want with it; no strings attached.

The one place I totally agree with you is the 'By using this you agree to that" type of EULA. In order to be valid, the user should have to positively agree to it by signature, digital or physical. As to the copyright issue, the only restriction I would support is that you cannot copy and resell the item. The actual item you purchased, yes it should be entirely up to you what you wish to do with it.

By abolishing copyright protections, the people you are most hurting are the creators of IP, most of whom are not rich and powerful. Do you honestly believe that 4 working-class kids from Liverpool should not have had the rights to the revenue from the songs they wrote and performed?

[Elwher]

Would everyone do what they wanted? hmm, that sounds more like chaos to me

As long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, than yes, that is precisely what I am looking for.

And, absent some form of government, how does one keep it from harming anyone else?

[Kalivyah]

You want anarchy because you want there to be no masters above you and no servants below you. I want anarchy so I can say that my country is the OLDEST ANARCHIC COUNTRY IN MIN

[Harry Islands]

You want anarchy because you want there to be no masters above you and no servants below you. I want anarchy so I can say that my country is the OLDEST ANARCHIC COUNTRY IN MIN

That was scary, especially the GIF of Stalin staring at me at the end of the sentence.

[Kalivyah]

You want anarchy because you want there to be no masters above you and no servants below you. I want anarchy so I can say that my country is the OLDEST ANARCHIC COUNTRY IN MIN

That was scary, especially the GIF of Stalin staring at me at the end of the sentence.

You should be scared.

[Harry Islands]

That was scary, especially the GIF of Stalin staring at me at the end of the sentence.

You should be scared.

Hm, scared?
...
..
.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Zerotaxia]

By abolishing copyright protections, the people you are most hurting are the creators of IP, most of whom are not rich and powerful. Do you honestly believe that 4 working-class kids from Liverpool should not have had the rights to the revenue from the songs they wrote and performed?

You mean Disney, Nintendo, Sony, and other multi-billion-dollar megacorps? Nah, fuck 'em.

1. Perhaps that's how copyright was originally envisioned, but like everything else in corporate America, it's been twisted to enrich the wealthy media bosses while screwing over the indie content creators it was meant to protect. When have the feds ever blackmailed another country to extradite someone for infringing on some random YouTube video? Probably never. But they've done that countless times when the victim was someone they judged "worthy" of their protection, i.e. major studios and publishing houses.

2. Copyright is by nature a coercive restriction on free speech. If I want to say something, I shouldn't be prevented from saying it as much as I want, or have to pay for the privilege, just because someone else said it first, and especially not by the government under penalty of incarceration. No one should be able to own words or ideas; those who control the narrative control the populace.

Patents and trademarks would also be abolished in my new government for the same aforementioned reasons.

[El Lazaro]

I would say it's more of a license or permit. It even says so in the name: End User License Agreement.

A contract is supposed to be a voluntary quid pro quo, i.e. A agrees to perform a task for B; B agrees to pay A or perform a different task in return. Most EULAs are one-sided in nature, i.e. they impose restrictions on the licensee but not the licensor, and furthermore such agreements aren't always fully voluntary or entered with informed consent. To me, "by using X you agree to Y" doesn't count as a valid consensual contract regardless of what the law says. In any case, EULAs have their basis in copyright, which is yet another coercive mechanism for the rich & powerful to railroad the working classes, so they (together with police) should be abolished and made unconstitutional. Buying something means you should be able to do whatever the hell you want with it; no strings attached.

The one place I totally agree with you is the 'By using this you agree to that" type of EULA. In order to be valid, the user should have to positively agree to it by signature, digital or physical. As to the copyright issue, the only restriction I would support is that you cannot copy and resell the item. The actual item you purchased, yes it should be entirely up to you what you wish to do with it.

By abolishing copyright protections, the people you are most hurting are the creators of IP, most of whom are not rich and powerful. Do you honestly believe that 4 working-class kids from Liverpool should not have had the rights to the revenue from the songs they wrote and performed?

Eh, most musicians are already broke and the ones who don’t depend on royalties. Concerts, merchandise, and advertising is where the vast majority of the money is, so the music recordings are really just promotional material.

[Elwher]

By abolishing copyright protections, the people you are most hurting are the creators of IP, most of whom are not rich and powerful. Do you honestly believe that 4 working-class kids from Liverpool should not have had the rights to the revenue from the songs they wrote and performed?

You mean Disney, Nintendo, Sony, and other multi-billion-dollar megacorps? Nah, fuck 'em.

1. Perhaps that's how copyright was originally envisioned, but like everything else in corporate America, it's been twisted to enrich the wealthy media bosses while screwing over the indie content creators it was meant to protect. When have the feds ever blackmailed another country to extradite someone for infringing on some random YouTube video? Probably never. But they've done that countless times when the victim was someone they judged "worthy" of their protection, i.e. major studios and publishing houses.

2. Copyright is by nature a coercive restriction on free speech. If I want to say something, I shouldn't be prevented from saying it as much as I want, or have to pay for the privilege, just because someone else said it first, and especially not by the government under penalty of incarceration. No one should be able to own words or ideas; those who control the narrative control the populace.

Patents and trademarks would also be abolished in my new government for the same aforementioned reasons.

And how many authors would be writing new material if any yahoo can just copy their works and sell them at a discount? If I put my time into writing something, be it a play, novel, history, or whatever, I am entitled to whatever revenue it may generate.

[Talkeetna Alaska]

As long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, than yes, that is precisely what I am looking for.

And, absent some form of government, how does one keep it from harming anyone else?

That is the only thing the government should enforce; stopping people from harming other people

[Zerotaxia]

And how many authors would be writing new material if any yahoo can just copy their works and sell them at a discount? If I put my time into writing something, be it a play, novel, history, or whatever, I am entitled to whatever revenue it may generate.

1. Words and ideas aren't something you can hold in your hands. Therefore, no one should be able to claim ownership or make money off them. All literature and knowledge should be in the public domain, not locked up behind paywalls.

2. The current system strongly favors entrenched corporate interests as opposed to individual authors, artists, and inventors.

3. Besides stifling free speech, copyright is a form of government-enforced monopoly and therefore a violation of economic freedom. Rather than innovate and build better products, rightsholders are incentivized to sit on their IP and prevent competitors from making improvements.

4. I'm not just opposed to monopolies but regulatory laws in general; I believe that government has no business protecting people from themselves or each other, e.g. police, food inspection, building codes, mandatory seatbelt laws. Copyright just happens to be one of them.

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

And how many authors would be writing new material if any yahoo can just copy their works and sell them at a discount? If I put my time into writing something, be it a play, novel, history, or whatever, I am entitled to whatever revenue it may generate.

1. Words and ideas aren't something you can hold in your hands. Therefore, no one should be able to claim ownership or make money off them. All literature and knowledge should be in the public domain, not locked up behind paywalls.

2. The current system strongly favors entrenched corporate interests as opposed to individual authors, artists, and inventors.

3. Besides stifling free speech, copyright is a form of government-enforced monopoly and therefore a violation of economic freedom. Rather than innovate and build better products, rightsholders are incentivized to sit on their IP and prevent competitors from making improvements.

Well... I agree up to here. Governments don’t stifle free speech!

• (Judges prevent (generally) assholes from abusing the First Amendment (which isn’t the same as free speech) and causing stochastic terrorism!)

4. I'm not just opposed to monopolies but regulatory laws in general; I believe that government has no business protecting people from themselves or each other, e.g. police, food inspection, building codes, mandatory seatbelt laws. Copyright just happens to be one of them.

So you want a lot of death before corporations care (/ give a f*ck)?!

• (This mentality makes me want to HAVE the government BAN the idea of ancaps PERMANENTLY!)

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

1. Words and ideas aren't something you can hold in your hands. Therefore, no one should be able to claim ownership or make money off them. All literature and knowledge should be in the public domain, not locked up behind paywalls.

2. The current system strongly favors entrenched corporate interests as opposed to individual authors, artists, and inventors.

3. Besides stifling free speech, copyright is a form of government-enforced monopoly and therefore a violation of economic freedom. Rather than innovate and build better products, rightsholders are incentivized to sit on their IP and prevent competitors from making improvements.

Well... I agree up to here. Governments don’t stifle free speech!

• (Judges prevent (generally) assholes from abusing the First Amendment (which isn’t the same as free speech) and causing stochastic terrorism!)

4. I'm not just opposed to monopolies but regulatory laws in general; I believe that government has no business protecting people from themselves or each other, e.g. police, food inspection, building codes, mandatory seatbelt laws. Copyright just happens to be one of them.

So you want a lot of death before corporations care (/ give a f*ck)?!

• (This mentality makes me want to HAVE the government BAN the idea of ancaps PERMANENTLY!)

Your posts are unreadable because of all that pointless formatting.

[Kalivyah]

And how many authors would be writing new material if any yahoo can just copy their works and sell them at a discount? If I put my time into writing something, be it a play, novel, history, or whatever, I am entitled to whatever revenue it may generate.

1. Words and ideas aren't something you can hold in your hands. Therefore, no one should be able to claim ownership or make money off them. All literature and knowledge should be in the public domain, not locked up behind paywalls.

2. The current system strongly favors entrenched corporate interests as opposed to individual authors, artists, and inventors.

3. Besides stifling free speech, copyright is a form of government-enforced monopoly and therefore a violation of economic freedom. Rather than innovate and build better products, rightsholders are incentivized to sit on their IP and prevent competitors from making improvements.

4. I'm not just opposed to monopolies but regulatory laws in general; I believe that government has no business protecting people from themselves or each other, e.g. police, food inspection, building codes, mandatory seatbelt laws. Copyright just happens to be one of them.

You should consider not being a libertarian.