Comments for Nathan's Blog http://www.nathanrice.org The Personal Webspace of Nathan Rice Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:59:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on Scare Us, then Lead Us to Safety by Trent Eady http://www.nathanrice.org/2010/01/scare-us-then-lead-us-to-safety/#comment-15563 Trent Eady Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:59:53 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=357#comment-15563 You might enjoy this book: http://www.mcclelland.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780771032998 I did, immensely. You might enjoy this book: http://www.mcclelland.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780771032998

I did, immensely.

]]> Comment on On the Tyranny of Many by Kenneth Newman http://www.nathanrice.org/2009/07/on-the-tyranny-of-many/#comment-13988 Kenneth Newman Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:19:27 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=337#comment-13988 Agreed, I just want people to know not to defend fraud because they're confused about their right to charge 30%. Its the deliberate calculated deception that pisses me off about those credit card companies and mortgage lenders. I think we agree on that. I'd like them to use our tax money to get those criminals rather then waste it on wars. Agreed, I just want people to know not to defend fraud because they’re confused about their right to charge 30%. Its the deliberate calculated deception that pisses me off about those credit card companies and mortgage lenders. I think we agree on that. I’d like them to use our tax money to get those criminals rather then waste it on wars.

]]> Comment on Profit Is NOT Evil by Nathan Rice http://www.nathanrice.org/2009/11/profit-is-not-evil/#comment-13972 Nathan Rice Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:01:44 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=355#comment-13972 They would, perhaps, be too general if someone wasn't familiar with libertarian philosophy. Man is naturally free ... completely free. Through a social contract (Federal and State constitutions and local municipal elections), we concede certain freedoms to be restricted. The liberties we concede can categorized as those liberties that could, when exercised, limit the liberties of another. To put it simply ... your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Therefore, if a corporation decides to exercise economic liberties by stealing, defrauding, or murdering someone, they've violated that person's right to life, liberty, and property. The government exists exclusively as a means of protecting the liberties of the people it represents. Telling a corporation how much they can charge customers for a service, or how much profit is "reasonable", does not fall into the category of protecting anyone's liberty. It only restricts it. I really didn't address the philosophy behind the profit/innovation correlation. Hopefully the post makes more sense in light of my philosophy on Government. They would, perhaps, be too general if someone wasn’t familiar with libertarian philosophy.
Man is naturally free … completely free. Through a social contract (Federal and State constitutions and local municipal elections), we concede certain freedoms to be restricted. The liberties we concede can categorized as those liberties that could, when exercised, limit the liberties of another.

To put it simply … your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Therefore, if a corporation decides to exercise economic liberties by stealing, defrauding, or murdering someone, they’ve violated that person’s right to life, liberty, and property. The government exists exclusively as a means of protecting the liberties of the people it represents.

Telling a corporation how much they can charge customers for a service, or how much profit is “reasonable”, does not fall into the category of protecting anyone’s liberty. It only restricts it.

I really didn’t address the philosophy behind the profit/innovation correlation. Hopefully the post makes more sense in light of my philosophy on Government.

]]> Comment on On the Tyranny of Many by Nathan Rice http://www.nathanrice.org/2009/07/on-the-tyranny-of-many/#comment-13971 Nathan Rice Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:37:59 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=337#comment-13971 Any libertarian worth his salt knows the rule of law is vital to a free society. Freedom can't be unbridled, but the limitations should be reasonable and few. Of course we have to punish fraud and theft. But we can't protect people from making bad decisions. I'm not an anti-regulation guy ... I just don't want the regulations to be unreasonable (or unconstitutional). Punish fraud, deception, theft, etc. I'm all for that. But I'm afraid that this isn't enough for some people. Some people think it's immoral for credit card companies to charge 30% interest. I say they have a right to charge me 30% interest, and I have a right to never use their card. That's economic liberty. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is contractually agree to 10% interest, then jack it up to 30% on my balance without telling me. That's fraud. Any libertarian worth his salt knows the rule of law is vital to a free society. Freedom can’t be unbridled, but the limitations should be reasonable and few. Of course we have to punish fraud and theft. But we can’t protect people from making bad decisions.

I’m not an anti-regulation guy … I just don’t want the regulations to be unreasonable (or unconstitutional). Punish fraud, deception, theft, etc. I’m all for that. But I’m afraid that this isn’t enough for some people. Some people think it’s immoral for credit card companies to charge 30% interest. I say they have a right to charge me 30% interest, and I have a right to never use their card. That’s economic liberty.

What they shouldn’t be allowed to do is contractually agree to 10% interest, then jack it up to 30% on my balance without telling me. That’s fraud.

]]> Comment on On the Tyranny of Many by Kenneth Newman http://www.nathanrice.org/2009/07/on-the-tyranny-of-many/#comment-13967 Kenneth Newman Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:44:27 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=337#comment-13967 Nathan, you're a programmer, so you understand systems. You understand the difference between the idea and the implementation. I believe that some ideas are good, some bad. The implementation of most ideas (on all sides) seem to be faulty, ie, Bush AND Obama. The problem is with an unchecked free market tycoons, the Wall Street guys, because they are frauds. A free market needs regulation: no lying, no deception, no coercion, free participation (or not), all relevant info available to both parties, among other things. Reading Adam Smith's book: The Wealth of Nations, he tells that publicly funded education is a requirement to a capitalist society. Nathan, you’re a programmer, so you understand systems. You understand the difference between the idea and the implementation. I believe that some ideas are good, some bad. The implementation of most ideas (on all sides) seem to be faulty, ie, Bush AND Obama. The problem is with an unchecked free market tycoons, the Wall Street guys, because they are frauds. A free market needs regulation: no lying, no deception, no coercion, free participation (or not), all relevant info available to both parties, among other things. Reading Adam Smith’s book: The Wealth of Nations, he tells that publicly funded education is a requirement to a capitalist society.

]]> Comment on Profit Is NOT Evil by Kenneth Newman http://www.nathanrice.org/2009/11/profit-is-not-evil/#comment-13964 Kenneth Newman Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:35:18 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=355#comment-13964 Your statements are too general. "Profit potential incentivizes innovation." This, in certain cases, ie., with certain constraints may be true (within a truly free market, not "free market" as widely understood); in others, it's not true (usually stealing and robbery are not very innovative). "Restrict profit, or demonize it, and you inhibit progress." This, of course, as a statement has little value. Even the most hard-core libertarian believes in some restriction, ie., prohibition against fraud and robbery. Also, to seek profit, above all other values for example, IS evil. Murdering competition for an advantage or profit should be demonized. Doing so "incentivizes", and does not inhibit progress. My problem with such generalities is that people end up believing such shortcuts of thought literally, and without qualification or exception. Markets are great, but they are NOT the greatest good. Profit is good, but not in and of itself. Context isn't optional. In short, the idea you present isn't worthy of imitating a great saying of wisdom. Your statements are too general.

“Profit potential incentivizes innovation.”
This, in certain cases, ie., with certain constraints may be true (within a truly free market, not “free market” as widely understood); in others, it’s not true (usually stealing and robbery are not very innovative).

“Restrict profit, or demonize it, and you inhibit progress.”
This, of course, as a statement has little value. Even the most hard-core libertarian believes in some restriction, ie., prohibition against fraud and robbery. Also, to seek profit, above all other values for example, IS evil. Murdering competition for an advantage or profit should be demonized. Doing so “incentivizes”, and does not inhibit progress.

My problem with such generalities is that people end up believing such shortcuts of thought literally, and without qualification or exception.

Markets are great, but they are NOT the greatest good. Profit is good, but not in and of itself. Context isn’t optional.

In short, the idea you present isn’t worthy of imitating a great saying of wisdom.

]]> Comment on On Healthcare by GaryS California health insurance http://www.nathanrice.org/2009/07/on-healthcare/#comment-13927 GaryS California health insurance Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:42:18 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=343#comment-13927 Health insurance doesnt work in the US. If you cant afford it (it is very expensive) you dont have it. We do have programs to provide insurance to those that cant afford it, but it is primarily for children. You can choose any treatment you want as long as you are going to pay for it. If you do have insurance the insurance company pretty much tells you what they will pay for, otherwise you are on your own. Insurance companies rule in the US, and if you dont like it…..too bad. Health insurance doesnt work in the US. If you cant afford it (it is very expensive) you dont have it. We do have programs to provide insurance to those that cant afford it,
but it is primarily for children. You can choose any treatment you want as long as you are going to pay for it. If you do have insurance the insurance company pretty much
tells you what they will pay for, otherwise you are on your own. Insurance companies rule in the US, and if you dont like it…..too bad.

]]> Comment on Profit Is NOT Evil by George DW http://www.nathanrice.org/2009/11/profit-is-not-evil/#comment-13459 George DW Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:10:17 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=355#comment-13459 I'll grant you that- but at the same time, and without advocating government <i>solution</i>, you can't deny that growing the rift between rich and poor is not something to be wished. I’ll grant you that- but at the same time, and without advocating government solution, you can’t deny that growing the rift between rich and poor is not something to be wished.

]]> Comment on It’s War by George DW http://www.nathanrice.org/2009/11/its-war/#comment-13458 George DW Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:03:59 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/?p=353#comment-13458 Unfortunate, though, that the sleeping hornets he stirred are, by-and-large, nuts. Not to indicate that ALL Tea Partiers are- my sympathies lie with them on the theoretical core principle of said 'Parties, but in practice most of that crowd are just plain wacko. Unfortunate, though, that the sleeping hornets he stirred are, by-and-large, nuts. Not to indicate that ALL Tea Partiers are- my sympathies lie with them on the theoretical core principle of said ‘Parties, but in practice most of that crowd are just plain wacko.

]]> Comment on 10 Small Church Strategies in a Big Church World by John Panico http://www.nathanrice.org/2007/01/10-small-church-strategies-in-a-big-church-world/#comment-12135 John Panico Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:37:25 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/2007/01/15/10-small-church-strategies-in-a-big-church-world/#comment-12135 Technology is really something that church leaders may need to fully employ. More and more pastors and ministers of the last century are delegating modern tasks to the new generation of church personnel who are more adept at these new ways of communicating with their community. There will be few small town exceptions of course, but generally, this is how most churches operate nowadays. From brochures to posters and websites, the overall package is comparably "more colorful" than what our parents got used to. If i were a church leader, it would be more of a need rather than an option. Technology is really something that church leaders may need to fully employ. More and more pastors and ministers of the last century are delegating modern tasks to the new generation of church personnel who are more adept at these new ways of communicating with their community. There will be few small town exceptions of course, but generally, this is how most churches operate nowadays. From brochures to posters and websites, the overall package is comparably “more colorful” than what our parents got used to. If i were a church leader, it would be more of a need rather than an option.

]]>