The FAA prevents new airplane designs and creates a pilot shortage too, the aviation regs are waste deep and often self contradicting. Though some of the problem has been forced by congress critters trying to pad their next campaigns, even against the advice of the FAA. The FAA was created in the late 60's and general aviation has been in serious decline since the mid 70's and it is directly traceable, not a coincidence.
I haven't finished the episode, may update if thoughts change, but I think the simplest solution to this question of space and property would be you treated as unknown until it is somehow homesteaded. Just because one firm sets a mining rig on a asteroid doesn't necessarily mean that they then exclusively can use the asteroid. Rather perhaps a situation could be struck whereby anything within x meters of the mine shaft or well is treated as owned and everything outside of that range is unowned. Perhaps other situations could be arranged if the act of mining or landing on the asteroid or departing the asteroid changes, its orbits etc etc. It doesn't necessarily have to be first lander against the whole thing
This episode gave me a kind of Overview Effect feeling. The earth is a big thinking sphere. As a asteroid approaches the earth, it reacts in antecipation, maybe by turning white with smoke or heating up.
Hmmm.... As of the writing of this comment, RUclips says this video has 16 comments, but when I count them myself I only see 10. It seems that a third of them just aren't showing up. Maybe people have controversial things to say about this video that RUclips won't allow.
If your asteroid crashes into mine sending pieces of both into a collision course with Earth; eventually wiping out several cities, how are damages assessed?
Because there was no financial reason to stay. It was effectively scientists dicking around on the moon on the public's dime while the Vietnam war and the Social Welfare programs were draining the US of money. The US public only cared insofar as the USSR lost the space race to the moon. Then we spent decades dicking around in low earth orbit on the public's dime, but we at least got GPS and other technologies related to satellite technology. Also, NASA over the years has become increasingly bureaucratic and incompetent in its endeavors, this was made worse by the shuttle disasters. The people that made the Apollo missions happen are not the same people that work there now. Contrast that to now, where Elon Musk and SpaceX, an efficient private company with the world's best talent, are able to bring the cost of space travel down while increasing capability beyond what we thought was possible even a year ago. The prospect of going to the moon, mars, and asteroids becomes a much more financially feasible and *possible* reality for private companies and humanity in general.
@sewersideproductions2606 Agreed. There’s a lot that doesn’t add up. The post “moon landing” interview of Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins is especially telling. They react exactly how you’d expect if they were looking forward to accomplishing the greatest technological feat in history and discovered last minute that they wouldn’t actually do it, but would still have to tell everyone else that they did. And the Apollo 11 Lunar Module literally looked like it was made of gold foil, curtain rods and duck tape. Aaron and Melissa Dyke’s (Truthstream Media) vid “Did the Space Age Begin on a Lie?” is worth watching. I suspect the whole space race thing was pushed 1) to garner public support for government directing technological research and development, 2) to further stoke Cold War tensions and 3) to create another money pit for the military industrial complex to exploit.
Seems like there would be another obvious effect that wasn't discussed here. After these capitalists buy rights to an asteroid they aren't just going to sit of those rights, they will want to be able to use them and so would also bid labor and capital away from the existing production structure and into space mining or similar technology. That would tend to drive up prices in other parts of the economy.
You might be interested in the work of Mark Spitznagel. I know he has a book called The Dao of Capital and another called Safe Haven. I've read the former, and it's about creating an investment strategy based on Austrian economics and ancient Chinese philosophy. I haven't read the latter but I intend on it. I know Spitznagel came up with an index he calls the Mises Stationarity Index which is based on the views Mises had about the evenly rotating economy, and it's good for saying where exactly we are in the business cycle. But that's just one piece of his investment strategy. He also thinks that he'd be a hypocrite if he were handing out investment advice but in reality had only been making money selling books about investing, like many gurus do, so I know there's a note at the beginning of his book The Dao of Capital that all profits from the book go to charity. He makes his money investing, not writing books.
Freedom= Life Liberty and Property. Many amendments would be covered by Liberty Liberty and Property. Just on the fly thinking....Problem many people have is that they think everything needs to be spelled out. This invites mass intervention. Only laws that violate Life Liberty and Property need to be heavily justified...such as can/should a citizen be permitted to pollute the air, water, and land near them...or to attain and use nuclear weapons. The ideas of anarchy, libertarianism, communism all sound good but they lack the controls to limit imbalances of power. They have ideas about this but no certain way to implement. Seems the only control method to limit ever centralizing power is Hard money and for people to become knowledgeable and to act. This is a poor and unreliable method. Is there something better? Perhaps some non human enforcement? ...similar to how Bitcoin decides upon the accepted current ledger (using proof of work). One must also think about local and national defense, and not just in the form of physical defense but also various forms of social warfare. So now that mankind has created weapons of mass destruction, how can a society of rules without rulers manage this? In a system of anarchy where the government is only protecting Life Liberty and Property via local police and national military, the military would become overpowered and those with access to this power will be authoritarian. Maybe a hard money system worldwide could limit this. Because if all the governments of the world were beholden to the citizens (the original purpose of gov and as it should be) then the government would only be funded by citizens and citizens would limit the vast growth and power of the government because people want prosperity not war. However, all it takes is a convincing leader to gain power and start centralizing things and then it will quickly become obvious that this centralized power can easily take what it wants from others. So there needs to be a sly non human model that regulates power, kinda like bitcoins proof of work that decides which distributed ledger is the 'correct' one. Other than the very critical problem above, anarchy under a hard money standard with basic rules could work like this: A flat tax on all citizens to fund the government (police, military, judicial, legislation, executive). Citizens decide how much. A distributed list of people that paid and didn't pay and why someone didn't pay. If the excuse is "I'm broke, etc" then people in community would be able to vet this. Under a hard monetary system, there would be much less wealth gap, so there wouldn't be as much a concern about the percentage paid by rich vs poor. Without the theft perpetrated by gov, citizens would be more caring and charities would flourish and self centered scrooges would be ostracized (as long as the scrooge isn't too powerful)....maybe.
![Kumamoto Masters Japan 2024 | Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] vs. Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) [2] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIjZybhsWqA/mqdefault.jpg)
26:32 There's an article on Fee saying the FAA prevents the invention of flying cars.
The FAA prevents new airplane designs and creates a pilot shortage too, the aviation regs are waste deep and often self contradicting. Though some of the problem has been forced by congress critters trying to pad their next campaigns, even against the advice of the FAA.
The FAA was created in the late 60's and general aviation has been in serious decline since the mid 70's and it is directly traceable, not a coincidence.
If it's Bob Murphy it's gotta be in the title! 😂
I haven't finished the episode, may update if thoughts change, but I think the simplest solution to this question of space and property would be you treated as unknown until it is somehow homesteaded. Just because one firm sets a mining rig on a asteroid doesn't necessarily mean that they then exclusively can use the asteroid. Rather perhaps a situation could be struck whereby anything within x meters of the mine shaft or well is treated as owned and everything outside of that range is unowned. Perhaps other situations could be arranged if the act of mining or landing on the asteroid or departing the asteroid changes, its orbits etc etc. It doesn't necessarily have to be first lander against the whole thing
love a good solo BM show.
I love watching a good solo BM while taking a good solo BM.
This episode gave me a kind of Overview Effect feeling. The earth is a big thinking sphere. As a asteroid approaches the earth, it reacts in antecipation, maybe by turning white with smoke or heating up.
we already have a legal theory for this
space is wilderness to be homesteaded
any "treaty" which prevents this is invalid
It’ll never happen. Impossible to do.
Hmmm.... As of the writing of this comment, RUclips says this video has 16 comments, but when I count them myself I only see 10. It seems that a third of them just aren't showing up. Maybe people have controversial things to say about this video that RUclips won't allow.
@@justinjozokos1699 flat earth comments get hidden
If your asteroid crashes into mine sending pieces of both into a collision course with Earth; eventually wiping out several cities, how are damages assessed?
Totally off topic, but I now firmly believe humanity never walked in the moon. How could we have gone 6 times over 50 years ago, then just quit?
Richard Nixon.
Gerald Ford.
Because there was no financial reason to stay. It was effectively scientists dicking around on the moon on the public's dime while the Vietnam war and the Social Welfare programs were draining the US of money. The US public only cared insofar as the USSR lost the space race to the moon. Then we spent decades dicking around in low earth orbit on the public's dime, but we at least got GPS and other technologies related to satellite technology. Also, NASA over the years has become increasingly bureaucratic and incompetent in its endeavors, this was made worse by the shuttle disasters. The people that made the Apollo missions happen are not the same people that work there now.
Contrast that to now, where Elon Musk and SpaceX, an efficient private company with the world's best talent, are able to bring the cost of space travel down while increasing capability beyond what we thought was possible even a year ago. The prospect of going to the moon, mars, and asteroids becomes a much more financially feasible and *possible* reality for private companies and humanity in general.
@sewersideproductions2606 Agreed. There’s a lot that doesn’t add up. The post “moon landing” interview of Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins is especially telling. They react exactly how you’d expect if they were looking forward to accomplishing the greatest technological feat in history and discovered last minute that they wouldn’t actually do it, but would still have to tell everyone else that they did. And the Apollo 11 Lunar Module literally looked like it was made of gold foil, curtain rods and duck tape. Aaron and Melissa Dyke’s (Truthstream Media) vid “Did the Space Age Begin on a Lie?” is worth watching. I suspect the whole space race thing was pushed 1) to garner public support for government directing technological research and development, 2) to further stoke Cold War tensions and 3) to create another money pit for the military industrial complex to exploit.
29:54
Seems like there would be another obvious effect that wasn't discussed here. After these capitalists buy rights to an asteroid they aren't just going to sit of those rights, they will want to be able to use them and so would also bid labor and capital away from the existing production structure and into space mining or similar technology. That would tend to drive up prices in other parts of the economy.
the new blue economy...what a current topic for u to revisit....what is going on in Costa Rica?
Has the Mises school ever thought about giving investment advice in the market? I think they would be great at it.
Bitcoin?
You might be interested in the work of Mark Spitznagel. I know he has a book called The Dao of Capital and another called Safe Haven. I've read the former, and it's about creating an investment strategy based on Austrian economics and ancient Chinese philosophy. I haven't read the latter but I intend on it.
I know Spitznagel came up with an index he calls the Mises Stationarity Index which is based on the views Mises had about the evenly rotating economy, and it's good for saying where exactly we are in the business cycle. But that's just one piece of his investment strategy.
He also thinks that he'd be a hypocrite if he were handing out investment advice but in reality had only been making money selling books about investing, like many gurus do, so I know there's a note at the beginning of his book The Dao of Capital that all profits from the book go to charity. He makes his money investing, not writing books.
Freedom= Life Liberty and Property.
Many amendments would be covered by Liberty Liberty and Property.
Just on the fly thinking....Problem many people have is that they think everything needs to be spelled out. This invites mass intervention.
Only laws that violate Life Liberty and Property need to be heavily justified...such as can/should a citizen be permitted to pollute the air, water, and land near them...or to attain and use nuclear weapons.
The ideas of anarchy, libertarianism, communism all sound good but they lack the controls to limit imbalances of power. They have ideas about this but no certain way to implement. Seems the only control method to limit ever centralizing power is Hard money and for people to become knowledgeable and to act. This is a poor and unreliable method. Is there something better? Perhaps some non human enforcement? ...similar to how Bitcoin decides upon the accepted current ledger (using proof of work). One must also think about local and national defense, and not just in the form of physical defense but also various forms of social warfare.
So now that mankind has created weapons of mass destruction, how can a society of rules without rulers manage this? In a system of anarchy where the government is only protecting Life Liberty and Property via local police and national military, the military would become overpowered and those with access to this power will be authoritarian.
Maybe a hard money system worldwide could limit this. Because if all the governments of the world were beholden to the citizens (the original purpose of gov and as it should be) then the government would only be funded by citizens and citizens would limit the vast growth and power of the government because people want prosperity not war. However, all it takes is a convincing leader to gain power and start centralizing things and then it will quickly become obvious that this centralized power can easily take what it wants from others. So there needs to be a sly non human model that regulates power, kinda like bitcoins proof of work that decides which distributed ledger is the 'correct' one.
Other than the very critical problem above, anarchy under a hard money standard with basic rules could work like this:
A flat tax on all citizens to fund the government (police, military, judicial, legislation, executive). Citizens decide how much. A distributed list of people that paid and didn't pay and why someone didn't pay. If the excuse is "I'm broke, etc" then people in community would be able to vet this.
Under a hard monetary system, there would be much less wealth gap, so there wouldn't be as much a concern about the percentage paid by rich vs poor.
Without the theft perpetrated by gov, citizens would be more caring and charities would flourish and self centered scrooges would be ostracized (as long as the scrooge isn't too powerful)....maybe.
Brr skibidi dom dom dom yes yes