felipeko

Yet most patented inventions are pretty obvious on how to copy without the need to look at the patent, same with this case.

So we have no benefit of "open access to the mechanism" but with the deleterious effect of the "temporary (1/5 of a long human life) monopoly".

It is a good thing to be encouraged to saving instead of spending.

No one needs incentive to spend. You will spend if you have plenty to spend. Having a currency which gains in value will take you there.

They can make this difference disappear by accepting bitcoin then.

There's no "could be" here. Not wanting to go to jail is a subjective preference.

That most people prefer the same thing, does not make value objective.

If it did, Bitcoin would also have "objective value" from its scarcity, difficulty of confiscation, ease of move between borders, and many other properties which are preferred by most.

Value is always and everywhere a subjective phenomenon.

Value is subjective.

For me, Bitcoin has value because it can't be inflated, and I can carry it on my head over any country's frontier without governments harassing me because of it.

Sure, Bitcoin is a means to an end, I can only "use" it by exchanging it for something else, but so is any other currency.

Yes, that is my understanding.

But I'm asking in the case of naked short, which is what is being defended as "superior system" in this thread.

But it will make it more expensive than otherwise to raise capital. That can make or break any company.

And what happens in the shareholder meeting?

Would the previous majority shareholder group lose their majority even if they had sold no shares?

Or would the new majority shareholders have no decision making power even though they have more "shares"?

Exactly.

It is understandable that having an model of an observer can be useful to a brain.

But how/why does that opens a window to an actual observer, and not just a model, is the question.

And we only know that - an actual observer exists - through first hand experience. It is our most immediate and certain knowledge (Cogito, ergo sum), everything else can be questioned. Yet, there's nothing in physics or computer science that gives a hint to this being the case.

By inner experience, we mean that there's a subject which gets to have perception of such models.

There's no need for such subject to exist.

For example, most people assume that, so far, computers do not have any inner experience.

A computer could, conceivably, execute the same functions as our brain, yet have no inner experience of anything. Numbers get in, numbers get out, without any inner experience being needed.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I am anarcho-capitalist, and I have no trouble being absolutist about freedom of speech inside one's own property.

So there's that.

There's nothing intrinsically superior to either SCOTUS or any group or organization's interpretation.

I'm pretty sure you are able to interpret it as not allowing even in the worst and most extreme cases, you just don't want to. There's no need for an argument from authority.

Is allowed under some interpretation of the first amendment. It is not allowed by the first amendement per se.

I don't think the Brazilian government has this responsibility as it is the most at fault for Brazil's lacking free market.

Maybe when it becomes a champion on that, removing barriers of entry, protectionism, subsidies and it's public companies monopolies, then it can be a fair judge on this issue.