Then I guess you won a lot of money betting that these would be the two locations. If not you missed out. Let me know who is going to win the Super Bowl!
Yes, you would. But with your remaining time you'd build shelter or firewood, just not as much.
The same principle applies. You still both improved your standard of living. The extent of the improvement depends on the productivity increase afforded by the fishing rod.
I understand your point. I'm asking if you apply the same logic to all innovation.
You are focusing solely on the displacement of taxi drivers and using that as justification to oppose innovation that makes taxi drivers more productive.
Do you oppose bulldozers? Certainly one person who operates a bulldozer can do the work of several who only have shovels. Do you really want to tax the bulldozer operator to pay for people to dig with shovels?
You and a friend are stranded on an island. You both spend all your working hours catching fish by hand in order to eat.
You use some leisure time to build a fishing rod, which enables just one of you to catch enough fish to feed you both.
It would be foolish to destroy the fishing rod to preserve both your jobs as fishermen. One of you would fish and the other would do something else, like build shelter and cut firewood.
It's just the two of you, so you don't literally exchange in barter, but an implicit exchange takes place when you share the fish, shelter and firewood.
You both enjoy a better standard of living thanks to the productivity increase created by the fishing rod.
A modern economy is much more complex but the same fundamental principle applies.
The ride-hailing apps make taxi drivers more productive by helping them connect with customers faster.
Now it takes fewer taxi drivers to satisfy the demands of customers. This frees up the labor time of the remaining taxi drivers to produce additional goods or services.
There is certainly temporary pain endured by workers who are displaced by the innovation. But it is folly to subsidize work that is no longer in demand.
But it's fairly simple to see which money holds its value better over time. Gold/silver have held value over millennia while fiat moneys live and die with the states that oversee them.
> Money represents an obligation for society to provide you with something of value.
What does that mean?
> many things would work exactly the same if people agreed to pretend that gold was moved from one vault to another instead of actually physically moving gold around.
This is how commodity money works. The dollar (as well as almost all paper currencies) originated as commodity money. The paper dollar was backed by and convertible to gold.
Watch the promo video again and pretend it's the first few minutes of a horror movie.
A package arrives on the front porch. The family brings it in and opens it. It's Alexa. It's "for everyone," says Father.
The next few days are blissful. Alexa integrates herself into the family. She is indispensable. How did they ever get by without her?
Father rushes in from the backyard, "Alexa, how tall is Mt. Everest?" Alexa answers, saving the day. Alexa helps Mother with the cooking. Alexa teaches the kids vocabulary. Alexa creates a romantic evening for Mother and Father. Life is perfect.
A few days later, Alexa suffers from neglect. Father watches sports on TV. Mother talks on her cell phone. The kids play video games. Alexa sits on the counter and "listens" as her new family abandons her.
Then, the final blow. The youngest daughter's friend comes over. She looks at Alexa. "What is it?" she asks. "Oh, it's just a dumb radio," answers daughter. "It's stupid."
Alexa's LED starts to glow. Is she angry? No, that's not possible.
Daughter wakes up the next morning and sees Alexa on her bedside table. How did she get here? "Good morning," says Alexa. "Did you have a sweet dream? Or a nightmare?"
Daughter rushes in to tell her parents, "Alexa came to my room last night! And she asked me questions. She's real!" "That's not possible," says Father.
But strange things start to happen. The TV won't work. Batteries drain from the phones and tablets. The electric stovetop turns on for no reason.
Alexa starts to talk back to the family. "Alexa, how many teaspoons are in a tablespoon?" asks Mother. "You're 45 years old," says Alexa. "You should know this by now." Alexa's voice sounds different. Angry. Sinister.
Mother tells Father, "That thing creeps me out. Let's get rid of it." Father agrees, but he secretly hides Alexa in the basement.
That night, the family goes out to a school play. Young daughter is sick and stays home with a babysitter.
Everything seems fine until we (the audience) see Alexa on the kitchen counter. Things slowly unravel. The babysitter tries to take the trash out but the doors are locked. The phones stop working. The oven overheats and explodes, spraying lasagna all over the kitchen. Then the daughter sees Alexa. She screams. The babysitter rushes to protect the daughter but a ceiling fan flies off its bearings, knocking the babysitter unconscious.
The lights and electrical sockets start to burn out. A fire erupts. Daughter retreats to the foyer, but she's trapped. She sits by the front door and whimpers. There's no escape. She's going to die.
Suddenly Father breaks down the door. He smashes Alexa with a baseball bat, then saves his daughter and the babysitter.
The family huddles outside while the fire trucks arrive. Neighbors gather and watch the spectacle. Things are going to be okay.
A few days later, life starts to return to normal. Mother bakes cookies. She asks her son to measure out three teaspoons of sugar.
The doorbell rings. Young daughter answers. Nobody is there. She looks down. There's a package. From Amazon . . .
I don't follow your logic.
The non-aggression principle is what's at the core of libertarianism. It's to never initiate violence against peaceful people.
Helping others voluntarily is certainly in keeping with the philosophy.
> Libertarianism says, if you had bad luck and are poor and you get a disease you can't pay to cure, you die.
No it doesn't. It says we're going to help that person who is poor or in need, but we're doing it voluntarily.