Slashdot Mirror

I said "real monopoly". Rockefeller had a ~90% market share but kept prices low because he knew competitors would come in if he didn't.
So that kind of high market share isn't a bad thing, so long as government stays out of it.
By the time government came in to "solve the problem", their market share had already dropped https://www.capitalism.org/ant...
If anything it seems more likely to me that they lobbied government to step in and raise barriers to entry to reduce competition.

Microsoft was summoned before congress, which demanded Microsoft 'invest' in Washington DC, with offices, lobbyists, etc.
Which basically means "buy us off, or else", they said no.
And 6 months later they where sued for anti-trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Microsoft had a high market share with Internet Explorer because they gave their software away for free.
Before that browsers where being sold for $50.
Oh the humanity! If only we didn't have the government to protect us against the horror of free products!

In practice you can always be in violation of anti-trust law:
- If your prices are low; you must be dumping
- If your prices are high; you must have a monopoly
- If your prices are similar; you must be in a cartel
It really depends on whether the politicians like you, making it the perfect extortion tool.

"In the end, software patents are the exact opposite of what a patent was intended to accomplish."
Which applies to everything government does.
So either people in government are stupid or their intentions are very different from what they say in public.

Capitalism abolishing force?! I would list you all the wars that were instigated by, and fought for profit of the military-industrial complex or some other capitalist entity

Yes capitalism and free markets. They are predicated on voluntary exchanges. If force is used there is neither capitalism nor a free market. What you describe is fascism, mercantilism, or something else.

Falcon

The only true monopoly is one enforced by the State. If a 'monopoly' in a free market is sufficiently onerous, that fact in itself will be incentive for the creation of a competitor.

Get your head out of your ass (or in this case, completely theoretical reaganomic dogma) and look at history. The first thing trusts do is erect noticable barriers to entry.

Specifically, in the computer industry, they use network externalities (in case you didn't study that, it's what keeps windows dominant) and patents on software/business models.

The more underhanded firms will also lob fake dmca notices, etc,etc.

The only true monopoly is one enforced by the State. If a 'monopoly' in a free market is sufficiently onerous, that fact in itself will be incentive for the creation of a competitor.

... except this isn't collectivism.

But it is. Collectivism says it's not your car if the Government thinks it can use your car better than you can. It's not even your body, because the Government thinks it can use your body better than you can -- and it'd prefer to see your body in jail than to let you damage state property by ingesting your drug of choice.

Where does the money go when the police auction off their ill-gotten goodies? Why, back to the police of course! If it was socialist collectivism, the money would be put into the local government pot and split equally.

This is *exactly* what capitalism is about.

No, this is *exactly* the opposite of capitalism.

Capitalism is a system based on voluntary trade (if you read no other link, read that one). Voluntary trade, by definition, requires that there be no coercion. Asset forfeiture, by definition, is a coercive act -- the guy with the gun takes your stuff, and you don't get your stuff back because you weren't charged with a crime, your stuff was, and your stuff just sits there on a chair when cross-examined at its trial. You correctly recognize and acknowledge the moral distinction between capitalism and coercion, and that's why you correctly describe the "goodies" as "ill-gotten".

The irony is that only capitalist act in the whole scenario is the drug transaction between the buyer and the seller that got the cops interested in the first place.

To bring us back on topic, most capitalists don't recognize that physical objects (which can't be copied) demand physical protection, which we delegate to the police. The cops (or even private citizens) are allowed to use force to stop someone else from stealing your stuff, because you traded a lot of time (your life) to earn the money that you used to purchase your stuff.

Intellectual property is qualitatively different from physical property, in that I can copy your stuff, and you still have your stuff. Some economists argue that the original creator should have the right (enforced by cops) to tell the entire planet not to make more copies of "his" stuff. Others argue that the original creator's wishes don't enter into it, and that you and I ought to be free to copy each other's copies of the creator's stuff until our hard drives are full. Most folks come down somewhere in the middle, but closer to the latter position than the former. It's obscene that Disney, Inc. gets an 80-years-and-counting monopoly (75 years after the death of one guy named Walt Disney) on the distribution of the 1928 cartoon Steamboat Willie than the 13-year patent protection offered to the pharmaceutical companies.

There's something fundamentally broken with a system of "intellectual property" when a system awards greater monopoly rights to a guy who drew a fucking cartoon mouse than the team that invents the cure for cancer.

... except this isn't collectivism.

But it is. Collectivism says it's not your car if the Government thinks it can use your car better than you can. It's not even your body, because the Government thinks it can use your body better than you can -- and it'd prefer to see your body in jail than to let you damage state property by ingesting your drug of choice.

Where does the money go when the police auction off their ill-gotten goodies? Why, back to the police of course! If it was socialist collectivism, the money would be put into the local government pot and split equally.

This is *exactly* what capitalism is about.

No, this is *exactly* the opposite of capitalism.

Capitalism is a system based on voluntary trade (if you read no other link, read that one). Voluntary trade, by definition, requires that there be no coercion. Asset forfeiture, by definition, is a coercive act -- the guy with the gun takes your stuff, and you don't get your stuff back because you weren't charged with a crime, your stuff was, and your stuff just sits there on a chair when cross-examined at its trial. You correctly recognize and acknowledge the moral distinction between capitalism and coercion, and that's why you correctly describe the "goodies" as "ill-gotten".

The irony is that only capitalist act in the whole scenario is the drug transaction between the buyer and the seller that got the cops interested in the first place.

To bring us back on topic, most capitalists don't recognize that physical objects (which can't be copied) demand physical protection, which we delegate to the police. The cops (or even private citizens) are allowed to use force to stop someone else from stealing your stuff, because you traded a lot of time (your life) to earn the money that you used to purchase your stuff.

Intellectual property is qualitatively different from physical property, in that I can copy your stuff, and you still have your stuff. Some economists argue that the original creator should have the right (enforced by cops) to tell the entire planet not to make more copies of "his" stuff. Others argue that the original creator's wishes don't enter into it, and that you and I ought to be free to copy each other's copies of the creator's stuff until our hard drives are full. Most folks come down somewhere in the middle, but closer to the latter position than the former. It's obscene that Disney, Inc. gets an 80-years-and-counting monopoly (75 years after the death of one guy named Walt Disney) on the distribution of the 1928 cartoon Steamboat Willie than the 13-year patent protection offered to the pharmaceutical companies.

There's something fundamentally broken with a system of "intellectual property" when a system awards greater monopoly rights to a guy who drew a fucking cartoon mouse than the team that invents the cure for cancer.

... except this isn't collectivism.

But it is. Collectivism says it's not your car if the Government thinks it can use your car better than you can. It's not even your body, because the Government thinks it can use your body better than you can -- and it'd prefer to see your body in jail than to let you damage state property by ingesting your drug of choice.

Where does the money go when the police auction off their ill-gotten goodies? Why, back to the police of course! If it was socialist collectivism, the money would be put into the local government pot and split equally.

This is *exactly* what capitalism is about.

No, this is *exactly* the opposite of capitalism.

Capitalism is a system based on voluntary trade (if you read no other link, read that one). Voluntary trade, by definition, requires that there be no coercion. Asset forfeiture, by definition, is a coercive act -- the guy with the gun takes your stuff, and you don't get your stuff back because you weren't charged with a crime, your stuff was, and your stuff just sits there on a chair when cross-examined at its trial. You correctly recognize and acknowledge the moral distinction between capitalism and coercion, and that's why you correctly describe the "goodies" as "ill-gotten".

The irony is that only capitalist act in the whole scenario is the drug transaction between the buyer and the seller that got the cops interested in the first place.

To bring us back on topic, most capitalists don't recognize that physical objects (which can't be copied) demand physical protection, which we delegate to the police. The cops (or even private citizens) are allowed to use force to stop someone else from stealing your stuff, because you traded a lot of time (your life) to earn the money that you used to purchase your stuff.

Intellectual property is qualitatively different from physical property, in that I can copy your stuff, and you still have your stuff. Some economists argue that the original creator should have the right (enforced by cops) to tell the entire planet not to make more copies of "his" stuff. Others argue that the original creator's wishes don't enter into it, and that you and I ought to be free to copy each other's copies of the creator's stuff until our hard drives are full. Most folks come down somewhere in the middle, but closer to the latter position than the former. It's obscene that Disney, Inc. gets an 80-years-and-counting monopoly (75 years after the death of one guy named Walt Disney) on the distribution of the 1928 cartoon Steamboat Willie than the 13-year patent protection offered to the pharmaceutical companies.

There's something fundamentally broken with a system of "intellectual property" when a system awards greater monopoly rights to a guy who drew a fucking cartoon mouse than the team that invents the cure for cancer.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a moral one.

Not everyone agrees with you.

I hate paying my celphone bill. -- +2 Interesting, +1 Insightful

I predict that US cell companies will one day soon be revealed to be colluding and price-fixing, and doing all sorts of nasty oligopoly/monopoly illegal things.

why the fuck is text messaging on most carrier 5-10 cents to send and again to receive? that's pure profit

Wrong. Capitalists are adamantly against monopolies created by government force. True capitalism doesn't allow government law to inferfere in the marketplace (like the government does when "protecting" the RIAA/MPAA or any other subsidized/lobbied industry).

Real capitalists fight in the marketplace, not in the courts.

Wrong. Capitalists are adamantly against monopolies created by government force. True capitalism doesn't allow government law to inferfere in the marketplace (like the government does when "protecting" the RIAA/MPAA or any other subsidized/lobbied industry).

Real capitalists fight in the marketplace, not in the courts.

Me neither. But countless companies with inferior products, inferior marketing, and inferior statist ideologies have tried to use "legal tactics, bribes and shoddy business deals" to sue or lobby against Microsoft because they couldn't compete in the free market like real Capitalists do. Your insinuation that Microsoft's stiff competitive spirit is somehow evil would only be "insightful" in a world where we punish market winners for being too successful. How sad.

Since the U.S. doesn't actually manufacture anything tangible anymore

Not true. Ford, GM, and many other manufacturing corporation. What is true is that a large part of the U.S. economy is a service economy and also is based on revenues from Intellectual Property. So for the U.S. there is a real value in ensuring that each copy of a product is purchased.

I guess you missed the bit where your referenced manufacturers were rated junk status on the stock market, eh?

"intellectual property" then becomes all the more important for maintaining control in a capitalistic economy still based on scarcity.

IP revnues are important, because if the U.S. lost major corporations that created IP hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens would be unemployed.

You don't read the paper much, do you?

Capitalism is the best method for allocating scarce resources.

Keen on Capitalism?

Are not all monopolies harmful?
Being a single seller, by itself, is not good, nor evil -- it depends on how one obtained that single-seller status. Did one obtain a monopoly by economic competition in the marketplace, or did one obtain it by political pull, i.e., lobbying? If such status is gained by competition in the free-market then the "monopoly" -- the successful business -- is good. If such status is gained by using the government, or Mafia, to force one's competition out of business, then the monopoly is evil.

By definition, copyright is a government imposed monopoly. Therefore, if you are a capitalist, copyright is evil.

"Where does this perpetual fracturing of control end in its pursuit of maximized individual happiness? It would seem that we're unavoidably led to anarchism. However, I'm skeptical that it would ultimately end in that. At some point I would hope the valuing and fostering of a community would begin to outweigh the anarchic, hording hermit for which you envision at the end of the line." American Libertarians are inherently conservatives (many in the Libertarian Party aren't even libertarians--you'll see this when you look at the bogus "war" on terrorism or individual rights due to security). I'm on the left and I"ll tell you how the left wing generall perceives libertarianism.

From a left wing point of view, there is little difference between anarchism and libertarianism. In fact, the Anarchist Party of USA considers itself as libertarian socialist. The right wing libertarians (Libertarian Party of USA is a right wing party) look at things differently. They view anarchism as seperate from Libertarianism. The key difference is that the right wing's key philosophy is capitalism. Anarchists would be against any govt (and more) but the (right-leaning) Libertarians are in favour of a govt (albeit a much smaller one). Right wing favours a govt because they need a govt to proect property rights--basically to have a legal system. Leftist libertarians don't see any difference because they don't care about the govt either way (they know that govt has done more harm and protects rights only when it suits it).

In the end, I have no idea what is going to happen. I don't think the US Libertarian Party will ever gain any foothold because very few on the left (including libertarians) vote for them. This is why the Green Party has more support than the Libertarian Party. Left-leaning libertarians parties may gain some influence in more liberal countries (say in Europe or something) but it will take a while. It's kind of hard for any libertarian party (whether left-leaning or right-leaning) to win when most of the population still won't support legalization of drugs or prostitution or things like that.

" Another issue I find myself uncomfortable with is the seeming dogmatic idea that if "propertizing" increases the conservation and efficiency of some consumable, and that's a good, than it must follow that the "propertizing" of any and all consumables must be much better. Rarely have I seen a reasonably thorough investigation of this issue. Perhaps someone on this board will point me to one. " This is largely due to capitalism. Pure capitalists believe everything should be privatizied, including rivers, roads, schools, etc. Most of the reasons use to justify privatization are capitalist in nature (eg. govt inefficient; property managed better by private owners rather than by public; skews property in favour of the lower classes rather than letting the wealthy own more; etc). Check out the answers on a site like capitalism.org to get an idea. Here is a brief explanation of why environment should be privatized. A popular Libertarian site is mises.org. This is a pure capitalist site (basically Austrian economics) and they'll explain why they want to privatize everything or why the Federal Reserve needs to be eliminated, or stuff like that. I'm a leftist so I don't support these views but they may be more up your alley--don't know...BTW, you CAN justify privatizing everything but it all depends on what you support (You can justify anything including killing people is good (fascists can PROVE how country can be better by killing off the blind, deaf, disabled people, poor immigrants, drug addicts, etc)).

Exactly.

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom."

- http://capitalism.org/index.htm

Actually ardent capitalist supporters also support insider trading.
But everything else you wrote is pretty swell.

I'm not a capitalist but here are my thoughts...

Capitalism calls for privatization of EVERYTHING (except courts). If you are a (pure) capitalist, you would be in favour of privatizing anything. This can include electricity utilities, schools, hospitals, roads, parks, rivers, trees, animals, etc ( simple principle regarding environment here).

The world is not practicing pure capitalism so all of it hasn't happened. However, the world is shifting towards pure capitalism. So things like parks are being privatized (check out Bush's plan to privatize American parks), schools are being privatized (applies to almost any country), animals are being privatized (genetic rights allows corporations to own newly created biological beings--so far it has only applied to simple organisms (like plants--look up the Monsato controversy) but it will likely include mammals in the future). Owning the moon may seem ludricrous to you but capitalism calls for privatizing it. It's just that it hasn't happened right now. However, I will guarantee you that the moon will be ownd by some private entities in a few hundread years (assuming capitalism is around--I think it will collapse).

Under capitalism, everything is supposed to be privately owned. That's a result of capitalism, just like how under socialism, communism, and anarchism, everything is supposed to be owned by the "common good" or society (usually represented by government or communes).

I have just talked about physical entities so far. The same applies to intangible things like "intellectual property", "thoughts", styles, fashion, etc. There is no difference between physical and mental entities--at least according to capitalism. For example, you will be sued in a similar manner whether you steal a company's (private) financial statements or its (private) computers. The courts--and consequently societies under capitalism--see no difference. Everything is private property according to capitalism.

Under capitalism, patents, copyrights, IP (intellectual property) rights, etc are just as strongly protected as tangible property like buildings, capital/money, or houses. You may think what I am saying is a bunch of nonsense. You might think that capitalism has nothing to do with privatizing mental concepts. You are mistaken.

Perhaps a very good example that is similar to the IP/copyright/DRM stuff is stock market indices. Financial institutions are the heart of capitalism so you can be sure that anything that they support is due to capitalism. How many of you know that a stock market index, like S&P 500, is owned by some corporation? An index is just a collection of stocks and anyone can make it up. But the fact that these things are owned essentially means that it is plausible for anyone to own IP, patents, DRM rights, etc. So it is actually a result of capitalism that mental constructs are owned.

Based on your thoughts you don't seem like a capitalist to me. Or perhaps you are not a pure capitalist. You may be a quasi-capitalist who supports some non-capitalist ideals. For instance, your comment "I just don't think there should be artificial government decrees that say people can own ideas beyond the right of recognition and the right to protect personal privacy" essentially implies that you are not a capitalist. Capitalism actually calls for governments to protect rights, however arbitrary, and capitalism has nothing to do with privacy. Things like privacy, human rights, environmental rights, etc have nothing to do with capitalism.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

The one who doesn't undertand materialism is you. In materialism there is no difference between people and things. There is no spirit/soul. That's why many people complain that in marxist systems people are slaves. That's why those systems always fail. People are not things.

I think you also miss what capitalism is (not that it is the best thing anyway). Go to this place to learn more about it.

Get a clue. Just because you can write code doesn't mean you understand economics.

Linking to capitalism.org to define the word "economics" is pretty funny. That site unabashedly argues for laissez-faire capitalism not on the basis that it's good for society, but rather because it's good for people who make a lot of money.

The anti-trust page that you link in particular to contains arguments that would frighten the hell out of any mainstream economist. Despite what capitlism.org says, anti-trust laws are about preserving competition, not "punishing businesses for being successful." Because it's competition that makes businesses give us good products and services, not the generosity of their hearts. You don't need to look any further for an example of this than Microsoft's own Internet Explorer, which improved in leaps and bounds right up until it killed Netscape, at which point all significant innovation halted.

And what's with the Henry Ford analogy? It makes no comparative sense whatsoever.

The point, for those who missed it, is that competition currently encourages several different anti-virus manufacturers to continually improve their products. If Microsoft gains a near-monopoly, that incentive mostly vanishes.

Oh, you are being serious. A company does something to make it's customers happy, and you want government gangsters to split them up because they put someone else out of business? As a consumer, what entitles TrendMicro to my $$$ when I would rather give it to MS (or not give it - service packs are free.

Get a clue. Just because you can write code doesn't mean you understand economics.

I don't think you know what capitalism is. Here is a very good reference of capitalism. You can also read stuff from Milton Friedman (God of capitalism) or the CATO institute (bastion of capitalism). Capitalism requires FREE MARKETS. The stuff I mentioned involve government intervention and is against capitalism. Minimum wage, for example, is anti-capitalist. All the capitalists call for the abolishment of it. Public healthcare, schools, libraries, etc are government MONOPOLIES. Therefore capitalists call for privatizing all of it (just read the capitalist press like the Wall Street Journal or what economists say (90% of all economists are capitalists)). Tariffs and subsidies are anti-capitalist because they distort the free market. And so forth.

You can't call these things "supplemental" when they conflict with the key requirements of capitalism.

Based on what you are saying, you don't sound like a capitalist to me. Take this test to see what you are.

This post is flavored by my being a US citizen, so take it as you will.

I'm much closer to you than you think :)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

I'm down on capitalism because I'm an anti-capitalist :) Capitalism is an elitist system where a few hoard resources (and hence wealth). That's not the type of society I want to create. If you are an elitist (and just so happens to be rich), it's a great system. But to me, it's not.

I don't really have a favourite per se, but one that I'm interested in is called parecon (participative economics). It is sort of a mix of socialism and anarchism.

Of course, few people actually understand what Capitalism actually is.

Actually it is easy to understand capitalism--far more easier than fascism, socialism, anarchism, communism, and others. It is easy to understand capitalism because it is the most dominant system. Even if you don't know much, you will run into it throughout your life. All you need to do is open your eyes. In addition, modern day economics is nothing more than capitalist economics. So anyone that takes economics knows what capitalism is all about. Lastly, if you don't know what capitalism is, you can always refer to the bastion of capitalism, or a good capitalist website like this.

Trust me, I know my arch-enemies: the capitalists. The question is do you know me?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

English-readers can find Wage Statistics on Norwegian government officials here, where you would find the Average Ministry Salary in 2002 was 30,200 Kroner, or about $4,260. There is a footnote, however, indicating that costs of health services are not included.

Interestingly enough, I ran across this through Google: "I do not think any job is worth 10 times a prime minister's salary," said Minister of Finance Gudmund Restad (Centre) when asked about Tormod Hermansen's NOK 7 million salary.", where one could infer that the prime minister's salary is ~700,000 NOK, or $102,734 on 5/20/2003, the day of this report. By comparison, Pres Bush's salary is $400,000 (raised from $200,000 by Pres Clinton in 1999, the first raise since 1969).

Personally, the salary levels in USA's government are outrageous, given the rate of increase (or lack thereof) of the common person's salary. My personal political beliefs align with the Republican party, who used to represent reduction of government... and recent budget bloat really concerns me... And you are correct, our cultures are vastly different. I for one, do not understand how you can have a political party called the "Christian People's Party" who can expect to remain neutral on affairs of church & state. It's also discouraging to me that the average Norwegian citizen cannot differetiate between the concepts of capitalism and greed; there is quite a difference between valuing and rewarding the risks and contributions of individuals, versus rewarding administrators at obscene rates for playing numbers games and bending rules for personal gain.

I'm not a capitalist but this my understading of capitalism...

The stuff you are talking about are all anti-capitalist measures. Pure capitalism would simply be a situation where the government is very tiny and simply enforces laws relating to commerce (like private property, etc). There would be no government intervention and everything would be a free market. Things like anti-trust laws, taxes, minimum wage, etc are all against capitalism. You can get the full details on (pure) capitalism here.

You don't sound like a capitalist to me. You seem more like someone who supports mixed economies (probably a social democrat (if left leaning) or paleoconservative (if right leaning), or something similar to those).

I actually read the grandparent comment to mean that the author looked at places like India and China and did not see free markets -- US companies did not have the same access to those markets that India and China have to the US.

Actually US companies DO have the same access although it isn't that great when it comes to China. Ask anyone in Latin America how things are going. If anything, USA preaches free trade and practices protectionism, while Latin American countries fall for the free trade mantra. The difference with China, however, is that it does EXACTLY the same thing USA does. Namely, it preaches free trade but uses protectionist measures. All this time, US corporations have been hurting many poor countries (mostly in Latin America and to a small extent in Africa) but now China isn't falling for that. India isn't THAT protectionist but its policies are closer to China than say Brazil. This is why China and India are actually doing well when other countries who "benefitted" from outsourcing (like Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, etc) aren't doing so well. USA has finally met an opponent who is just as formidable because they use the same technique it does...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

This has nothing to do with capitalism. There isn't a real capitalist economy on the planet, just as there isn't a real communist economy or a real socialist economy.

I agree that we aren't practicing PURE capitalism. However, countries like USA are on the path towards pure capitalism. It is more capitalistic than ever. It has more "free" markets, has open capital flow, financial systems, etc that go along with capitalism.

USA (or for that matter most other countries) may not be practicing pure capitalism. But it is closer to capitalism any others. If it is not capitalism, then what is USA practicing? (Read my whole post first). Merchantilism? You mention things like pseudo-socialism, fascism, and plutocracy, but these are minor traits. USA practices more capitalism than these other competing systems.

What do you say to people like me who theorize that free markets and capitalism will lead to oligopolies and monopolies? I believe that the so-called free market will lead to oligopolies or monopolies (if you want detailed view of why, let me know: I'm willing to type it up :) ). Essentially you will end up with large corporations controlling every aspect of life. The world is moving in that direction. You can already get a sense of that by observing how some corporations are already bigger than most of the small countries. Or how a few corporations dominate many sectors (eg. media, military weapons, oil, movies, cars, computers, etc). Things will just get worse. All you need are for a few of these corporations to merge a few more times (so far, anti-monopoly laws block these mergers but just wait until they are stricken down).

Anyway, under my theory, you will end up with what I call corporatism (I guess somewhat akin what you are calling corporte feudalism, although under my view, the system will be very "democratic" (in the veins of the present) and everyone will be "free" (as in American Dream: free to do whatever but only a few succeed and those that do control everything)).

What all this means is that the end-result is closer to capitalism than any other system. Even purists like you will probably count it as capitalism when it happens. Markets will be totally free, property rights will be strongly enforced, no corporate taxes, government intervention will not exist, etc. It's capitalism as capitalists like you want it to be. It's your dream except for one thing: instead of many little businesses ruling, you'll end up with a few large corporations. You might not want to call it capitalism but it will be for millions of people like me and others. In the end that's all that matters.

What does all this have to do with the original message? Well, the people who control the current system are capitalists. If a few corporations start ruling it must NECESSARILY be considered as capitalism. After all, if the CATO institute, perhaps the most powerful economic-oriented political body in the world right now, is driving USA (and other countries), then is it not capitalism? CATO institute doesn't get all what it wants. However, the fact that they are the most powerful body means that they influence the government the most (especially the right wing) and the corporations.

All the guys influencing the government, corporations, etc are CAPITALISTS. Read any economic book, or any speech given to CEOs, or what influences management (eg. Forbes, Wall Street Journal, etc) and you'll find that the capitalists have the power. If capitalists aren't running the show then who is? If USA isn't on the path towards capitalism, where is it headed? If Milton Friedman (God of capitalism) isn't influencing the world, who is? Karl Marx?

To put it plainly, USA is practicing capitalism! It may not be pure capitalism but it is a whole lot closer to it than communism, socialism, anarchism, theocracy, monarchy or any other competiting systems.

Having said this, capitalism is going to collapse

... it is arguable that the USA is a nation decomposing from libertarianism to socialism in time, forming a measurable historical trend.

You have no idea what socialism is, it seems. How can you say it is becoming more socialist when USA is the most capitalist country in the world, and is heading towards pure capitalism.

How about fascism? It is far easier to see USA switching to fascism than to Marxism and its relatives (such as socialism, communism, trotskism). A few more terrorist attacks in USA and it wouldn't surprise me if it moved a few steps closer to fascism.

It seems, in your view, there is only liberatarianism and socialism. That's it. Either you have fallen for US government propaganda, or you need to read up on econopolitical systems more. Opposite of liberatarianism is authoratarianism such as Stalinism and Nazism. Where do they fit into your view? How about monarchy? Or do you consider everything to be socialist?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Capitalism has EVERYTHING to do with FREEDOM.

In a narrow-definition, capitalism is economic freeedom, it is free markets. That is freedom to make economic choices, conduct transactions, and invest capitol as one sees best.

In a broader definition, capitalism is synonymous with libertarianism- complete individual freedom, limited only by infringement upon other people's basic rights.

Some dictionary definitions are direct about this, others beat around the bush, but economic freedom is always an implication of any definition of capitalism I've seen. I can not imagine what capitalism would be like without economic freedom.

See capitalism.org, which defines capitalism as "a social system based on the principle of individual rights."

Lately, kind sir, I have been quite perturbed by certain events that have been proliferating in our society. Was it not so long ago, that in more civilized times, children respected and obeyed their parents, under the threat of a firm thrashing if their impudence and audacity got out of hand? But oh, kind father, the trials that parents today must suffer! Not just the other day, whist I was dining upon a fresh garden salad, my daughter, of not even 6 years old, insisted upon uprooting most unrest in requesting I purchase for her a milky-way bar! I quickly remarked to the impudent creature that one of our many servants would be more than willing to carriage her to the local general store; but no! she insisted that I -personally- drive the buggy to make the purchase! Oh wise man of God, what is a poor woman to do in these hard times! Before you can open your Moses-lovin' mouth Pastor, I have proposed a final solution to the problem of "youthful indiscretion"- Prison Labor!

Before you bring up cries of protest from your liberalism-saturated mind, hear me out! Our disrespectful children will learn the true meaning of honor and sacrifice while they're hard at work pounding license plates and assembling adding machines! Honestly, what better way is there to whip our children into shape? Scare them with threats of the boogey-man? Psh-haw! Just look at the wondrous effects prison labor had on the Dell kid! Not only will prison labor harden our children into obedient automatons, it will show them the reality they will have to face if they follow their current paths and become criminals!

Thank you for your attention kind Minister, and God-Bless!

Well, let's take account of your statements.

1.P2P is legit.

I agree. P2P itself is legit.

2. Theft follows naturally when greed, possession and laziness are part of our way of life.

I'm afraid that I have to agree that this is often so. People become so blinded by what they can GET, that they forget the basic rules of civilization and ethics, and will deprive others of their rights for immediate gain. Although these attitudes may be precursors to theft, they are still not to blame. What is to blame is disrespect for the rights of others, which is inherently evil. Greed, laziness, and possession themselves are not inherently evil, despite what St. Thomas Aquinas, et al may say. Greed, laziness and possession push progress forward. Without laziness, no one would ever have invented the wheel. Without greed and possession, no civilization would ever have explored the world around them, no railroads would be built, no superhighways paved.

3. The RIAA has been stealing millions a year.

The music industry has been found to fix prices in violation of the law. To me, price fixing is not theft, but it is just as bad. It is unethical in that by doing so, they LIE to the consumer. It is a form of fraud, not theft. I would like to see an example cited where the music industry has actually STOLEN money from anyone. Charging high prices for their own goods is a right of theirs, as long as they don't fix prices, no matter how little it actually costs to make the cd's, or how little they give to the artists.

4. Capitalism is in a sad shape in this country, and Microsoft should not be hailed as a success story.

I agree that capitalism is under fire and in danger, but my reasons for thinking this are probably entirely different from yours, and my reasons are too involved to get into here. I would be interested in knowing, in what way you believe that Microsoft has acted that is against the true spirit of Capitalism?

5. Screw You

How mature.

If you find my ideas interesting, you might also like to read this

Firstly, I have nothing against fair use, but fair use does not include completely copying my work or a significant portion thereof. Unless of course we enter into an agreement where I get a portion of your profit.

Second, the artists who sold their rights have no more claim to said rights. They weren't forced to sell them. They had the choice whether to accept the agreement or not. They sold them to the company. Maybe they should have thought more about what they wanted out of the deal. If I sold you the rights to one of my works, I no longer have any claim to any of the money you made in the deal. It would be like me selling you the rights to a great book I wrote because I wasn't making much money. You take said rights, sell the book, promote it better than I did, and make millions. Do you now owe me a portion of the money you made on what are now your rights to the book?

As to the forced licensing. I'm gonna have to look into it before I can say anything about it.

And as to the 'Monopoly', what law is barring you from making your own recordings of your own music, making copies of them, packaging them, promoting their sale and making money from your efforts? A Capitlaist's view of Monopolies

Finally, nowhere do I find "fair use" in the definition of looting.

I am not in any way affiliated with capitalism, except that I agree with what I've read there so far

I beg to differ. Capitalism is not about creating a given product effeciently and passing the savings on to the consumer. It's a social system based on the principle of individual rights.

Lets say I create a widget that will let your car run off of water instead of gasoline. I have the right to charge however much I please for it. As my business grows, and I can improve the efficiency of my manufacturing process, I do not have to lower the prices, but I can now make even more money. There is nothing wrong with that. However, lets say that you come up with a different way of having cars run off of water and you charge less then I do. If I don't lower my prices, I run the risk of going out of business. Another choice I have is to price my widgets competively. I also have the the right to lower my prices to a point where I don't make as much of a profit (if any), but less than you can make your widgets. Eventually I may become a "monopoly". There is nothing wrong with that scenario either. But lets say I have some friends in Washington create some legislation that would outlaw your widgets. That is not right because I have taken your right to sell your widgets away from you with force.

Capitalism is not against monoplies that come about because of a well run business, just those that use force to get rid of their competitors.

I beg to differ. Capitalism is not about creating a given product effeciently and passing the savings on to the consumer. It's a social system based on the principle of individual rights.

Lets say I create a widget that will let your car run off of water instead of gasoline. I have the right to charge however much I please for it. As my business grows, and I can improve the efficiency of my manufacturing process, I do not have to lower the prices, but I can now make even more money. There is nothing wrong with that. However, lets say that you come up with a different way of having cars run off of water and you charge less then I do. If I don't lower my prices, I run the risk of going out of business. Another choice I have is to price my widgets competively. I also have the the right to lower my prices to a point where I don't make as much of a profit (if any), but less than you can make your widgets. Eventually I may become a "monopoly". There is nothing wrong with that scenario either. But lets say I have some friends in Washington create some legislation that would outlaw your widgets. That is not right because I have taken your right to sell your widgets away from you with force.

Capitalism is not against monoplies that come about because of a well run business, just those that use force to get rid of their competitors.

most slashdotters (most, not all) seem to have this perception that capitalism is some kind of economic guerrilla warfare where multiple parties try to stiff each other to prove they're the best, all in the name of the holy green. not quite so.

at the heart of it, capitalism has nothing to do with money as a goal. it's an end, but not the highest/noblest/coolest pursuit of capitalism. capitalism is all about creation, connection, and solution. a capitalist is not a man/woman who loves money. a capitalist is a person who loves creation and ingenuity, and many times can make money at it.

that being said, what microsoft is doing is not considered to be capitalism. where is the creation? where is the origninality and ingenuity? it's not there. check your assumptions before you go slamming your head against the wall. you just look like a fool.

To my knowlage there hasn't been anything like a communist system about for the past few hundred years(we were all more or less communist once!)

The Soviet Union was nothing like communist nor is China people are too greedy and pig headed for a communist system to exist on that kind of scale.

I always like /. because of all the Americans, it's a great way to take a snap shot view of there opinions by the stupid posts the mod up and the not so stupid ones they mod down and the way they bight at anything than mentions communism whitout even knowing what the hell it is or isn't

capitalism
this has to be the weirdest site I've ever seen, even weirder than most of those religious sites.

It's full of contradictions and has an autistic sense of philosophy, some of the things in the FAQ are just sick in there failure to notice that others may be different from you.

There is a clear avoindance of mentioning communism, IP, patents and copyright. The second to last page of the tour is good too, they should have missed out air and water and just put property.

The "actions" that antitrust laws prohibit are vague, contradictory, undefined. For instance, antitrust laws prohibit companies from engaging in "restraint of trade." But what specific actions constitute "restraint of trade"? If, as is done repeatedly in the business world, a company signs an exclusive distribution agreement with another company, is that "restraint of trade" because now other potential competitors are excluded from that area of the market? Or if a company sells a computer to individual X, is that "restraint of trade" because competing computer companies can no longer sell X a computer since he has need for only one? No--the courts have declared to businessmen--only those "restraints" that are "unreasonable" are illegal. But which specific "restraints" are "unreasonable"? No definition is to be found in the law, so no company can know before it acts which actions are in law legal and which are not.

Really it just comes down to the fact that it isn't profitable for a company to deliver mail for 0.34 USD per envelope.

Thanks for the FUD.
But in the same way, we can say that IN PRACTICE Democracy is nowhere close to the system that we currently have in the US. The US is nothing like the original framers of the constitution envisioned it to be.

Now that is said, the original poster said specifically in ideals. The Open Source community is quite close to a socialist society [communism has a bad connotation to it]. In a socialist society, the emphasis is on labor rather than capital. In the same way, Linux is the result of hours of free labor provided by individual programmers, not the result of a large investment of money.

Please educate yourself in this before you start spreading FUD.

He's not advocating zero government, he's advocating that the government stop intefering with the free market. That companies that need bailouts instead deserve to go out of business.

Also, responding to some of your claims..

Who would buy cars from a company with a reputation for producing unsafe cars? Or drugs from a company that consistently killed people dead? If you don't trust a company, you don't buy from them. And if the company does you wrong, you punish them with civil or criminal justice.

If someone drops industrial waste on your property, wouldn't you sue the pants off of them? Pollution becomes a problem only when it's public property that is being polluted. The saying goes that something that is owned by everyone is cared for by no one.

Under the system we have now, companies submit their products to government agencies that state "minimum standards". If companies meet minimum standards, they often have no incentive to do better if it means they get the stamp of approval. If it becomes cheaper to bribe the inspector rather than to improve the product, what do you think some people will do?

The only thing that regulatory bodies do is provide a false sense of security. Firestone tires still killed, for example. Drugs approved by the FDA have still caused deaths, and drugs that are sleepwalking their way through FDA approval are causing even more death and discomfort.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what an unregulated free market economy means. This site is very informative if you're interested in seeing the side of the story from its supporters (and it's not the Republicans).

It's certainly statist, which means it's not capitalist. It could be fascist or socialist. see www.capitalism.org

I find it ironic in cosmic proportions that the birthplace and former bastion of communism is prostituting itself with wanton abandon for the gratification of pathologically capitalist companines like PepsiCo and their spinoff Pizza Hut.

This is great! This is at LEAST a hundred points for us Americans!

How many votes condoning violence upon Microsoft does it take to make it right?

The Moral Defense of Microsoft

Wow, I had to do a whois on the domain to make sure microsoft wasn't running it themselves. But it's connected to capitalism.org
Joe.

Please read; though it may sound like flamebait, it brings up a few poignant issues.

"Here's the situation. In the U.S. and abroad, governments just aren't providing the money colleges and universities need to meet sharply increased demands for computing services."

Yup, it starts off with the left-liberal complaint: lack of government funding. And it goes on:

"But the need for vendor assistance may override such concerns. As California State University (CSU) chancellor Charles Reed keeps saying, if you're nervous about vendor funding for campus computing infrastructures, there's only one remedy: "Get used to it."

It so happens that CSU chancellor Reed understands that efficient free markets and private business, NOT bureaucrats or government officials, should guide large institutional decisions.

It should be the students, NOT the taxpayers, that should subsidize any upgrade to a school campus. And if the students or institution cannot afford it, the school must either: [1] close, go out of business (since it was probably inefficient and mismanaged) or [2] seek vendor funding/support. There is absolutely nothing wrong with either scenario, and the long-term effect is better education for all students and the elimination of sub-standard schools.

Now how does this relate to Linux/Unix?

We already know that the Unix/Mac vendors have tried their so-called "monopolistic" practices in educational institutions for years - now there's outcry when Microsoft does the same? What hypocrisy!

And about Linux... this can be the true test of Linux' "freedom." Can anyone make an economically viable model that is as efficient as Microsoft's that can beat out MS's deal to universities in a free market? Didn't think so... so if Linux cannot survive the free market test, it cannot accurately be a "free" software.

After all, the markets will decide, and so far Microsoft is still winning. Linux is a good operating system technically, but the GNU General Public Virus is what makes it economically unviable. Its advocates should really examine the self-destructive nature of supporting the GPL in the Free Market of a truly Free Society.

To realize the power of truly free markets and pure freedom, check out these links:

http://www.capitalism.org

http://www.aynrand.org

http://www.lp.org