The war on terror began with Ronald Reagan. Want to know the best part? It was Ronald Reagan that normalized relations with Iraq, took them off the list of state sponsored terror, and sold them the "weapons of mass destruction" and other munitions. The irony? People in the current administration did it.
Let's look at an abbreviated list shall we?
Donald Rumsfield: Previous Defense Secretary. During Reagan's time he was Special Envoy to the Middle East who helped normalize relations with Iraq - personally meeting with Saddam around when they were using chemical weapons on Iran.
Robert Gates: Currently, Defense Secretary. Nominated to run the CIA under Reagan (despite some evidence of his involvement in Iran-Contra) and there is evidence that he personally approved the sale of chemical agents, cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq prior to the atrocities Saddam was accused of.
John Negroponte: Currently, he is Deputy Secretary of State. Before, Ambassador of Iraq. During Ronald Reagan's time he ran the CIA operations out of Honduras that supported death squads in Nicaragua.
Elliot Abrams: Currently, assistant to the US President national security advisor. Also involved in death squads in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Convicted of lying to Congress and pardoned by the first Bush.
Want further irony? It was also Ronald Reagan that trained and funded bin Laden.
Now let's do a thought experiment - how would the majority of American's feel about Ronald Reagan and these people that worked both for him and the current administration if they knew a little bit more about them? The reason why most people think that Reagan was a patriot and a great American is because they know very little about what the Reagan administration was responsible for and the concrete ways it is impacting us today.
Another thing: can you identify what exactly is petty in my argument? The fact that I pointed out that the state sponsored funeral for Ronald Reagan was an elaborate stage show for the current administration? I don't even like Reagan and what he stood for, but I think it was a tragedy that he was used as a set piece for a political play for sentiment and support by the Bush administration.
Funny how everyone else is to blame but Bush. All of these people should see prison time - don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend that "the decider" isn't culpable.
implements policies of torture in violatation of international treaties
creates network of secret prisons
"authorizes" the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens outside the oversight of the law
got Republican legislators to suspend habeas corpus
politicised D.A. prosecution focus toward political ends
etc.
Given these facts, you're surprised he thinks the Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to him? You're joking right? You think these people want to be held accountable 5-10 years from now? Put it in the memory hole, so we can have one of those swell state funerals like they had for Ronald Reagan, put on the rose-colored glasses and talk about how greatness of this catastrophy of a President. America wins the war on intelligence!
Ever consider seperating your business account from your personal one? Of course, Amazon could also incorporate aspects, profiles or whatever into individual accounts that would solve this problem. I think everyone encounters it in some form or another - whether you are buying gifts, changing jobs or changing as a person.
With that said, I don't think the central concept is screwed. If we can agree that the central concept is about effectively making suggestions to new things based on what we like, then there are many places that do this well. A few examples:
Say you were listening to All Music Considered and you really like the Mavis Staples tune "Down in Mississippi". If you go to AllMusic, you can find similar artists - many which you may already know and like. However, you might discover a few new ones you didn't know anything about and get recommendations of which of their many albums might be most likely to be worth your money - although I don't always agree with Allmusic's assessment, their recommendations are worthwhile when I don't know enough about a group to have an opinion.
Or you could go somewhere like Pandora and put in her name and listen to similar artists right there.
Personally, I like the idea of Pandora better but it is their execution (the inability to select which similar artists you hear, track back to recommended albums, limited fast-forward, iPod centricism (I prefer to buy CDs), etc.) that keeps me going back to Allmusic.
So we have a Podcast that recommends music; a music reference that provides information on artists, albums and songs; and a service that plays similar artist's songs based on your preference for a particular artist. All of these can be useful - which is why they exist. They are each also an example of the central idea - that people want good recommendations and exposure to new things they might like.
Now, I don't particularly care for Amazon's way of going about making recommendations. But, the fact they do it poorly doesn't mean the concept itself is bad.
You mean western, modern nations are not run by the mafia? "The mafia is a kind of organized crime being active not only in several illegal fields, but also tending to exercise sovereignty functions - normally belonging to public authorities - over a specific territory..." Seems to me the key difference is whether the people running things are in public view or not - and even in western, modern nations the people running things are rarely those in public view.
He is a journalist and he is protecting sources. You need to get acquianted with the facts of the case - read some other posts and make an effort to know what you are talking about before spouting off.
And they are usually considered obnoxious because they value a particular quality to the exclusion of others - like freedom or security. In some ways, this focus is responsible for their extensive contributions.
Ok, I'll bite. BeOS? Is there a reason to run BeOS? I know it was the media OS of the 1990s - but we're half-way through the 2000s. I would love to know what you are using it for...
I agree that the U.S. needs better infrastructure for health care, with an emphasis on preventative care. A national health care system is one way to go about it.
Still, getting a handle on your financial life also means getting the right insurance for catastrophic events such as becoming disabled or developing a chronic illiness. It's just another layer that needs to be considered as you move toward a better relationship with money.
You should read Your Money or Your Life: Transforming Your Relationship with Money and Achieving Financial Independence. The bottom line is that you can, today, make your lifestyle more affordable and make better choices about how you spend your money (or earn if for that matter). Even if you have made poor ones up to this point, you can make changes for the better. The goal is getting to the point where the income from your investments is more than your expenses - then you won't need to work at all.
Don't get me wrong, it's hard - and I'm not there yet either. But I too feel the same frustration you are expressing in your post, and reading this book was the first time I understood that it did not have to be that way and to some degree, I was responsible for creating the conditions in the first place. Hopefully, you will find it as comforting as I did.
A hybrid [boss/worker working] arrangement which advantageously involves [worker] humans to assist a [boss] to solve particular tasks, allowing the [boss] to solve the tasks more efficiently. In one embodiment, a [boss/worker] system decomposes a task, such as, for example, [making a car], into subtasks for human performance, and requests the performances. The [C-level boss/worker] system programmatically conveys the request to a [lower level boss] of the hybrid [boss/worker] arrangement, which in turn dispatches the subtasks to [workers] operated by [line level bosses]. The [workers] perform the subtasks and provide the results back to the [line level boss], which receives the responses, and generates a [report] for the task based at least in part on the results of the [worker] performances [and the rest based on whatever crap H.R. wants to hear.].
Your scary sci-fi scenario sounds remarkably like modern working life - refined by years of Taylorism.
Also, I wanted to touch on your particular links. Your major source seems to be Hernando De Soto. I'll grant that the criticism of his ideas is poorly presented on Wikipedia. But you can find plenty of people that can give you some ideas: Slate linked from Wikipedia, Fair Housing and Foreign Policy.
The Foreign Policy article is not freely available, but I think it makes some interesting points: no evidence his ideas work even though the Peruvian government established a Commision to institute his ideas in 1996 (and is not the only country where his ideas have demonstratedly failed); the ideas are not different from his ideas published in 1986 in _The Other Path_ and can be traced backed to the ideas of people such as David Collier and Jagdish Bhagwati in the 1970s; doesn't allow for cultural variation like the fact that traditional Muslims are opposed to borrowing money; and the fact that other factors such as famine, disease, war and so forth impact economic opportunities.
Best part is this quote:
His solution is vague enough to appeal to people of all political stripes.
Although judging from the coverage in the business press, IMF and places like the Cato Institute, he clearly appeals to a particular flavor of politics more than others.
What bothers me about people like de Soto is that they are experts that don't have to live with the problems their policies create. They have ideas that are not backed up by any empirical evidence, and when they are tested, these policies fail because they are simplistic. In the meantime, the do more harm to the poor and in some cases find ways to funnel cash to the wealthy (someone is flying him around the world to attend conferences and give advice for a reason).
Speaking of simplistic, did you read the sub-title for People's Capitalism? It's Peoples' Capitalism: The Economics of the Robot Revolution. Originally published in 1976, it is an example what is called Binary Economics (you can see that it is finally mentioned at the bottom of the page). I loved this quote from the article - Binary Economics: Paradigm Shift or Cluster of Errors by Timothy D. Terrell in Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Spring 2005, v. 8, iss. 1, pp. 31-50:
Binary economists stress the uniqueness of their "new paradigm." Yet the theory is riddled with severe problems. Milton Friedman, who once debated Kelso, called Kelso's "two-factor economics" a "crackpot theory," and with considerable justification, it seems. It is not clear from reading binary economists that they understand the "conventional" economics that they are criticizing. Many binary economists are not formally trained in economics...Binary economics is, in sum, a cluster of significant theoretical errors masquerading as a market-friendly solution to our worst economic problems. Kelso's employee stock option plan is a legitimate method of simultaneously compensating employees and solving a pervasive principal-agent problem. Binary economics takes the ESOP and turns it into a fantastic Wolkenkuckucksheim, heedless of the massive inflation that would necessarily accompany its policy proposals.
I don't claim to be an expert in economics. I personally think a lot of it is based on false premises, and it is of limited use. However, there is enough in the article you linked to that did not sound right - particularly how all of our problems could be solved if we just followed this two part plan.
You should do a better job of looking into the background of people selling these crackpot theories and what kind of criticism they are recieving. I realize that conversations like these are how we discover our mistakes - but I can't help but wonder whether you put the effort into checking into and th
Yes, many of them. The concept I particularly liked of all the courses I took was the fact that "free markets" include many externalities and unintended effects that they don't account for - clean air, strong local communities, etc. Basically, free markets are a great example of the original issue you brought up - the tragedy of the commons. If you can't put a price tag on it, it doesn't have value.
You also don't need to be a genius to see that the assumptions that underlying free market ideology are fundamentally flawed - people are rational actors for instance. Try looking into what is being done in behaviorial economics, such as Daniel Kahneman's Nobel Prize speech that shows how fundamentally flawed this premise is. It also has a good discussion of framing effects that you can apply to your next issue of Forbes magazine - should you choose to do so.
Ensuring that people can transfer, sell, lease, and borrow against their property is the fundamental problem of world poverty.
Without some kind of infrastructure to prevent it, monetizing assets is a guarantee that those assets will be taken by someone with more wealth. Take a look at this history of Africa when assets are open to "transfer, sell, lease, and borrow" and how they are stolen. That is the fundamental problem - a problem that capitalism does not and cannot answer.
The problem is that you have "property" so ingrained into your thinking that you cannot imagine a world not based on it. It is people with mind-sets like yours that will one day charge people for their survival - water, air, patented seeds and on and on. I'll pass on the free market fundamentalism thanks. One God is enough for me - Matthew 6:24.
Yes, I agree further discussion isn't productive. I agree that government should secure individual liberties, but I also think that individual liberties (I'm thinking specifically about the rich and powerful here) need to be curtailed if they limit the liberty of others. I think free markets, on the scale this term is used these days, concentrate wealth into the hands of the few and destroys local communities. Free markets may have a place, but either it is a small place or there needs to be mechanisms that deal with the concentrating of wealth that is the end product of free markets and the effect they have on small communities.
Copyright law - as it was originally intended - always results in what we have today, a subversion of the commons for the enrichment of the few that have bought "rights". Buying and selling of "rights" is a guaranteed way to make sure that ideas of individuals end up collectively in the hands of the rich and powerful. It is a fundamentally flawed and broken idea and needs to be fixed - not to the original, but beyond it (if it is to exist at all).
The central problem is that government is more often the tool of the powerful and acts to limit liberty than it is a promoter of individual liberty. Unfortunately, what other options are there to put a brake on powerful individuals (or in modern times, powerful corporations)? Personally, I think the best way to address these problems is to decentralize concentrations of wealth and power. Free markets and copyrights don't do it. Government could do it, but government is typically controlled by the powerful - which is why there is so much work to do in respect to unions, etc. So what is the solution? I don't know - but making sure government acts more in the interests of people that aren't powerful is one step and failing that, limiting government in places where it does support the power of the wealthy is another.
Copyright is one way government promotes the interests of the powerful. The rationale is that giving people individual property rights enables them to sell those rights and make a living. This seems reasonable. But who do those rights get sold to? That's right, people that already have money and if art is monetized, they plan to invest and profit from them - to make yet more money. Maybe it would be better to simply make it easier for artists to make a living? Maybe it would be better to limit government on this particular issue? This is where I am coming from.
The funny thing in this is that you and I want the same thing - more individual liberty. We just differ in what we are most focused upon and what we think the problem and the solution to that problem is. It is something on which reasonable people can differ.
I think the emphasis should be on individual rights, not societal welfare. It sounds like you are describing a rather tyrannical opposition to the classical western liberalism on which our nation is founded. You know - bill of rights, limited gov't and all that.
Odd that you should argue for limited government and copyright in the same breath. Copyright requires registration of the "property", law enforcement to protect the "property", and on and on. It's more government, and less individual liberty - so that a few "creators" can profit. RIAA, MPAA, DRM and so on and so forth all demonstrate that copyright is actually antithetical to the very values you claim to support. Abolishing copyright, on the other hand, means less government. It also means that you don't get control over your work and limit the liberty of others. This can be framed any way you like - and the only thing you have going for you is the fact you are arguing for the status quo.
I don't argue that the government should inspect restaurants at all. I simply say that they do, and the fact that they do is not a moral question. Incidences like Typhoid Mary makes it a practical issue, but would the government be evil if it didn't inspect restaurants? No. It can be effective at stopping the spread of disease, but it wouldn't necessarily be "wrong" for them not to do it.
Who will pay for X?
As I said before, under the patronage system, wealthy people. Under the University system, the college provides a job that enables you to do research. Governments commision works of art all the time. Public broadcasting has provided funding. Advertisers are another example when they fund concerts. None of these relies on copyrights, and if we use our imagination, we might actually come up with even better ways to fund art that doesn't rely on copyrights either.
You're taking away that possibility and you see *no* negative implications...
Of course there are negative implications. Rowling will surely think getting rid of copyrights is a bad idea. RIAA surely doesn't like it either. Many different organizations would simply go away - like companies that hold on to patents solely to sue other companies. They surely don't like the idea either. It will also mean that instead of relying on copyright to earn a living, people will have to find another way - and if we were to do it, we as a society should develop other means for supporting the arts besides copyright. You seem to think copyright is the answer - have you considered alternatives?
Let's take Rowling for example. She apparently was unemployed and on state benefits when she wrote the first novel. She got additional funding from the Scottish Arts Council. Then, due to copyright, she was paid $100,000 for the rights to publish the first novel in the U.S.A. - all of this I take from Wikipedia.
I'm basically advocating for more of the first kind of funding rather than the second kind that depends on copyrights. It is also not difficult to imagine other approaches. One that comes off the top is that she could have sold it serial style - say wrote a chapter, then stipulated a dollar amount that she would need before she would release it to the public.
It's funny how anytime someone suggests a change in the status quo - whether it be the printing press or electric cars - someone, somewhere is going to make the claim that it is utopian wishful thinking. Love the communism quote at the end - why not just go for the gold and say it sounds like economic terrorism. Isn't terrorist the new word for communists or whomever you don't agree with these days?
Patents and copyrights are fundamentally different. They may similar in the sense of the amount of work involved and that it is a temporary monopoly. But they are different because you can patent an idea whereas you cannot copyright one. This is also the reason why the length of the temporary monopoly of the two forms is different - with copyright being significantly longer than patent protection.
I also think your focus is strange. Suppose we could wave our wand and prove that copyright actually creates more problems in society and results in fewer inventions and creative works. If we could prove this, then I would have no problem at all revoking copyright. Why? Because at the end of the day it is about what is best for society, not what is best for the "creator". The minute the rights of a "creator" are such that it negatively impacts society and the ability of others to create - those rights that get in the way need to be abolished.
In short, individual intellectual property rights are good - only in so far as it helps the creative output and variety of society at large. How much time and effort they put into it, recouping costs and profits are immaterial, if these don't support the larger agenda of promoting creative output over alternatives.
As such, morality doesn't come into play. All law is a not a matter of ethics. Counter-example: Restaurant inspections. It's a matter of hygiene, not ethics.
Now, I think you are making the argument that patents and copyrights provide incentives for people to create new things. I think the open question I was raising was whether there are other means of providing incentives that are better, that in some cases these incentives may actually block development (software patents come to mind, but it applies just as well to drugs), and perhaps there are cases where the public interest trumps other considerations (such as generic versions of HIV drugs to be distributed in Africa).
I don't see the flaw in my counter-example. Everyone who cares about the Beatles or music in general being available is a listener. If it is freely available, there is no incentive for anyone to "steal" it and in the context of the Internet, distribution no longer has any meaning. The problem is that you are looking at it from a framework of intellectual property that simply does not apply. It also assumes the artifical scarcity created by copyrights and patents.
I think your most telling point is regarding incentives for non-performance art. How do you support comic book writers, novelists and what have you? Even here, you still can capitalize on performance with readings, speeches and discussion groups. Fame is a currency of sorts that can be brokered into promotional contracts and so forth. I think there are ways - even under a current system. However, I think it should be an opportunity to think of better ways for society to provide incentives.
For example, instead of heaping billions on Rowling because of Harry Potter, a more equitable system would encourage works irrespective of their current popularity or ability to be marketed across different types of media. From my perspective, copyright and patents even shapes the kinds of creative works that are possible because it frames art as something that needs to make money. The focus should be on creativeity - not making money, because making money is not the point. It may be necessary to live - but there needs to be a way to meet that need without making it the focus.
A copyright law does not grant you ownership of an idea. It grants you ownership to exclusive rights to control the distribution of that idea for profit.
IANAL and neither are you. For one, you are confusing patents and copyrights. Copyright is an artifical monopoly granted by the government in respect to a particular expression of an idea. It is not possible to copyright an idea - as you would have learned if you had checked Wikipedia before posting.
Copyright law is not a matter of ethics. It is simply law and public policy. As the Constitution puts it: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." You'll notice that the focus is on progress - not because it is "right" from any moral perspective.
Further, there is a problem in your premises. Specifically, you aren't using your imagination or referring to historical precedent where copyright did not exist, yet creative works were produced. The University system and patronage are historical examples. I can imagine cooperatives that could provide a basic standard of living for artists and other possible formulations that you probably haven't considered. Copyright is only one way to skin this particular cat.
It's called the tragedy of the commons.
Tragedy of the commons is actually based on scarcity. The problem you have is that you are assuming that creative works are fungible. Here's the example that shows the flaw in your reasoning. Suppose The Beatles decide to release all their music and make it all public domain. Now, since all their music is available - according to your reasoning, no one will make any music anymore. No need to create derivative works. Why bother because The Beatles is freely available right? Wrong. People like to make music. They like to make new sounds/songs, listen to new sounds/songs and so forth. The fact that The Beatles catalog is freely available means I have a treasure trove of sounds to incorporate into my own music - and great music to listen to as well. The tragedy here is that in reality the Beatles catalog is not available in the commons. If it were in the commons, no tragedy of the commons would occur due to its available. Nor would the tragedy of the commons come into play if every copyrighted piece of music were available and copyright were abolished - any more than it would be for individual artists. Also as most musicians know, your money comes from touring - which isn't about copyright. You need to work on this argument.
Why should there be a larger variety of music if people are being paid less to make it?
Because most people making music don't make music for money. Even among those that do, most don't play solely music to maximize their profit.
I agree it is a different point - although I do think there is something....disingenious...about the existence of a John McCain MySpace page that I would worry about as well. As you say though, in the grand scheme of things, it is a rather minor detail.
My mistake. I didn't realize that you were talking about dealing with a vocal - and perhaps unsavory - minority.
Another thing I find interesting is that I self-identify as liberal, but I am beginning to wonder how useful that label really is since I find a have quite a bit in common with certain types of conservatives - particularly conservatives that are just as concerned about authoritarianism as I am. Perhaps it is time to think about it differently.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Hopefully, one day I'll run into someone that can shed some light on the other question I was raising.
I'm sorry, but the question is about judgment. He can't figure out how to get someone to handle MySpace, and you think it is an open question on whether he can handle the Presidency - which requires making judgments about Supreme Court appointments, the Iraq War and using nuclear weapons among other things? If he can't handle the small stuff, how's he going to handle the big stuff? You think he will suddenly get good judgment when it matters?
Slashdot Mirror
The war on terror began with Ronald Reagan. Want to know the best part? It was Ronald Reagan that normalized relations with Iraq, took them off the list of state sponsored terror, and sold them the "weapons of mass destruction" and other munitions. The irony? People in the current administration did it.
Let's look at an abbreviated list shall we?
Want further irony? It was also Ronald Reagan that trained and funded bin Laden.
Now let's do a thought experiment - how would the majority of American's feel about Ronald Reagan and these people that worked both for him and the current administration if they knew a little bit more about them? The reason why most people think that Reagan was a patriot and a great American is because they know very little about what the Reagan administration was responsible for and the concrete ways it is impacting us today.
Another thing: can you identify what exactly is petty in my argument? The fact that I pointed out that the state sponsored funeral for Ronald Reagan was an elaborate stage show for the current administration? I don't even like Reagan and what he stood for, but I think it was a tragedy that he was used as a set piece for a political play for sentiment and support by the Bush administration.
Funny how everyone else is to blame but Bush. All of these people should see prison time - don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend that "the decider" isn't culpable.
The secret is that the emails aren't on the White House servers and ought to be...
You can always impeach them both - and include some kind of jail time for Rove, Rice, Rumsfield and the others while you are at it.
Given these facts, you're surprised he thinks the Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to him? You're joking right? You think these people want to be held accountable 5-10 years from now? Put it in the memory hole, so we can have one of those swell state funerals like they had for Ronald Reagan, put on the rose-colored glasses and talk about how greatness of this catastrophy of a President. America wins the war on intelligence!
Ever consider seperating your business account from your personal one? Of course, Amazon could also incorporate aspects, profiles or whatever into individual accounts that would solve this problem. I think everyone encounters it in some form or another - whether you are buying gifts, changing jobs or changing as a person.
With that said, I don't think the central concept is screwed. If we can agree that the central concept is about effectively making suggestions to new things based on what we like, then there are many places that do this well. A few examples:
Say you were listening to All Music Considered and you really like the Mavis Staples tune "Down in Mississippi". If you go to AllMusic, you can find similar artists - many which you may already know and like. However, you might discover a few new ones you didn't know anything about and get recommendations of which of their many albums might be most likely to be worth your money - although I don't always agree with Allmusic's assessment, their recommendations are worthwhile when I don't know enough about a group to have an opinion.
Or you could go somewhere like Pandora and put in her name and listen to similar artists right there.
Personally, I like the idea of Pandora better but it is their execution (the inability to select which similar artists you hear, track back to recommended albums, limited fast-forward, iPod centricism (I prefer to buy CDs), etc.) that keeps me going back to Allmusic.
So we have a Podcast that recommends music; a music reference that provides information on artists, albums and songs; and a service that plays similar artist's songs based on your preference for a particular artist. All of these can be useful - which is why they exist. They are each also an example of the central idea - that people want good recommendations and exposure to new things they might like.
Now, I don't particularly care for Amazon's way of going about making recommendations. But, the fact they do it poorly doesn't mean the concept itself is bad.
You mean western, modern nations are not run by the mafia? "The mafia is a kind of organized crime being active not only in several illegal fields, but also tending to exercise sovereignty functions - normally belonging to public authorities - over a specific territory..." Seems to me the key difference is whether the people running things are in public view or not - and even in western, modern nations the people running things are rarely those in public view.
He is a journalist and he is protecting sources. You need to get acquianted with the facts of the case - read some other posts and make an effort to know what you are talking about before spouting off.
And they are usually considered obnoxious because they value a particular quality to the exclusion of others - like freedom or security. In some ways, this focus is responsible for their extensive contributions.
Ok, I'll bite. BeOS? Is there a reason to run BeOS? I know it was the media OS of the 1990s - but we're half-way through the 2000s. I would love to know what you are using it for...
Where's the closest nuclear power plant to where you live? Everyone loves the idea - who doesn't live near one.
I agree that the U.S. needs better infrastructure for health care, with an emphasis on preventative care. A national health care system is one way to go about it.
Still, getting a handle on your financial life also means getting the right insurance for catastrophic events such as becoming disabled or developing a chronic illiness. It's just another layer that needs to be considered as you move toward a better relationship with money.
You should read Your Money or Your Life: Transforming Your Relationship with Money and Achieving Financial Independence. The bottom line is that you can, today, make your lifestyle more affordable and make better choices about how you spend your money (or earn if for that matter). Even if you have made poor ones up to this point, you can make changes for the better. The goal is getting to the point where the income from your investments is more than your expenses - then you won't need to work at all.
Don't get me wrong, it's hard - and I'm not there yet either. But I too feel the same frustration you are expressing in your post, and reading this book was the first time I understood that it did not have to be that way and to some degree, I was responsible for creating the conditions in the first place. Hopefully, you will find it as comforting as I did.
Your scary sci-fi scenario sounds remarkably like modern working life - refined by years of Taylorism.
Also, I wanted to touch on your particular links. Your major source seems to be Hernando De Soto. I'll grant that the criticism of his ideas is poorly presented on Wikipedia. But you can find plenty of people that can give you some ideas: Slate linked from Wikipedia, Fair Housing and Foreign Policy.
The Foreign Policy article is not freely available, but I think it makes some interesting points: no evidence his ideas work even though the Peruvian government established a Commision to institute his ideas in 1996 (and is not the only country where his ideas have demonstratedly failed); the ideas are not different from his ideas published in 1986 in _The Other Path_ and can be traced backed to the ideas of people such as David Collier and Jagdish Bhagwati in the 1970s; doesn't allow for cultural variation like the fact that traditional Muslims are opposed to borrowing money; and the fact that other factors such as famine, disease, war and so forth impact economic opportunities.
Best part is this quote:
Although judging from the coverage in the business press, IMF and places like the Cato Institute, he clearly appeals to a particular flavor of politics more than others.
What bothers me about people like de Soto is that they are experts that don't have to live with the problems their policies create. They have ideas that are not backed up by any empirical evidence, and when they are tested, these policies fail because they are simplistic. In the meantime, the do more harm to the poor and in some cases find ways to funnel cash to the wealthy (someone is flying him around the world to attend conferences and give advice for a reason).
Speaking of simplistic, did you read the sub-title for People's Capitalism? It's Peoples' Capitalism: The Economics of the Robot Revolution. Originally published in 1976, it is an example what is called Binary Economics (you can see that it is finally mentioned at the bottom of the page). I loved this quote from the article - Binary Economics: Paradigm Shift or Cluster of Errors by Timothy D. Terrell in Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Spring 2005, v. 8, iss. 1, pp. 31-50:
I don't claim to be an expert in economics. I personally think a lot of it is based on false premises, and it is of limited use. However, there is enough in the article you linked to that did not sound right - particularly how all of our problems could be solved if we just followed this two part plan.
You should do a better job of looking into the background of people selling these crackpot theories and what kind of criticism they are recieving. I realize that conversations like these are how we discover our mistakes - but I can't help but wonder whether you put the effort into checking into and th
Yes, many of them. The concept I particularly liked of all the courses I took was the fact that "free markets" include many externalities and unintended effects that they don't account for - clean air, strong local communities, etc. Basically, free markets are a great example of the original issue you brought up - the tragedy of the commons. If you can't put a price tag on it, it doesn't have value.
You also don't need to be a genius to see that the assumptions that underlying free market ideology are fundamentally flawed - people are rational actors for instance. Try looking into what is being done in behaviorial economics, such as Daniel Kahneman's Nobel Prize speech that shows how fundamentally flawed this premise is. It also has a good discussion of framing effects that you can apply to your next issue of Forbes magazine - should you choose to do so.
Without some kind of infrastructure to prevent it, monetizing assets is a guarantee that those assets will be taken by someone with more wealth. Take a look at this history of Africa when assets are open to "transfer, sell, lease, and borrow" and how they are stolen. That is the fundamental problem - a problem that capitalism does not and cannot answer.
The problem is that you have "property" so ingrained into your thinking that you cannot imagine a world not based on it. It is people with mind-sets like yours that will one day charge people for their survival - water, air, patented seeds and on and on. I'll pass on the free market fundamentalism thanks. One God is enough for me - Matthew 6:24.
Yes, I agree further discussion isn't productive. I agree that government should secure individual liberties, but I also think that individual liberties (I'm thinking specifically about the rich and powerful here) need to be curtailed if they limit the liberty of others. I think free markets, on the scale this term is used these days, concentrate wealth into the hands of the few and destroys local communities. Free markets may have a place, but either it is a small place or there needs to be mechanisms that deal with the concentrating of wealth that is the end product of free markets and the effect they have on small communities.
Copyright law - as it was originally intended - always results in what we have today, a subversion of the commons for the enrichment of the few that have bought "rights". Buying and selling of "rights" is a guaranteed way to make sure that ideas of individuals end up collectively in the hands of the rich and powerful. It is a fundamentally flawed and broken idea and needs to be fixed - not to the original, but beyond it (if it is to exist at all).
The central problem is that government is more often the tool of the powerful and acts to limit liberty than it is a promoter of individual liberty. Unfortunately, what other options are there to put a brake on powerful individuals (or in modern times, powerful corporations)? Personally, I think the best way to address these problems is to decentralize concentrations of wealth and power. Free markets and copyrights don't do it. Government could do it, but government is typically controlled by the powerful - which is why there is so much work to do in respect to unions, etc. So what is the solution? I don't know - but making sure government acts more in the interests of people that aren't powerful is one step and failing that, limiting government in places where it does support the power of the wealthy is another.
Copyright is one way government promotes the interests of the powerful. The rationale is that giving people individual property rights enables them to sell those rights and make a living. This seems reasonable. But who do those rights get sold to? That's right, people that already have money and if art is monetized, they plan to invest and profit from them - to make yet more money. Maybe it would be better to simply make it easier for artists to make a living? Maybe it would be better to limit government on this particular issue? This is where I am coming from.
The funny thing in this is that you and I want the same thing - more individual liberty. We just differ in what we are most focused upon and what we think the problem and the solution to that problem is. It is something on which reasonable people can differ.
Odd that you should argue for limited government and copyright in the same breath. Copyright requires registration of the "property", law enforcement to protect the "property", and on and on. It's more government, and less individual liberty - so that a few "creators" can profit. RIAA, MPAA, DRM and so on and so forth all demonstrate that copyright is actually antithetical to the very values you claim to support. Abolishing copyright, on the other hand, means less government. It also means that you don't get control over your work and limit the liberty of others. This can be framed any way you like - and the only thing you have going for you is the fact you are arguing for the status quo.
I don't argue that the government should inspect restaurants at all. I simply say that they do, and the fact that they do is not a moral question. Incidences like Typhoid Mary makes it a practical issue, but would the government be evil if it didn't inspect restaurants? No. It can be effective at stopping the spread of disease, but it wouldn't necessarily be "wrong" for them not to do it.
As I said before, under the patronage system, wealthy people. Under the University system, the college provides a job that enables you to do research. Governments commision works of art all the time. Public broadcasting has provided funding. Advertisers are another example when they fund concerts. None of these relies on copyrights, and if we use our imagination, we might actually come up with even better ways to fund art that doesn't rely on copyrights either.
Of course there are negative implications. Rowling will surely think getting rid of copyrights is a bad idea. RIAA surely doesn't like it either. Many different organizations would simply go away - like companies that hold on to patents solely to sue other companies. They surely don't like the idea either. It will also mean that instead of relying on copyright to earn a living, people will have to find another way - and if we were to do it, we as a society should develop other means for supporting the arts besides copyright. You seem to think copyright is the answer - have you considered alternatives?
Let's take Rowling for example. She apparently was unemployed and on state benefits when she wrote the first novel. She got additional funding from the Scottish Arts Council. Then, due to copyright, she was paid $100,000 for the rights to publish the first novel in the U.S.A. - all of this I take from Wikipedia.
I'm basically advocating for more of the first kind of funding rather than the second kind that depends on copyrights. It is also not difficult to imagine other approaches. One that comes off the top is that she could have sold it serial style - say wrote a chapter, then stipulated a dollar amount that she would need before she would release it to the public.
It's funny how anytime someone suggests a change in the status quo - whether it be the printing press or electric cars - someone, somewhere is going to make the claim that it is utopian wishful thinking. Love the communism quote at the end - why not just go for the gold and say it sounds like economic terrorism. Isn't terrorist the new word for communists or whomever you don't agree with these days?
Patents and copyrights are fundamentally different. They may similar in the sense of the amount of work involved and that it is a temporary monopoly. But they are different because you can patent an idea whereas you cannot copyright one. This is also the reason why the length of the temporary monopoly of the two forms is different - with copyright being significantly longer than patent protection.
I also think your focus is strange. Suppose we could wave our wand and prove that copyright actually creates more problems in society and results in fewer inventions and creative works. If we could prove this, then I would have no problem at all revoking copyright. Why? Because at the end of the day it is about what is best for society, not what is best for the "creator". The minute the rights of a "creator" are such that it negatively impacts society and the ability of others to create - those rights that get in the way need to be abolished.
In short, individual intellectual property rights are good - only in so far as it helps the creative output and variety of society at large. How much time and effort they put into it, recouping costs and profits are immaterial, if these don't support the larger agenda of promoting creative output over alternatives.
As such, morality doesn't come into play. All law is a not a matter of ethics. Counter-example: Restaurant inspections. It's a matter of hygiene, not ethics.
Now, I think you are making the argument that patents and copyrights provide incentives for people to create new things. I think the open question I was raising was whether there are other means of providing incentives that are better, that in some cases these incentives may actually block development (software patents come to mind, but it applies just as well to drugs), and perhaps there are cases where the public interest trumps other considerations (such as generic versions of HIV drugs to be distributed in Africa).
I don't see the flaw in my counter-example. Everyone who cares about the Beatles or music in general being available is a listener. If it is freely available, there is no incentive for anyone to "steal" it and in the context of the Internet, distribution no longer has any meaning. The problem is that you are looking at it from a framework of intellectual property that simply does not apply. It also assumes the artifical scarcity created by copyrights and patents.
I think your most telling point is regarding incentives for non-performance art. How do you support comic book writers, novelists and what have you? Even here, you still can capitalize on performance with readings, speeches and discussion groups. Fame is a currency of sorts that can be brokered into promotional contracts and so forth. I think there are ways - even under a current system. However, I think it should be an opportunity to think of better ways for society to provide incentives.
For example, instead of heaping billions on Rowling because of Harry Potter, a more equitable system would encourage works irrespective of their current popularity or ability to be marketed across different types of media. From my perspective, copyright and patents even shapes the kinds of creative works that are possible because it frames art as something that needs to make money. The focus should be on creativeity - not making money, because making money is not the point. It may be necessary to live - but there needs to be a way to meet that need without making it the focus.
High school drop outs might be worth more; they don't have student debt. Can you include that in minimum wage too?
IANAL and neither are you. For one, you are confusing patents and copyrights. Copyright is an artifical monopoly granted by the government in respect to a particular expression of an idea. It is not possible to copyright an idea - as you would have learned if you had checked Wikipedia before posting.
Copyright law is not a matter of ethics. It is simply law and public policy. As the Constitution puts it: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." You'll notice that the focus is on progress - not because it is "right" from any moral perspective.
Further, there is a problem in your premises. Specifically, you aren't using your imagination or referring to historical precedent where copyright did not exist, yet creative works were produced. The University system and patronage are historical examples. I can imagine cooperatives that could provide a basic standard of living for artists and other possible formulations that you probably haven't considered. Copyright is only one way to skin this particular cat.
Tragedy of the commons is actually based on scarcity. The problem you have is that you are assuming that creative works are fungible. Here's the example that shows the flaw in your reasoning. Suppose The Beatles decide to release all their music and make it all public domain. Now, since all their music is available - according to your reasoning, no one will make any music anymore. No need to create derivative works. Why bother because The Beatles is freely available right? Wrong. People like to make music. They like to make new sounds/songs, listen to new sounds/songs and so forth. The fact that The Beatles catalog is freely available means I have a treasure trove of sounds to incorporate into my own music - and great music to listen to as well. The tragedy here is that in reality the Beatles catalog is not available in the commons. If it were in the commons, no tragedy of the commons would occur due to its available. Nor would the tragedy of the commons come into play if every copyrighted piece of music were available and copyright were abolished - any more than it would be for individual artists. Also as most musicians know, your money comes from touring - which isn't about copyright. You need to work on this argument.
Because most people making music don't make music for money. Even among those that do, most don't play solely music to maximize their profit.
I agree it is a different point - although I do think there is something....disingenious...about the existence of a John McCain MySpace page that I would worry about as well. As you say though, in the grand scheme of things, it is a rather minor detail.
My mistake. I didn't realize that you were talking about dealing with a vocal - and perhaps unsavory - minority.
Another thing I find interesting is that I self-identify as liberal, but I am beginning to wonder how useful that label really is since I find a have quite a bit in common with certain types of conservatives - particularly conservatives that are just as concerned about authoritarianism as I am. Perhaps it is time to think about it differently.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Hopefully, one day I'll run into someone that can shed some light on the other question I was raising.
I'm sorry, but the question is about judgment. He can't figure out how to get someone to handle MySpace, and you think it is an open question on whether he can handle the Presidency - which requires making judgments about Supreme Court appointments, the Iraq War and using nuclear weapons among other things? If he can't handle the small stuff, how's he going to handle the big stuff? You think he will suddenly get good judgment when it matters?