People paying hefty premiums for the real estate in High Class Area for many reasons - of course, the "High Class" does sound nice. But other than that, better schools, better security, better connections, et cetera do add up.
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the FED and the IRS both have strong policies in place that encourage people to go into way more debt than they should and that is a big factor reguarding alot of high priced housing in the states.
Also, here in california, city government intentionally regulates, zones, and limits residnetial building to drive up property prices for the purpose of increasing the tax base, this is anything but the quality of local government.
If I mugged you for $1000 and invested it to return the proceeds of $1050 to all your loved ones and took the credit for it. Technically speaking you all as a group would be better off financially, but realisticly you would all be worse off - because you would have lost controll over your lives futures and destinies. This is the way it seems things are going in many US cities. We've built all this infrastructure, created a large economic base of stadiums, airports, roads, water supply, and convention centers - but eveything still gets worse.
The notion of intellectual property cannot be reversed so long as there is free trade.......... you need to have a kind of software that can guide a developing nation into manufacturing the kinds of things it wants - it needs to be able to schedule education, natural resources,
Nobody but an idiot is going to invest say a billion$ in a factory, when theres a high chance that the govt could sieze it at will, or corrupt locals put the screws to you. That's the number one force keeping developing nations out of the industrial world.
As much as I hate the phoney 'Intellectual Property' racket here in the states - imho it has little to do with free trade. With perhaps the exception that most "free trade" agreements have nothing to do with free trade, and everything to do with mutual regulation.
so basically what youre saying is that hes gonna fck up the private sector. thanks but no thanks whens the last time u ever got a job from a poor person
b) work to build international alliances
Translation, cower to foriegn intereses even if its against us interests
c)provide stem cell funding
Why should the govt be funding any research nilly willy, let the private sector do it. Use your own goddam money.
d) seek gas alternatives
FYI the 'hydrogen economey' that everyones been talking about for the last four years was driven by republican initiatves. But fine, give me more controll over my money and I'll go solar.
e) protect a woman's right to abortion, select supreme court justices that feel similarly
I don't care, I'm a man. ok fine - i don't think the govt should be microregulating pregnant womens lives, but give me back my economic freedoms first and I'll work on it.
f) work to expand health care cover, and more.
Translation, socaialize medicine and other stuff. No thanks. We need less govt not more. It never ceases to amaze me - the people who don't think we have enough.
As for Bush...
a) poor economy
wtc, corporate scandals, stock market crash were all ready and waiting to happen before he got in. You need to do better than that, and apparently the voters agree.
b) no bin laden
none with clinton either
c) no WMDs and therefore no justification for war in Iraq
There's plenty of justification, WMDs were just the cheapest easiest sounding excuse. I thought he should have used others at the time, but either way.
d) cheney's haliburton connections
So? I haven't seen any compelling evidence of wrongdoing, but if so - whose to say they didn't bribe him to do the right thing anyhow?
e) silly stem cell stance
ok fine, but aleast he's not blowing my money
f) heavy handed foreign policy
Name one period in the last 200 years where we haven't pissed off half the world.
count me in!!! I want the lowest cost, most effective government that does only the things that matter and gets out of social services and morals, I want it now!!! This is the libertarian party politics!!! It has been around forever.
To me the dis-enfranchised people are the people paying high taxes for social programs that don't work, being foced to pay for public education that should be private, and medical expenses that are driven up by the govt paying all bills at all costs. I don't want the government to administrate these things more efficiently, responsibly, or "fairly", I want them to stop forcing me to pay the bills, and once I have controll again - then efficiency and accountability will take care of itself.
It seems that all the people who are complaining of being "left out" , are actually complaining that they are being "left out" of my wallet - and want to organize more efficiently on the internet to take it back???
You know what, we both claim that the other doesnt know the truth - but at the very least you could assume that it's was not an opinion. No matter what, we did nothing to deserve 9/11 and we have every right to get to the root of the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
And let me explain something else, nations and institutions are destined by their circumstances, but people are destined by choices. FYI, I live in a desert area just north of Mexico where 1000s of people have died of dehydration just trying to get in - they were not making those choices or taking those risks for the sake of appeasing US global domminance or even because of US corporate greed, they were comming here to get away from things that far worse.
I feel sorry for you, you're the one going off the cliff. If it looks like I'm pulling away, it's because you're the one that's falling.
I think the best option is to privately put it on a ship in international waters, and sell electrolosys generated hydrogen back to the mainland, otherwise the regulations will kill you. I think there are a lot of libertarian minded people like me, who would love to be on an economically independent zone while at the same time bypassing regulations that are 100 times more overbearing than they should be.
Lets face it, this is much more likely to happen over degerulation or federalization any time.
OK, well fine, mod the hell out of me. But, I for one am not a bit sorry, in fact, I think the world should be sorry to the USA. For not giving anything more than lip service about our need to secure our liberties in the aftermath of real harm, and turning our legitimate concerns into stories about greed, oil, and personal vandetta on Saddam and accusing us of being the war mongers while blowing off the actions of 100s other countries that are 10x more hostile and 100's of times less sincere.
I'd love to dote on the problems of the USA too, but the reality is that many a arrogant foriegn attitude sorta forced my hand and I immagine those of many other Americans too.
I wander if the real problem is that most the europeans and intellectuals in the world who give a shit about freedoms and liberty enough to struggle for them moved to the USA a long time ago. I also think, many US residents are old enough to renember the cold war, where we were dumped on just as badly, if not worse, yet we were so right in so many ways inspite of all the bullshit. It was only in the aftermath that everybody shut up.
It seems to me that some people just can't face that the USA isn't more wealthy because we're more greedy - we are more wealthy because on average we really do have more freedoms. And others really are just plain more envious and jealous even if they refuse to call it that.
In consideration of some of your points, IMHO terrorisim mostly happenes in western comntries not because of chaos and unstability, but because very specific interests are suverely threatened by other peoples freedoms. In that way, the threat of freedom in Iraq has forced a refocus. Also, "imposing" freedom on another country that isn't free isn't so anti libertarian, that would be like saying someone could "impose" freedom of speech.
As for healthcare, lets just face it - most of the inflation is specifically because of government flipping the bill at all cost, and government regulations that remove direct accountability from the consumer decision. IMHO, I don't think that situation will be improved with Kerry even if Bush isn't all that great either.
Also, I think the tax reality is that the government won't just get the money elsewhere, because they're already trying to get the max they can anyhow. Blocking it at any point is a worthwhile endeavor. And, I reject the notion that high taxes are just something we half to accept as part of a modern economey - I think it would be more honest to argue that modern economies have not kept pace with modern libertarian thought.
As for the deficit and all the empty promises, the problem isn't that the "bully has bought a bigger house than the kids on the playground can afford" the problem is that the bully has the power to bully away the kids lunch money to begin with. Solve that problem, and the others will solve themselves - even if it is a little ugly. Hell, what in life isn't - IMHO, government is about people organizing to secure liberties, not to 'protect' people from the natural consequences of their stupidity.
As a libertarian, Bush really isn't my favorite - but I just can't see why so many people hate him that badly!
Lets face it - inspite off all the bullshit about WMD's and maby there's even some oil/cronyisim - the simple fact is that Bush moved the front lines on the war on terror out of here and over there. As commander and chief, I really thought he did his job, or atleast made more than a half ass try.
And, as for the economy and jobs, I thought he sucked as a libertarian, but considering all the bad crap that happened with the WTC, oil, corporate scandal, and the stock market that was out of his controll - I thought it could have been a lot worse and that he really softened the damage.
Finally, between sales, property, income, and other misc taxes - the avg person pays up to 40% of their life without even knowing it - does anyone really believe that we're suffering so much because we're not soaking the rich enough. Look, if a rich person does something corrupt to become rich - then lets address that, but don't be jealous or greedy just because someone else has money and you don't. Besides, whens the last time you were ever given a job by a poor person, and becises US law only allows the taxing of income, not wealth - so that means that the guy with a billion in the bank won't even notice - but the small buisness man who makes his first mil and creats 10 jobs will get his nuts ripped off and his teeth kicked in. As much as I don't love Bush, I think he's more sympathetic to the latter.
IMHO Just like dealing with 'indian' violence had to be put on hold until after the Civil War. I really think the war on terror is likely going to need to be put on hold till the US solves some of it's internal problems. And I think this election will reflect that.
The biggest problem that no-one is talking about, but everyone is going to half to face is the trillion dollar question about copyrights. They simply can't survive in an age defined by the unrestricted flow of information so something is going to half to be fought out soon. The question is will the Government finally get it and back off on the copyright gestapo - or will they go full blast untill all hell breaks loose, and they fail crash and burn.
Since Bush is more accountable to the tech industries, and Kerry is more accountable to the legal and hollywood sector. I think a Kerry win will symbolize the copyright battle being fought inspite of the system, a Bush win will symbolize the battle geing fought within the system. It's a tough call.
The rationale has *little or nothing* to do with fair/deserved (or outrageous/undeserved, whatever the case may be!) compensation for the intellectual rights holders. It has *everything* to do with solving a fundamental economic problem with the provision of (nearly) public goods; goods with high initial/fixed costs and near-zero marginal costs.
In all fairness, I think this has failed. It is true that copyrights have led to more 'public goods' - but the public goods have become anything that gets the most attention - and has nothing to do with any real value - and thus - Ally Mc Biel. Second, patents have not created more value, but only led to people patenting things that were 99/100 natural progressions that were likely to be invented anyhow.
No, my logic is like saying: their property is theirs, not anyone else's.
My geo-metro is my property - a copy of it is not. In fact, please make a copy - I won't be violated. In fact, there are 10 million coppies, I am not violated. It is bullshit morality. As far as I'm concerned - 'the pharmacuticals' can have all the property they want, and I wouldn't care. But that's not what they're asking for - they are asking for controll over who can make replicas. That is NOT a property (repeat after me, the right to replicate is not a property... repeat after me, the right to replicate is not a property) , and it is not even good for society, and I can prove it because it has all sorts of consequences that you seem to like blowing off - but other countries like brazil can not, because people are dying over it. And your assertion that cures would never be found anyhow, is bullshit.
It's easy to owe them nothing; never claim any of their property as yours.
No I dont, as I said, it's not a property and it violates innocent people, so I'm making it my business. Your logic is like saying - if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves.
On the flip side, if through hard work and determination, I create something useful to others and attempt to make money from it in order to feed my family should you, who did nothing to bring about its creation, be allowed to simply take it from me without compensating me for my time and effort to do with as you please?
Yes I should, because I have a family to feed to, and your invention likely builds on zillions of things, experiences, and knowledge, that society gave you freely - now to turn arround and say they owe you a monopoly is bullshit. Not to mention that 90% of patents especially cover incremental improvements that were going to be invented anyhow with or without a monopoly. So basically, you're not benefiting society - you're just getting in the way of future innovation, why should you be rewarded for that?
How do the millions of people dying of AIDS have any claim whatsover to the drugs? The drugs that wouldn't have been there if your evil drug companies hadn't spent the $$ to make them? It's not like drugs fall from the sky and they're being hoarded, like diamonds or something. Without the drug companies you know what you have? NOT A FUCKING THING. With them, you get something, an infinite percent improvement. If you get some free, or some cheap, be grateful.
Excuse me, but your glorious pharmacutical companies are making it impossible for researchers to collaberate on AIDS remedys because they want grab key patents and lock out competitors. In addition, they actively interfere with research on cheaper and simple remidies that could be even more beneficial - but can not be patented. This is not a glorious free market forces at all - it is bullshit, and people are FUCKING dying because of it. I don't owe the pharmacuticals a Goddam thing - But people have rights and deserve freedoms inspite of them not because it suits their profits.
I'm all for free software and cheap drugs, but we still need to respect the copyrights and patients of the developers.
Like the hell we do. It's one thing to acknowledge their contribution to the world - it's another to assume that there should be some kind of a god given right for personal monopolies - even when millions of people in Africa are dying of AIDS. Like cows to the slaughter, people just assume that because a bunch of people declare something a glorious free market property right - that it must be so. But really, do you own slaves?
I think in reality you are right, companies like Red Hat are seriously overcharging and that does have an effect on MSs' argument - but on the other hand that is a strength not a weakness.
RedHat is charging more because they can get away with it even if it does limit their market share. Unlike windows, the Linux industry is not co-dependent on market share, but on service and overall value.
Customer's don't buy an OS because the TCO is cheaper than a competitor - they buy it because it provides an overall value to their company that wasn't there before. In that way MS can't compete.
OK, well fine. Ford stole market share from Christler and maybe Christler has no incentive to make cars without a government granted monopoly on their production and distribution. But really, does anyone truely think this is "stealing" in the true sense of the word. No it's bullshit morality, and nobody was violated even if Christler felt they were.
Basically, the Coke argument is the same thing. It suggests market share of information is a property right of the originator - when it isn't really a right at all. It is a form of controll.
Of course this was going to happen, it is just one of the many parallels between the information age and the industrial revolution.
In the 1800's there were those who strongly believed that the free states should be able to get along with the slave states by working out some kind of compromize that respected their "right" to own slaves. But like most people who support false rights, they were doomed to be the loosers in history and were exploited by the plantation masters.
Today there are those who see copyrights as some kind of glorious right, as if coercing other peoples copying behavior is a 'property' and not a form of controll. They really want to work out a compromise with the big media industries by keeping the copyright system in tact. In fact they are only setting themselves up to be exploited by the very institutions they are trying to help.
There's nothing wrong with piracy accept for the name "piracy"....
Preface: At the beginning of the industrial revolution (USA), many bright and well educated people believed that it's entire meaning and purpose was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit - they were dead wrong. Today, in the information age, there those who believe that the entire meaning and purpose of the information age is to leverage technologies like the Internet to expand their copyright controls to the ends of the earth. They are also dead wrong, their greed has blinded them to the facts, and they must be stopped at all costs. Like always, they tout their prosperity, impose false (property) rights, and declare fradulent incentives. And like always, their arguments are worthless, evil, and must be challenged....
A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights
If someone said there was no incentive to grow potatoes unless they could rip up your yard and plant some, or there was no incentive to say good things unless can control your speech - most people would see these for the worthless values that they are. But if it was said that there is no incentive to make beneficial or creative works without the right to restrict what people copy (copyrights), then all of a sudden people just take it on faith. They don't even question it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. But the Renaissance happened without copyrights, so why can't the information age?
Incentive does not a right make, and calling copyrights "intellectual property" is intellectually dishonest. While the moral and historical foundation of property derives from physical limits and mutual respect, the foundation of copyrights derives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. So rather than being an equivalence relationship, copyrights are more like a form of censorship. In fact, copyright monopolies cheapen property rights by treating things that have natural limits in supply such as food, shelter, and medicine like information that does not.
Worse, is how people who copy are slandered with names such as thief and pirate, as if copying was akin to boarding a ship and murdering people. They are even accused of stealing food out of the mouths of starving artists. However, these verbal assaults hide a cruel lie, the one that says - "copyrights benefit creative people". Well, the truth is that for every artist or writer that has made it big, there are literally unmentioned thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, hindered, or even destroyed. For most creators free copying simply increases the share for their personal demand. But with copyrights, some are even bared or sued from sharing their own creations in public. Others die with the world never truly knowing their artistic genius as the mass media drowns them out. Rather than helping the creative, copyrights destroy them, and deceive them while doing it.
However, these aren't the only problems associated with copyrights. They are just a sample of many that are constantly blown off, glossed over, or ignored. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few. And then these very same industries ask, well "how will we make money without copyrights?" Like a disingenuous thief asking "how will I feed my children without old ladies to mug?"
The problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable a quarter century ago when the biggest issue was copy machines. But today, in the information age, information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society will either have to control all of it or none of it. Our communications will either have to be monitored or free,
In all fairness, the US is like the last frontier.
As a US citizen, I can't stand how intrusive our government is with civil liberties and with taxes, and especially frivolous tickets and things like zoneing and sue-happyness.... but I've studied the stats of countries all over the world, and the simple truth is that there is a very very tiny number of countries that even have marginal improvement. I wish there was a "really" better, but there isn't and that's just the way it is.
I own property in a desert area just north of the border, and hundreds of people have died arround that area in the last 10 years just trying to get in - you can't say that about very many places. oh yeah, the border patrol - another dislike, I really don't have faith in their ability to protect us from terrorists, and I resent being "protected" from fruit pickers and others who just want to make an honest living.
Anyhow, I don't think it's too US centered - it's just that the information age and all it's problems happened here first. I can only hope someday that there will be a better frontier of freedom. Perhaps vast cities on the ocean, perhaps in space. But right now it seems here physically and cyberspace for everything else.
IMHO, For now the biggest issue is copyrights. They are effectively dead even if noone wants to admit it - God help us. You can just tell the shit is about to hit the fan and when it does all hell will break loose.
They are NOT property rights
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
However, it can also be argues that the amount of protection of the individual's right to personal property (intellectual and physical) is also proportional
You're working on the assumption that intellectual "property" (copyright and patnet monopolies) are a property right. That's like saying slavey was a property right - no it wasn't! It was a form of controll over other people, and so is this.
Just because a bunch of people scream very loudly that something is a right doesn't mean that it is. Just because they scream that it's a property right doesn't mean that it is either.
Slashdot Mirror
People paying hefty premiums for the real estate in High Class Area for many reasons - of course, the "High Class" does sound nice. But other than that, better schools, better security, better connections, et cetera do add up.
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the FED and the IRS both have strong policies in place that encourage people to go into way more debt than they should and that is a big factor reguarding alot of high priced housing in the states.
Also, here in california, city government intentionally regulates, zones, and limits residnetial building to drive up property prices for the purpose of increasing the tax base, this is anything but the quality of local government.
If I mugged you for $1000 and invested it to return the proceeds of $1050 to all your loved ones and took the credit for it. Technically speaking you all as a group would be better off financially, but realisticly you would all be worse off - because you would have lost controll over your lives futures and destinies. This is the way it seems things are going in many US cities. We've built all this infrastructure, created a large economic base of stadiums, airports, roads, water supply, and convention centers - but eveything still gets worse.
The notion of intellectual property cannot be reversed so long as there is free trade. ......... you need to have a kind of software that can guide a developing nation into manufacturing the kinds of things it wants - it needs to be able to schedule education, natural resources,
Nobody but an idiot is going to invest say a billion$ in a factory, when theres a high chance that the govt could sieze it at will, or corrupt locals put the screws to you. That's the number one force keeping developing nations out of the industrial world.
As much as I hate the phoney 'Intellectual Property' racket here in the states - imho it has little to do with free trade. With perhaps the exception that most "free trade" agreements have nothing to do with free trade, and everything to do with mutual regulation.
a) Kerry would repeal tax breaks for the rich,
so basically what youre saying is that hes gonna fck up the private sector. thanks but no thanks whens the last time u ever got a job from a poor person
b) work to build international alliances
Translation, cower to foriegn intereses even if its against us interests
c)provide stem cell funding
Why should the govt be funding any research nilly willy, let the private sector do it. Use your own goddam money.
d) seek gas alternatives
FYI the 'hydrogen economey' that everyones been talking about for the last four years was driven by republican initiatves. But fine, give me more controll over my money and I'll go solar.
e) protect a woman's right to abortion, select supreme court justices that feel similarly
I don't care, I'm a man. ok fine - i don't think the govt should be microregulating pregnant womens lives, but give me back my economic freedoms first and I'll work on it.
f) work to expand health care cover, and more.
Translation, socaialize medicine and other stuff. No thanks. We need less govt not more. It never ceases to amaze me - the people who don't think we have enough.
As for Bush...
a) poor economy
wtc, corporate scandals, stock market crash were all ready and waiting to happen before he got in. You need to do better than that, and apparently the voters agree.
b) no bin laden
none with clinton either
c) no WMDs and therefore no justification for war in Iraq
There's plenty of justification, WMDs were just the cheapest easiest sounding excuse. I thought he should have used others at the time, but either way.
d) cheney's haliburton connections
So? I haven't seen any compelling evidence of wrongdoing, but if so - whose to say they didn't bribe him to do the right thing anyhow?
e) silly stem cell stance
ok fine, but aleast he's not blowing my money
f) heavy handed foreign policy
Name one period in the last 200 years where we haven't pissed off half the world.
g) prisoner abuse problems
minor compaired to what they're doing to us
h) tax cuts for the rich
see statement a) at the top.
count me in!!! I want the lowest cost, most effective government that does only the things that matter and gets out of social services and morals, I want it now!!! This is the libertarian party politics!!! It has been around forever.
To me the dis-enfranchised people are the people paying high taxes for social programs that don't work, being foced to pay for public education that should be private, and medical expenses that are driven up by the govt paying all bills at all costs. I don't want the government to administrate these things more efficiently, responsibly, or "fairly", I want them to stop forcing me to pay the bills, and once I have controll again - then efficiency and accountability will take care of itself.
It seems that all the people who are complaining of being "left out" , are actually complaining that they are being "left out" of my wallet - and want to organize more efficiently on the internet to take it back???
Am I missing somthing here?
You know what, we both claim that the other doesnt know the truth - but at the very least you could assume that it's was not an opinion. No matter what, we did nothing to deserve 9/11 and we have every right to get to the root of the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
And let me explain something else, nations and institutions are destined by their circumstances, but people are destined by choices. FYI, I live in a desert area just north of Mexico where 1000s of people have died of dehydration just trying to get in - they were not making those choices or taking those risks for the sake of appeasing US global domminance or even because of US corporate greed, they were comming here to get away from things that far worse.
I feel sorry for you, you're the one going off the cliff. If it looks like I'm pulling away, it's because you're the one that's falling.
I think the best option is to privately put it on a ship in international waters, and sell electrolosys generated hydrogen back to the mainland, otherwise the regulations will kill you. I think there are a lot of libertarian minded people like me, who would love to be on an economically independent zone while at the same time bypassing regulations that are 100 times more overbearing than they should be.
Lets face it, this is much more likely to happen over degerulation or federalization any time.
We're sorry.
OK, well fine, mod the hell out of me. But, I for one am not a bit sorry, in fact, I think the world should be sorry to the USA. For not giving anything more than lip service about our need to secure our liberties in the aftermath of real harm, and turning our legitimate concerns into stories about greed, oil, and personal vandetta on Saddam and accusing us of being the war mongers while blowing off the actions of 100s other countries that are 10x more hostile and 100's of times less sincere.
I'd love to dote on the problems of the USA too, but the reality is that many a arrogant foriegn attitude sorta forced my hand and I immagine those of many other Americans too.
I wander if the real problem is that most the europeans and intellectuals in the world who give a shit about freedoms and liberty enough to struggle for them moved to the USA a long time ago. I also think, many US residents are old enough to renember the cold war, where we were dumped on just as badly, if not worse, yet we were so right in so many ways inspite of all the bullshit. It was only in the aftermath that everybody shut up.
It seems to me that some people just can't face that the USA isn't more wealthy because we're more greedy - we are more wealthy because on average we really do have more freedoms. And others really are just plain more envious and jealous even if they refuse to call it that.
In consideration of some of your points, IMHO terrorisim mostly happenes in western comntries not because of chaos and unstability, but because very specific interests are suverely threatened by other peoples freedoms. In that way, the threat of freedom in Iraq has forced a refocus. Also, "imposing" freedom on another country that isn't free isn't so anti libertarian, that would be like saying someone could "impose" freedom of speech.
As for healthcare, lets just face it - most of the inflation is specifically because of government flipping the bill at all cost, and government regulations that remove direct accountability from the consumer decision. IMHO, I don't think that situation will be improved with Kerry even if Bush isn't all that great either.
Also, I think the tax reality is that the government won't just get the money elsewhere, because they're already trying to get the max they can anyhow. Blocking it at any point is a worthwhile endeavor. And, I reject the notion that high taxes are just something we half to accept as part of a modern economey - I think it would be more honest to argue that modern economies have not kept pace with modern libertarian thought.
As for the deficit and all the empty promises, the problem isn't that the "bully has bought a bigger house than the kids on the playground can afford" the problem is that the bully has the power to bully away the kids lunch money to begin with. Solve that problem, and the others will solve themselves - even if it is a little ugly. Hell, what in life isn't - IMHO, government is about people organizing to secure liberties, not to 'protect' people from the natural consequences of their stupidity.
As a libertarian, Bush really isn't my favorite - but I just can't see why so many people hate him that badly!
Lets face it - inspite off all the bullshit about WMD's and maby there's even some oil/cronyisim - the simple fact is that Bush moved the front lines on the war on terror out of here and over there. As commander and chief, I really thought he did his job, or atleast made more than a half ass try.
And, as for the economy and jobs, I thought he sucked as a libertarian, but considering all the bad crap that happened with the WTC, oil, corporate scandal, and the stock market that was out of his controll - I thought it could have been a lot worse and that he really softened the damage.
Finally, between sales, property, income, and other misc taxes - the avg person pays up to 40% of their life without even knowing it - does anyone really believe that we're suffering so much because we're not soaking the rich enough. Look, if a rich person does something corrupt to become rich - then lets address that, but don't be jealous or greedy just because someone else has money and you don't. Besides, whens the last time you were ever given a job by a poor person, and becises US law only allows the taxing of income, not wealth - so that means that the guy with a billion in the bank won't even notice - but the small buisness man who makes his first mil and creats 10 jobs will get his nuts ripped off and his teeth kicked in. As much as I don't love Bush, I think he's more sympathetic to the latter.
IMHO Just like dealing with 'indian' violence had to be put on hold until after the Civil War. I really think the war on terror is likely going to need to be put on hold till the US solves some of it's internal problems. And I think this election will reflect that.
The biggest problem that no-one is talking about, but everyone is going to half to face is the trillion dollar question about copyrights. They simply can't survive in an age defined by the unrestricted flow of information so something is going to half to be fought out soon. The question is will the Government finally get it and back off on the copyright gestapo - or will they go full blast untill all hell breaks loose, and they fail crash and burn.
Since Bush is more accountable to the tech industries, and Kerry is more accountable to the legal and hollywood sector. I think a Kerry win will symbolize the copyright battle being fought inspite of the system, a Bush win will symbolize the battle geing fought within the system. It's a tough call.
The rationale has *little or nothing* to do with fair/deserved (or outrageous/undeserved, whatever the case may be!) compensation for the intellectual rights holders. It has *everything* to do with solving a fundamental economic problem with the provision of (nearly) public goods; goods with high initial/fixed costs and near-zero marginal costs.
In all fairness, I think this has failed. It is true that copyrights have led to more 'public goods' - but the public goods have become anything that gets the most attention - and has nothing to do with any real value - and thus - Ally Mc Biel.
Second, patents have not created more value, but only led to people patenting things that were 99/100 natural progressions that were likely to be invented anyhow.
No, my logic is like saying: their property is theirs, not anyone else's.
My geo-metro is my property - a copy of it is not. In fact, please make a copy - I won't be violated. In fact, there are 10 million coppies, I am not violated. It is bullshit morality. As far as I'm concerned - 'the pharmacuticals' can have all the property they want, and I wouldn't care. But that's not what they're asking for - they are asking for controll over who can make replicas. That is NOT a property (repeat after me, the right to replicate is not a property ... repeat after me, the right to replicate is not a property) , and it is not even good for society, and I can prove it because it has all sorts of consequences that you seem to like blowing off - but other countries like brazil can not, because people are dying over it. And your assertion that cures would never be found anyhow, is bullshit.
My sholw point though, was that slavery wasn't about free markets at all. It had nothing to do with property, or free markets, but controll.
It's easy to owe them nothing; never claim any of their property as yours.
No I dont, as I said, it's not a property and it violates innocent people, so I'm making it my business. Your logic is like saying - if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves.
On the flip side, if through hard work and determination, I create something useful to others and attempt to make money from it in order to feed my family should you, who did nothing to bring about its creation, be allowed to simply take it from me without compensating me for my time and effort to do with as you please?
Yes I should, because I have a family to feed to, and your invention likely builds on zillions of things, experiences, and knowledge, that society gave you freely - now to turn arround and say they owe you a monopoly is bullshit. Not to mention that 90% of patents especially cover incremental improvements that were going to be invented anyhow with or without a monopoly. So basically, you're not benefiting society - you're just getting in the way of future innovation, why should you be rewarded for that?
How do the millions of people dying of AIDS have any claim whatsover to the drugs? The drugs that wouldn't have been there if your evil drug companies hadn't spent the $$ to make them? It's not like drugs fall from the sky and they're being hoarded, like diamonds or something. Without the drug companies you know what you have? NOT A FUCKING THING. With them, you get something, an infinite percent improvement. If you get some free, or some cheap, be grateful.
Excuse me, but your glorious pharmacutical companies are making it impossible for researchers to collaberate on AIDS remedys because they want grab key patents and lock out competitors. In addition, they actively interfere with research on cheaper and simple remidies that could be even more beneficial - but can not be patented. This is not a glorious free market forces at all - it is bullshit, and people are FUCKING dying because of it. I don't owe the pharmacuticals a Goddam thing - But people have rights and deserve freedoms inspite of them not because it suits their profits.
I'm all for free software and cheap drugs, but we still need to respect the copyrights and patients of the developers.
Like the hell we do. It's one thing to acknowledge their contribution to the world - it's another to assume that there should be some kind of a god given right for personal monopolies - even when millions of people in Africa are dying of AIDS. Like cows to the slaughter, people just assume that because a bunch of people declare something a glorious free market property right - that it must be so. But really, do you own slaves?
I think in reality you are right, companies like Red Hat are seriously overcharging and that does have an effect on MSs' argument - but on the other hand that is a strength not a weakness.
RedHat is charging more because they can get away with it even if it does limit their market share. Unlike windows, the Linux industry is not co-dependent on market share, but on service and overall value.
Customer's don't buy an OS because the TCO is cheaper than a competitor - they buy it because it provides an overall value to their company that wasn't there before. In that way MS can't compete.
OK, well fine. Ford stole market share from Christler and maybe Christler has no incentive to make cars without a government granted monopoly on their production and distribution. But really, does anyone truely think this is "stealing" in the true sense of the word. No it's bullshit morality, and nobody was violated even if Christler felt they were.
Basically, the Coke argument is the same thing. It suggests market share of information is a property right of the originator - when it isn't really a right at all. It is a form of controll.
Would you be surprised to hear Sun is the lowest cost Tier 1 dual-Opteron provider?
Yes I would be. Anyhow, sounds like a good reason to get one, format the drive - wipe solaris and install Linux on it to get all the apps. Thanks Sun
Of course this was going to happen, it is just one of the many parallels between the information age and the industrial revolution.
In the 1800's there were those who strongly believed that the free states should be able to get along with the slave states by working out some kind of compromize that respected their "right" to own slaves. But like most people who support false rights, they were doomed to be the loosers in history and were exploited by the plantation masters.
Today there are those who see copyrights as some kind of glorious right, as if coercing other peoples copying behavior is a 'property' and not a form of controll. They really want to work out a compromise with the big media industries by keeping the copyright system in tact. In fact they are only setting themselves up to be exploited by the very institutions they are trying to help.
why is the above at this moment rated as flamebait!, attacking copyrights in this forum is totally 100% appropiate.
There's nothing wrong with piracy accept for the name "piracy" ....
Preface: At the beginning of the industrial revolution (USA), many bright and well educated people believed that it's entire meaning and purpose was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit - they were dead wrong. Today, in the information age, there those who believe that the entire meaning and purpose of the information age is to leverage technologies like the Internet to expand their copyright controls to the ends of the earth. They are also dead wrong, their greed has blinded them to the facts, and they must be stopped at all costs. Like always, they tout their prosperity, impose false (property) rights, and declare fradulent incentives. And like always, their arguments are worthless, evil, and must be challenged....
A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights
If someone said there was no incentive to grow potatoes unless they could rip up your yard and plant some, or there was no incentive to say good things unless can control your speech - most people would see these for the worthless values that they are. But if it was said that there is no incentive to make beneficial or creative works without the right to restrict what people copy (copyrights), then all of a sudden people just take it on faith. They don't even question it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. But the Renaissance happened without copyrights, so why can't the information age?
Incentive does not a right make, and calling copyrights "intellectual property" is intellectually dishonest. While the moral and historical foundation of property derives from physical limits and mutual respect, the foundation of copyrights derives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. So rather than being an equivalence relationship, copyrights are more like a form of censorship. In fact, copyright monopolies cheapen property rights by treating things that have natural limits in supply such as food, shelter, and medicine like information that does not.
Worse, is how people who copy are slandered with names such as thief and pirate, as if copying was akin to boarding a ship and murdering people. They are even accused of stealing food out of the mouths of starving artists. However, these verbal assaults hide a cruel lie, the one that says - "copyrights benefit creative people". Well, the truth is that for every artist or writer that has made it big, there are literally unmentioned thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, hindered, or even destroyed. For most creators free copying simply increases the share for their personal demand. But with copyrights, some are even bared or sued from sharing their own creations in public. Others die with the world never truly knowing their artistic genius as the mass media drowns them out. Rather than helping the creative, copyrights destroy them, and deceive them while doing it.
However, these aren't the only problems associated with copyrights. They are just a sample of many that are constantly blown off, glossed over, or ignored. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few. And then these very same industries ask, well "how will we make money without copyrights?" Like a disingenuous thief asking "how will I feed my children without old ladies to mug?"
The problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable a quarter century ago when the biggest issue was copy machines. But today, in the information age, information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society will either have to control all of it or none of it. Our communications will either have to be monitored or free,
In all fairness, the US is like the last frontier.
As a US citizen, I can't stand how intrusive our government is with civil liberties and with taxes, and especially frivolous tickets and things like zoneing and sue-happyness .... but I've studied the stats of countries all over the world, and the simple truth is that there is a very very tiny number of countries that even have marginal improvement. I wish there was a "really" better, but there isn't and that's just the way it is.
I own property in a desert area just north of the border, and hundreds of people have died arround that area in the last 10 years just trying to get in - you can't say that about very many places. oh yeah, the border patrol - another dislike, I really don't have faith in their ability to protect us from terrorists, and I resent being "protected" from fruit pickers and others who just want to make an honest living.
Anyhow, I don't think it's too US centered - it's just that the information age and all it's problems happened here first. I can only hope someday that there will be a better frontier of freedom. Perhaps vast cities on the ocean, perhaps in space. But right now it seems here physically and cyberspace for everything else.
IMHO, For now the biggest issue is copyrights. They are effectively dead even if noone wants to admit it - God help us. You can just tell the shit is about to hit the fan and when it does all hell will break loose.
However, it can also be argues that the amount of protection of the individual's right to personal property (intellectual and physical) is also proportional
You're working on the assumption that intellectual "property" (copyright and patnet monopolies) are a property right. That's like saying slavey was a property right - no it wasn't! It was a form of controll over other people, and so is this.
Just because a bunch of people scream very loudly that something is a right doesn't mean that it is. Just because they scream that it's a property right doesn't mean that it is either.