The "as long as someone else can bounce in and affect the market" is a very big IF in a free market. New entrants will usually find that it is more profitable to join the cartel where they can sell at the high uncompetitive prices, rather than fight the cartel. Otherwise there wouldn't be a cartel -- the individual members would have separated or declined to join it.
This is a very good point, one that I have pondered often. My only answer is:
Has the State created MORE cartels than it has protected against? If what you say is true, why are there so many unregulated markets (lawn mowing, razor blades, toothpaste, pizzas, burgers, etc) that don't see cartelization? The only time you do see cartelization that MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT need State intervention is when the supply of a product is TRULY limited. Software is NOT a limited resource, it is artificially limited by... the State!
Okay, we're both wandering off into complete speculation at this point, so any argument we have is going to be based on rhetoric and gut feelings, but I'm really enjoying this discussion, as you are one of the first rational free-market proponents I've met.
I appreciate that attitude and definitely would love to discuss more with you, probably off slashdot for fear of an off-topic hit. I'm offering minarchists, socialists, anarcho-capitalists and Statists the chance to come to my blogs and write about their opinions in a debate-chain -- and get paid to do so by me. If you're interested, my e-mail address is there. Let's chat.
I'll disagree slightly on the rhetoric and gut feelings aspect. We've had democratic governments for thousands of years, and they always fail to meet promises or expectations. If you look at ANY market that is fairly deregulated or completely deregulated (short of sales tax and other tax burdens), you see huge growth in terms of prices dropping, quality going up, safety going up, and choice/selection. Look at hair combs. Look at Razor blades. Look at toothpaste. Look at lawn mowing services. Look at oil change facilities. I should make a website listing all the various markets that are uncluttered by excessive regulation, actually. Let people debate them individually:)
The problems with all corporations results from their one desire: to maximize profit. They will do all they can until they can regulate the market themselves. Yes, I believe all market giants are doomed to fail. But they can do a lot of economic and social damage before they *do* fail.
I'm going to disagree slightly here because this is the desire of all individuals, too -- to maximize "profit." Profit comes in the form of more money, but it can also come in the form of more entertainment, more free time, more happiness, and more. If you and I, as individuals, barter, we both profit from the transaction in some way or we don't transact. This is true of ALL transactions except ones with the State which forces us to make a transaction or face penalties or jail time.
Corporations can't just maximize their profit by raising prices, unless the State is there to allow them to by reducing your choice to find competitors. The minute that Corporation A raises their price higher than the level that Corporation B can start selling the product, Corporation A will be in trouble. Competition provides for more than A and B if there is enough demand -- unless the State is there to tell you that only one or two companies are licensed to provide the service, or if the State says only one or two companies have the right to produce a product or service in a certain way because of the protection of their right over the way one thinks or moves their hands or fingers.
Corporations are directed toward one thing: exploiting resources to make the largest amount of money possible.
Only if there is a demand for the final product or service. If the demand for dirt went way up, corporations might try to take over all the dirt, but that's only because peole want dirt. There is a market for dirt, though, which means that there is a demand for dirt to be bought cheaper than the individual can get it themselves for. Corporations do not exist unless demand exists, and that demand only exists up to a certain price level -- once the supply of a product hits a certain price point, demand could become non-existant or severely limited.
No one exploits anything unless there is a gain to be had, and gains are made because others want what you have.
Let's say that a cartel of corporations is created -- what is to stop you and I from competing with them? If they have a monopoly over a certain resource, what is that resource and how could we get more? What stops us from getting more of that resource? Some Statists say that electricity is a short resource because there isn't enough room to have 50 different electric companies running cables all over the pl
If voting changed anything, it would be illegal. Though, if I had as much money as Microsoft to lobby congress and donate to presidential campaigns, I'm sure my vote would count for something.
It's easy to blame the voter in a corrupt system. But why not blame those who perpetrate the behaviour rather than the average voter who isn't an engineer and doesn't understand what is at stake.
The voter votes in order to try to change something that the market hasn't had time to cover. Instead of giving the market a chance (which could sometimes take a few years but makes life more efficient for everyone in the end), the voter gives power to the State to force SOME sort of change -- usually creating a law that few can afford to take advantage of, but that stifles future market creations because it exists.
I love to read old laws that are still on the books -- and still enforceable if the wrong person goes against the State -- and I see how the market worked around those laws to provide for what the market wanted. It took a bit longer than the strike of a gavel, but it worked better than what the State created. Laws create a standard that never goes away, and if it does, it usually goes the way of those who were able to take advantage of the law first to create a monopoly based on the law's strict definition.
Voting is the worst thing you can do, except when you vote for none of the above and let your vote be counted as a person who is against ALL intrustions on rights.
I'm not saying that's not the way things *should* be. I'm just saying that people always game the system to their best advantage. What you propose is a fantasy. Nobody would create software that way if they could use the system to their own advantage. I agree with your idealism. That'd be great. But it's also not the way it would be.
I write for two reasons: to gain insight from people's replies (which would be VERY costly to do if I hired them to reply, even the emotional ones), and to promote some free market thoughts as people work the problems back to their source: the lack of freedom under a State that wants to regulate and restrict everyone but those that can afford to bribe the State.
I'm never quite sure where I fall on copyright law. I write, and I know how hard it would be for writers to make a living without copyright protection. But, like you, I feel the prohibition against the free exchange of information is also wrong.
I write, but I repudiate copyright entirely. Everything I have ever written -- books, blogs, music -- and everything I have ever designed -- art, photos, machinery -- I let others copy freely and even use their own name on it with no attribution. I find that this increases the demand for that given market, which eventually helps me if I find a way to be the most competitive against others who are also in the market. I love competition, it has ALWAYS helped me. I've helped my own employees start competitive businesses against me, and I've still grown as more customers come into the market. I see no reason for "protecting" my thoughts or actions against mimicry.
And that the problem: any system that allows any behavior will result in exploitative behavior. The arguments in favor of a free, unregulated market (that is, "let the market decide") always remind me of vigilantism: if someone murders, let the family of the person murdered punish the murderer. An unregulated market would result in the larger corporations using their market force to regulate the market, and the citizens will never get much of a say.
That's a good opinion, but I'm not sure how true it is. Without a tyranny in the State, a company producing a product or service would have competition -- no matter how big that company is. Even billion dollar chip manufacturers have competition, because millions of individuals invest to try to compete on that level. The only thing the State changes is that they sometimes create an infinitely high barrier to entry through copyright and patent laws. Getting rid of that infinitely high barrier to entry may leave us with a high barrier to entry, but high is easier to jump over than infinitely high.
They *would* do this. They already do this to gain more control than copyright or patent law gives them currently. Yes, we should certainly strike down patent laws, and perhaps even copyright. But that won't change essentially destructive corporate self-interest. When the corporations control the market (such as IBM did years ago, and Microsoft does now), they warp the market to their own favor. They will do this no matter what laws exist or do not exist.
But while they're trying to maintain control through force, they'd have dozens if not hundreds or thousands of competitors nipping at their ankles. Eventually, all it takes is one bacteria to take down a giant. It has happened through all of history, and it would continue to happen unless the company in power was able to truly stay more efficient or cheaper or produce a better product. Competition never goes away in a less-regulated market.
The state creates laws like the prohibition of reverse engineering because the state serves business far more than it does the people. And THAT'S because companies have been allowed to grow unchecked in terms of money and political clout. In an ideal situation, business should have NO political power at all. Governments should have no incentive to create laws in exchange for various favors from wealthy companies. And, realisticaly, there should be limits automatically imposed on the size and wealth of a company to prevent them from becoming more powerful than government. Either concentration of power in is a problem, but I'd still trust government to do the right thing before I'd EVER trust a private business
I'll throw that "total BS" line right back at you.
The problem isn't the money that businesses spend, the problem is the power that you the voters gave to the State. The more power the State has, the more money that is thrown at it. Why doesn't Microsoft lobby my small village or my county? Because the village and county don't have enough power to help them. You, the voters, gave that power to the Federal government, in direct attack of the Constitution's limit on big government. That's a fact.
I have no problem with bribing government officials or unlimited anonymous campaign contributions by anyone, even foreigners. If the State has no power or little power, money won't change that. The voters changed it by electing people who want more State, not less. You did it, you let the power grab go unheeded and out of control.
If the Federal portion of the State was truly limited to the real Constitutional limitations, this problem would not exist -- you'd have to lobby every village, county and state to get control over all the laws. Competition between localities is good, but the Federal government leaves no room for competitive laws since it strongarms other countries into passing the same laws.
I'm not a lawyer, but can you explain the following:
1. Successful lawsuit against bnetd for reverse engineering Battle.Net? 2. DVDCCA successful lawsuit against DeCSS. 3. Sega successful lawsuit against Accolade for reverse engineering software interface.
These are off the top of my head, but I am sure there are others I could list with time. How can you backup your opinion?
This is also why the market tends to fail miserably once certain people (Company X) have a lot more money than anyone else. Instead of working hard to make their product more efficient. They work HARDER to make the perception of their competition's product appear less efficient by playing with numbers and spin. If you've got money and really great PR, you can make people buy shit instead of shinola.... Which means that the capitalist marekt falls victim to the same exact flaw that communism did: Some pigs are more equal than others. In this case it's the pigs with the cash instead of the pigs with political power.
You're missing the point -- companies become big and powerful because they use laws that most of us can not afford to take advantage of (either in cost to prosecute violators, or cost to defend ourselves). As they become bigger, they make new laws that protect their growth, giving them the added advantage over others who want to enter that market. Then they become bigger and bigger, and make more and more laws.
The problem isn't the market, it is the State which has too much power.
Most neoliberals and neoconservatives want to restrict money to the State, but it isn't the money that creates the power, it is the power that attracts the money. I say let people give as much lobby and bribe money to the State as they want, just restrict the State to a tiny tiny sliver of power than can never be extended. Problem solved.
As is, Linux and Mac make it very easy for other machines to talk to them but Microsoft deliberately hides, and obfuscates its technology making it difficult to interface with if you are not also running a windows machine.
Network protocols are easy to monitor and reverse engineer with the right equipment. Why can't people reverse engineer the interfaces and duplicate them in their own software? Oh yeah, the State says it is illegal.
Aside from that, Microsoft has gotten in trouble in the past for using SHADOW API's. They tell competing vendors one way to interface with the machine and then use a better way themselves so all Microsoft's products run super fast and vendors products run slower and not as well.
Software hacker/cracker teams can reverse engineer any API including hardware key ones. Why don't competitive companies reverse engineer Microsoft apps to discover these shadow APIs? Oh yeah, the State says it is illegal.
It's sad to think that a multi-billion dollar company like Microsoft still needs to be babysat.
It doesn't. The multi-billion dollar company became that way because the State protected their growth through passing laws that prevented competition from beating Microsoft down from the start. You, the voter, are at fault.
No, actually, the problem is that the state(s) dont have enough.. coljones.. to break-up big guys like microsoft anymore, the way they did with standard oil "back in the day".
You must be new here:) I've been over the Standard Oil debate for years. The State didn't break up Standard Oil, competition did. Standard Oil was no monopoly, they provided cheaper and cheaper and cheaper prices for consumers for their entire history. The competitors were unhappy because they couldn't compete at the price level. The competitors who did compete, Standard Oil bought out in order to acquire their technology -- which led to more oil and lower prices. See this article.
The media that wrote about the Standard Oil "problem" were people who were related to the competitors who wanted paternalistic laws to be written on their behalf. Also, those against the "robber barrons" were just friendly with the State, not good competitors. See this article.
Standard Oil lowered prices for their entire history. Today's State-priviledged oil companies do the opposite. Which is worse?
That's an excellent question and I'll be honest -- I'm not sure.
I do agree that there seems to be need for a State just in deciding what is considered "enough maintenance," especially in high-demand property. I can see this existing solely at the local level, though, and not at the federal or state level. I'm self-debating your question now (and have been for months) to come up with a free market answer. Thanks for reminding me:)
Unfortunately, in even such an idealistic free market, big companies can game the system. There has to be *some* regulation, just like there has to be laws against murder, and theft, and placing weasels down your trousers for the purposes of gambling. (Ahh, Chief Wiggum.)
Laws against violating someone's body, physical property or tools I can understand (even if I don't support them)> Laws preventing how I use my tools, on my land, with my hands, are ridiculous. Laws preventing how I think are also wrong. Copyright and patent laws are both laws against you using your land, your tools and your mind.
It's not like Microsoft would be in a different position now than they would be in the world in which you describe. Their obfuscated protocols would still be a barrier to entry. They would still have their exclusive contracts with hardware vendors, locking out competitors based only on negotiated contracts.
That's completely NOT true. Software is a tool to produce labor. We want to pay for software, correct? The way we pay for software that we use is in the maintenance stage, not the initial stage. Let's say that copyright and patent protections were gone -- who would develop software if it was free to duplicate? Initially, we'd see the consultants who install and maintain the systems providing software through cooperatives. I want to work on your PC for a long time, so it is in my best interest to find software that meets your needs. Closed software generally meets the least needs, but Microsoft Windows is definitely NOT closed software if you look at all the third party applications available for it, which I would estimate is two orders of magnitude more in number than any other OS (I made that number up). We, the consultants, would want the best for our customers, so it would be in our best interest to continue buying Microsoft support contracts in order to be the first in line to get their official software. We could wait for it to be duplicated, certainly, but it would increase our costs because of the waiting time, the risk of getting infected software, and the loss of supporting a company that supports our needs. Also, many non-consultant direct customers will want to purchase Microsoft's official CD just so they continue supporting the company AND so they get (possibly) some direct support from the company.
Music is the same way. The CD is just a form of advertising for a band so that they develop fans who want to support their live shows. Give the CD/music away, and generate more interest in your tour -- this means bands get paid for work they do, not work they've done. Some fans will want to buy the band's official CD because they know they're supporting the band. Some bands might give their fans who buy CDs access to their member's website with frequent updates (which could be bootlegged as a secondary market by those who don't want to support the band directly).
They don't have to be, but it is the State that creates these secrets, not the company. Without ridiculous laws against reverse-engineering, and ridiculous patent laws, anyone would be able to dissassemble any file format and then write software to use that format. Your State prevents you from doing this and entering the market, hence prices go up and service goes down, dig?
Why must the tools avoid standards in their respective fields? (typesetting, ISO C99, proper W3C XHTML...)
Because standards bodies, like all committees, are too slow to react to demand on time. Sometimes people want something before the committees can agree. Sometimes developers want to try something new to see if people want it. Standards come AFTER the research and development stage, which is the most competitive atmosphere.
Why must the tools only work in Windows?
See my answer to your first question -- because the State made it that way, not Microsoft. They were only taking advantage of what you, the voter, wanted.
The problem with Microsoft is that it creates these tools which only serve to further insider goals (e.g. Visual Studio only exists to sell Windows) then pumps it with shady deals and the like. Why must I get Windows with my Dell Laptop? Why can't I get a discount to go with a blank HD? (note: I think Dell is a lousy anti-trust violator too)
If I made a laptop, you better believe I would make it to work with whatever is the most popular operating system -- that is called demand. If I sold a laptop with NO software, I bet the customers would want me to support it with EVERY software. Just fielding calls to say "Sorry, we have no idea" is VERY costly, so it is better to ship a working box than an unworking one.
In a truly free market, you'd see Visual Studio (which is an awesome kit) that runs under Linux/BSD and can be bound to other compilers (e.g. Intel CC, GCC, etc). In a truly free market, you'd see Office work in Linux/BSD and use well documented file formats so people could create 3rd party tools for working with the data... In a truly free market, Windows would strive for UNIX/POSIX compliance underneath so that programs written for it (under the GUI level) would be more portable,...
What you write sounds good, but it is not true. In a free market, anyone would be able to disassemble how Visual Studio works and make a knock-off product that works on whatever operating system has a demand for that product at the price required to make that product. A free market doesn't force anyone to do anything, it just opens the options for others to try to mimic other products.
I'm sure if the PC revolution occurred WITHOUT Windows being forcefully bundled with EVERY SINGLE PC we'd see a different history here.
Yeah, we'd be about a decade behind where we are, because each manufacturer would have to either create their own OS and applications, or they'd have to spend 10x as long developing compatibility with dozens of OSes.
So if Ford created a car that would only use Ford tyres, only burn Ford petrol, etc. you would be OK with that? This parallel is not trivial. Over her in the UK there was an attempt by motor manufacturers to claim that new car warranties were only valid if the cars were serviced by authorised (read overpriced) dealers. The EU stopped that in exactly the same way as they are attempting to stop Microsoft from trying to prevent, for example, Open Office from reading MS Office documents.
This example is problematic, because Ford and other automakers get significant support from the State (in terms of tariffs, embargos, subsidies, and anti-competition laws for their industries). If the auto industry was less regulated (significantly), it would be open to more competition. Heck, the auto industry has a huge regulation in the States through vehicle safety requirements. When lamps are made, they're tested by independent bodies who make sure they don't catch fire. When cars are made, you need the State's (expensive) stamp of approval to sell the vehicles. This keeps small competitors completely out of the market.
If someone wants to make a fully proprietary product, they should be able to, and customers should decide if the product has value for them. Once the State gets involved in that market, it distorts the competitive atmosphere -- such as what happened with auto makers.
Okay, but you could say the same thing about physical property rights that you just said about "copyright," "patent" or "trademark." (Usefulness is a matter of opinion.)
You are right about that in some ways, but the way I see it, there are vast differences between physical property and intellectual property -- in fact, I'd say they're not even on the same level.
My belief in physical property rights comes from the thought of being able to better that property and maintain it. I find land that is unused, I develop it in some way (farm, natural resource, home, office, whatever) and I maintain it. That is my land from a physical property stance. I have my body, I have my tools, and I have my land. If I use my mind to channel those 3 physical properties to make something that duplicates what you've done, the new physical product is something I can sell. Also, if I have techniques to make your physical property better, you can hire me to maintain it.
But intellectual property means mind control, plain and simple. If I have a certain way to mow a lawn, or a certain way to design a toilet, or a certain way to put musical notes together in a certain order, all those are covered by thinking and action. If you can't mimic my actions more efficiently than I can, you can hire me to do it for you (mow your lawn, create your toilet, produce music). If you CAN mimic my actions more efficiently than I can, why should you hire me? Just do it yourself -- unless the State says you're not able to think or act that way because I have a right to those thoughts or actions, dig?
If I create a series of musical notes and put it on a disc, you can buy that disc if it is more efficient than you making those notes yourself, or discovering another copy of my disc and using your mind, hands and tools to duplicate the disc. The cost is the labor, not the initial creation. The guy who mows the lawn had to learn how to mow the lawn, but you don't license that lawn mowning -- you pay me for future labor or current labor, not past labor. Mowing a law, installing a toilet, and writing music or software are the same actions in terms of labor. No one cares what you know or what you did in the past as long as you can do something more efficiently than they can TODAY.
As for the anti-trust issue, it's because MSFT is doing things that are AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE CUSTOMERS all in a guise to raise their vendor lockin (through no valid technical need) to raise profits. Prosecuting anti-trust violators is about giving the customers freedom of choice, so they can decide how to invest their money. e,g, sure I'll run Windows, but I'd rather use Lotus, not Excel, etc, etc....
How so? The customers have about 20 different developers for spreadsheets, word processors, databases, browsers, etc. All my customers use Microsoft because the software is easy to use and is stable enough for their purposes. In fact, we haven't had one service call for thousands of desktops for a Microsoft add-on application in about 2 years, other than installation. We have repeated calls for OpenOffice mostly because of memory problems and a reboot is enough to cure it.
The basis of the anti-trust lawsuits or threats is unfounded. Did Microsoft promote vendor-lockin? I can say surely they did. So what? I can't think of any company that doesn't offer discounts for promoting that company's product over others -- everyone does it, and it is usually better for the customer in terms of price. You don't have to buy from vendors that are "locked in." Jiffy Lube gets a discount for promoting one oil over another, but there are many oil change places that provide many products. You can also do it yourself, as you can with Linux and other OSes.
My business has a vendor lockin process, too. For companies that buy our PCs and use our network infrastructure, we offer a huge deal on long term contracts (almost 70% off our hourly rate). Is that lockin? Sure, but the customers love it because everything is covered. Everything works out of the box, too, including very proprietary systems that tend to be difficult to install and maintain.
I don't see how this is anti-trust if you remove the State from the picture. The various governments created laws that allowed for this to happen -- it wouldn't happen in a significantly less regulated market because in such a market, various preferential treatment or paternalistic laws wouldn't exist, and companies that use those laws to their advantage would have to compete rather than distort the market.
While I know that what I say might come off as a troll or a Microsoft-fanboy (I am neither), I really don't understand the State in this situation at all.
First of all, the State creates laws which give some companies preferential treatment over ideas or the way a person can use their hands and mind to create something. We call these useless laws "copyright," "patent" or "trademark." The State is the only way to enforce these laws which govern how you think and use your body, it is impossible to cover these restrictions without force or the threat of force.
So companies go out of their way to try to protect their easily-distributed-and-duplicated resources. In a free market, if a widget was hard to make and reproduce, but everyone wanted one, it would be very expensive. If someone else discovered a way to mass produce widgets to outstrip demand, the price would plummet down to near $0. This is why software and music and content has a very small value compared to future work -- once the product is produced, it falls to worthless except for the law.
These companies that create content also know that even with the law, it makes sense to try to keep competitors from discovering how their products work. If I invent a new engine, I'd want to obfuscate the operation enought to keep my competitors from duplicating it, at least until I've made it more efficient. This is how manufacturing works -- you want to be the most efficient, but you also want to fight off competition who wants to be more efficient than you. This is why the market is great -- people work hard to make more efficient products.
Now, we have various competitors that are locked out of a market because the State decided to give preferential treatment to certain companies (in this case, Microsoft). Copyright, patents, trademarks can all be used to keep other people out of a given market long enough for a company to grow to a size that makes it hard to defeat. This is not what happens in a relatively free market (I'll say most deregulated). If Microsoft didn't have the backing of idiotic laws like the DCMA (in the US), overextended copyright, overencompassing patents, and overbearing trademark laws, other companies would have had access to compete many, many years ago. Microsoft itself was able to get into the information market from the start by developing products and acquiring products before the laws became unbearable in terms of the barrier to entry.
Microsoft is not a monopoly, it is just able to use the preferential treatment of the law better than their competitors. If you voted for the State, you are part of the reason that Microsoft has grown. Sure, some will say that they violated anti-trust laws, but those laws have enough loopholes to let any big company get around them.
Let's look at reality here. The State wants these fines to pad their own accounts -- they same laws will exist, and the same problem will repeat itself. This is basically a legal form of asking for bribes, and Microsoft will be happy to comply. Any changes Microsoft makes will only be enough to make the State happy, and the next run against them will be strictly for income for those making new laws. That income helps provide for more loopholes and better preferential treatment for the companies that can afford it. Microsoft is being forced to hand over "secrets" but those are past secrets -- not future ones, right? They'll just make new secrets, or obfuscate the old ones in new ways so that anything they share isn't useful in the long run (everything changes every 18months right?).
The problem isn't in the bribe money, the problem is that you all are voting for the State to be more and more powerful, which means that it can do more and more damage to your freedoms.
My business partner's wife died of cancer last week (24 years old). Her chemo was $40,000+ a month for over a year, I believe.
My insurance plan covers emergency room visits, but also medical emergencies such as chemotherapy and surgery. It does not cover doctor's visits for headaches or colds or allergies or the like (actually, it does but the deductible makes it stupid to use insurance).
I am thrifty with my life (small home, old cars, cook at home more than we eat out), so I can save a great portion of my money for emergencies -- and my money is saved in bullion (gold and silver) so I don't have to worry about the declination/depreciation of the dollar much. I wish I could find a $25,000 deductible plan but there are none out there that I know of. I'd probably even go with a $50,000 deductible in a few years. At $10,000, I know I have the deductible safely away, and if an emergency strikes my household, we're covered for the big stuff. I can't recall what our lifetime benefit is, but I believe it is $4 million or $5 million last we updated our policy.
The biggest problem I see is that the Medical Savings Account provision in the tax law is a "use it or lose it" policy. I'd happily buy an MSA if I could save my deductible portion that way (or one of my deductible portions).
Many of my friends and family use insurance for 100% of their medical needs, including medication. I personally don't, and we rarely take medications (diet and exercise can replace many standard medications, including what my lady used to take for asthma and bipolar, both of which she has been off for 7 years due to better diet and much better exercise).
The industry is a fraud, and I'm glad I've found my way out of it while still insuring against REAL disaster.
I applaud you for your support of that free market provision in WebMD, MH. We don't see eye to eye very often, but in this case, I'm happy we can.
Enron was never a free markat fiasco -- it was a government disaster. Enron was repeatedly given loopholes in the law to use (which were closed AFTER the fact). The more you read about Enron and the other companies that ripped off the investors, the more you see that the State was the biggest predator in the situation. A free market in energy works, except when it is a "free market" as defined by government -- never really free, never really deregulated, and never really opened to competition. Look at government-set-monopoly broadband providers versus dial-up ISPs in terms of price over their history. Look at government-set-monopoly insurance versus free market insurance prices over their history (for example: flood insurance). We can see time and again that any time the State espouses "free market!!!" it is never free, never unregulated, never unfunded. Cronyism, paternalism, preferentialism = uncompetitive.
...what kind of VR would they use for John Bobbitt, and would the pro-family values conservatives approve of that form of medical "service?"
Re:Keywords: Government. Health Care. Disaster
on
Biggest IT Disaster Ever?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who will apply the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality to those suffering from Muscular Dystrophy, ALS, Leukemia and all of those others afflictions that obviously afflict far more than just the 'lazy' and 'irresponsible'. Is this compassionate conservatism in action?
I don't use an AMA Doctor in the States, I use an AAPS Doctor. He doesn't accept insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any third party payment, and neither does anyone in his clinics. They're all older doctors. He still makes housecalls. He charges me about $30 a visit for a basic checkup, and because he runs on a cash basis, he sees me for as long as I need him, and I just pay for the time. I'm in and out in 15-30 minutes. His housecalls are about $30 more. I believe he said that when he was still AMA-affiliated, his overall collections were about 40%, now he collects over 100% of his bills at the point of service (the overage is a tip, which I always give him for good service). I am significantly healthier (blood pressure down, cholesterol down, weight way down) and so is my lady (asthma gone) because of his dietary advice over medicine.
My lady's brother had MS and died in a fire because of it. This same doctor's clinic treated him at home for no additional charge, and when he lost his job, they continued to care for him at no cost at their office (we drove him there). The doctors repeatedly tell me that most health care is cheap. I have insurance for emergencies only (with a $10,000 deductible now) and my insurance is cheap even though I am a smoker and have a pre-existing condition of kidney stones -- in fact, my lady and I pay less as a household for a year than most people do in a 6-9 months with their overriding policies.
The poor and sick have always had religious hospitals to help -- as well as hospitals sponsored by donations. Today, we pay 50%+ of our gross income to government, so few of us can support religious and charitably hospitals, although my family still gives the difference between our old insurance and our new one to a local charitable hospital in Chicago that runs 100% on donations and user fees.
Don't spin the "what about the poor?" stuff since it is the poor that are hurt by government health care. Try visiting any emergency room in Lake County, Illinois and see how long it takes to get service.
Those three words together are the new definition of the word "duh."
When doesn't government go overbudget? Government is the combination of bureacracy, inefficiency, monopoly use of force and the free use of other people's money. Government agencies can never do anything under budget because if they do, they'll see their budgets cut. Each department of an agency is required to work just a little beyond budget since that is how government grows: "we only need a little more money/staff/time." Since each department does this, each agency of departments has bigger and bigger needs leading to more and more inefficiencies.
When a competitive free market group of companies goes after work, they have to balance their profit versus their ability versus the good use of their time. If you bid a job and win it, there's no going back and asking for more. For big projects that my companies do, we get bonding insurance for double the bid package -- this protects our customers from our failures. Government, on the other hand, doesn't need bonding insurance: they just go and get more money in the form of various user fees, taxes, tariffs and inflationary fiat currency.
We should not be surprised here, either, since it is a health-care market. In the U.S., health care costs have skyrocketed since government has destroyed the free market of health-care provisions. The law provides write-offs for businesses that offer health insurance, but individuals don't get that write-off, so health insurance is pushed onto the company which incurs additional overhead. We also see people using insurance for basic healthcare costs, which means that insurance companies spend money on non-emergency situations, so the cost goes up. Combine that with the AMA's fraudulent restrictions on the number of graduating doctoral students and you see a limited supply of available doctors (cost goes up when supply goes down), and then throw in the bureacracy of Medicare and the price skyrockets. England is worse, since they are (I believe) a cover-all insurance scheme.
Imagine if we all went to dinner and had to pay our own meals. We'd all get what we could afford -- burgers for some, steaks for others, soup for the few. Now imagine if we decided to split the bill equally. At first, we'd still buy what we used to, but some people would realize they could now afford steaks for just a little more cash out of pocket. When other people subsidize your irresponsibility, you become irresponsible. Eventually, everyone's buying steaks -- and all our costs go up. In government-run healthcare, everyone orders steaks, but the added bureacracy means the costs are well over the average steak -- and everyone expects to pay for soup.
The toss in IT run by government, and you have a history and a future of ineptitude, inefficiency, lack of competition to drive down costs, and the rest.
I'm not even sure what the point is of this IT upgrade. What exactly do they need this system for? Doctors work fine with paper charts and files -- this is a ridiculous amount of money -- what is the benefit and how do the costs make the benefit still beneficial?
As I said before... duh.
Sidenote: One of my lady's best friends runs a huge network for a hospital chain that is in the process of combining with another hospital. She's told me repeatedly that the biggest costs for her MIS department is integrating all the bureacratic changes that the government requires -- paperwork, forms, etc. While she's a big-government Republican (the new style), she is blown away that 80% of her staff deals with those headaches, which are constantly changing and always need more people to do the job. It disgusts me.
Actually, I don't put money aside -- all my fiat currency (cash) goes back into various markets. I save in bullion (gold and silver, primarily) and buying land (small multiacre sites). My extra money usually goes to endow others to start businesses -- especially those driven to succeed in risky new ideas. I love seeing growth of new businesses, and I never do it to earn a profit but instead to develop relationships of people who can help me out with various aspects of the businesses and charities I do focus my attention on. There is something great about seeing a young entrepreneur succeed -- that is profit in itself.
I haven't always lived in a mobile home, I did buy a house just before the dotbomb because I knew real estate would bubble. I exited a few years later at a nice cash profit. I've also bought condos in depressed areas that are now booming -- I rent them at below market value to people who are restructuring their lives and trying something new after getting hurt by bad decisions. That's a positive for me, too.
As for personal problems, maybe there is something there but I doubt it. I have a life partner, a gorgeous blonde who is smart and fun. People mistake her for Gwen Stefani all the time, so I'm assuming she's pretty from an outside perspective. I've always had great friends and family, too. I don't see a problem there.
I also spend a big portion of my free time running a new charity since Aug 2006 -- www.vipministry.com . It costs me about $2000 a month out of pocket, but it is making huge strides in that industry, and we're serving our "customers" very well. It is very exciting. We run it out of our trailer, mostly.
My life is dedicated to helping encourage people to shrug off the common myths of life. Go to college. Get a 9-5 job. Invest in the stock market. Support your government. Get a mortgage for 30 years. A lot of myth with no real backing in reality. Considering how many people thank me over the years and continue to do so, I think I'm succeeding in what my goals are.
That is a fear, yes. In fact, I think it is one of the good foundational arguments against being an AnarCap, and I honestly have no reply YET. I am forming one, though. Give me a year:)
I do believe that the State as it exists now is a cartel, and it is a monopoly of force. In fact, I do believe that monopolies in the market can not exist without the State enforcing those monopolies, or using practices that create monopolies in the market. All monopolies in the market because of laws -- copyright, tariffs, embargoes, licensing, regulation. All these things lead to the creation of a monopoly.
Industries with the least regulation, taxes, and laws promoting preferential treatment tend to be the most competitive. Look at the towel industry. Or the toilet paper industry. Or the printing paper industry! Or the car tire industry. Little or low regulation, highly competitive. Even if the item requires safety, it is still competitive in price versus safety. We get to choose, and the market provides buyers and sellers (supply and demand).
Would cartels happen? I think maybe, it is possible. Defensive co-ops might also congregate together to create some semblence of protected rights, we're not sure.
All I know is that I want to live in a world with MUCH LESS regulation, taxation and force. Is anarcho-capitalism more utopia than reality? Maybe, but I try to live my life with that end in mind, even if I preach less government, less force, less regulation. I know it'll never go away, but as more people embrace personal responsibility, thrift and love for their neighbor, we'll hopefully see more people who realize that government IS bad -- and it is better to have a small local government than a large federal one.
I've already endowed a few individuals in Costa Rica and Honduras, and plan on visiting again in Spring of 2007. Where are you from? Hit me up with an e-mail. Love the area.
Slashdot Mirror
The "as long as someone else can bounce in and affect the market" is a very big IF in a free market. New entrants will usually find that it is more profitable to join the cartel where they can sell at the high uncompetitive prices, rather than fight the cartel. Otherwise there wouldn't be a cartel -- the individual members would have separated or declined to join it.
This is a very good point, one that I have pondered often. My only answer is:
Has the State created MORE cartels than it has protected against? If what you say is true, why are there so many unregulated markets (lawn mowing, razor blades, toothpaste, pizzas, burgers, etc) that don't see cartelization? The only time you do see cartelization that MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT need State intervention is when the supply of a product is TRULY limited. Software is NOT a limited resource, it is artificially limited by... the State!
Okay, we're both wandering off into complete speculation at this point, so any argument we have is going to be based on rhetoric and gut feelings, but I'm really enjoying this discussion, as you are one of the first rational free-market proponents I've met.
:)
I appreciate that attitude and definitely would love to discuss more with you, probably off slashdot for fear of an off-topic hit. I'm offering minarchists, socialists, anarcho-capitalists and Statists the chance to come to my blogs and write about their opinions in a debate-chain -- and get paid to do so by me. If you're interested, my e-mail address is there. Let's chat.
I'll disagree slightly on the rhetoric and gut feelings aspect. We've had democratic governments for thousands of years, and they always fail to meet promises or expectations. If you look at ANY market that is fairly deregulated or completely deregulated (short of sales tax and other tax burdens), you see huge growth in terms of prices dropping, quality going up, safety going up, and choice/selection. Look at hair combs. Look at Razor blades. Look at toothpaste. Look at lawn mowing services. Look at oil change facilities. I should make a website listing all the various markets that are uncluttered by excessive regulation, actually. Let people debate them individually
The problems with all corporations results from their one desire: to maximize profit. They will do all they can until they can regulate the market themselves. Yes, I believe all market giants are doomed to fail. But they can do a lot of economic and social damage before they *do* fail.
I'm going to disagree slightly here because this is the desire of all individuals, too -- to maximize "profit." Profit comes in the form of more money, but it can also come in the form of more entertainment, more free time, more happiness, and more. If you and I, as individuals, barter, we both profit from the transaction in some way or we don't transact. This is true of ALL transactions except ones with the State which forces us to make a transaction or face penalties or jail time.
Corporations can't just maximize their profit by raising prices, unless the State is there to allow them to by reducing your choice to find competitors. The minute that Corporation A raises their price higher than the level that Corporation B can start selling the product, Corporation A will be in trouble. Competition provides for more than A and B if there is enough demand -- unless the State is there to tell you that only one or two companies are licensed to provide the service, or if the State says only one or two companies have the right to produce a product or service in a certain way because of the protection of their right over the way one thinks or moves their hands or fingers.
Corporations are directed toward one thing: exploiting resources to make the largest amount of money possible.
Only if there is a demand for the final product or service. If the demand for dirt went way up, corporations might try to take over all the dirt, but that's only because peole want dirt. There is a market for dirt, though, which means that there is a demand for dirt to be bought cheaper than the individual can get it themselves for. Corporations do not exist unless demand exists, and that demand only exists up to a certain price level -- once the supply of a product hits a certain price point, demand could become non-existant or severely limited.
No one exploits anything unless there is a gain to be had, and gains are made because others want what you have.
Let's say that a cartel of corporations is created -- what is to stop you and I from competing with them? If they have a monopoly over a certain resource, what is that resource and how could we get more? What stops us from getting more of that resource? Some Statists say that electricity is a short resource because there isn't enough room to have 50 different electric companies running cables all over the pl
If voting changed anything, it would be illegal. Though, if I had as much money as Microsoft to lobby congress and donate to presidential campaigns, I'm sure my vote would count for something.
It's easy to blame the voter in a corrupt system. But why not blame those who perpetrate the behaviour rather than the average voter who isn't an engineer and doesn't understand what is at stake.
The voter votes in order to try to change something that the market hasn't had time to cover. Instead of giving the market a chance (which could sometimes take a few years but makes life more efficient for everyone in the end), the voter gives power to the State to force SOME sort of change -- usually creating a law that few can afford to take advantage of, but that stifles future market creations because it exists.
I love to read old laws that are still on the books -- and still enforceable if the wrong person goes against the State -- and I see how the market worked around those laws to provide for what the market wanted. It took a bit longer than the strike of a gavel, but it worked better than what the State created. Laws create a standard that never goes away, and if it does, it usually goes the way of those who were able to take advantage of the law first to create a monopoly based on the law's strict definition.
Voting is the worst thing you can do, except when you vote for none of the above and let your vote be counted as a person who is against ALL intrustions on rights.
I'm not saying that's not the way things *should* be. I'm just saying that people always game the system to their best advantage. What you propose is a fantasy. Nobody would create software that way if they could use the system to their own advantage. I agree with your idealism. That'd be great. But it's also not the way it would be.
I write for two reasons: to gain insight from people's replies (which would be VERY costly to do if I hired them to reply, even the emotional ones), and to promote some free market thoughts as people work the problems back to their source: the lack of freedom under a State that wants to regulate and restrict everyone but those that can afford to bribe the State.
I'm never quite sure where I fall on copyright law. I write, and I know how hard it would be for writers to make a living without copyright protection. But, like you, I feel the prohibition against the free exchange of information is also wrong.
I write, but I repudiate copyright entirely. Everything I have ever written -- books, blogs, music -- and everything I have ever designed -- art, photos, machinery -- I let others copy freely and even use their own name on it with no attribution. I find that this increases the demand for that given market, which eventually helps me if I find a way to be the most competitive against others who are also in the market. I love competition, it has ALWAYS helped me. I've helped my own employees start competitive businesses against me, and I've still grown as more customers come into the market. I see no reason for "protecting" my thoughts or actions against mimicry.
And that the problem: any system that allows any behavior will result in exploitative behavior. The arguments in favor of a free, unregulated market (that is, "let the market decide") always remind me of vigilantism: if someone murders, let the family of the person murdered punish the murderer. An unregulated market would result in the larger corporations using their market force to regulate the market, and the citizens will never get much of a say.
That's a good opinion, but I'm not sure how true it is. Without a tyranny in the State, a company producing a product or service would have competition -- no matter how big that company is. Even billion dollar chip manufacturers have competition, because millions of individuals invest to try to compete on that level. The only thing the State changes is that they sometimes create an infinitely high barrier to entry through copyright and patent laws. Getting rid of that infinitely high barrier to entry may leave us with a high barrier to entry, but high is easier to jump over than infinitely high.
They *would* do this. They already do this to gain more control than copyright or patent law gives them currently. Yes, we should certainly strike down patent laws, and perhaps even copyright. But that won't change essentially destructive corporate self-interest. When the corporations control the market (such as IBM did years ago, and Microsoft does now), they warp the market to their own favor. They will do this no matter what laws exist or do not exist.
But while they're trying to maintain control through force, they'd have dozens if not hundreds or thousands of competitors nipping at their ankles. Eventually, all it takes is one bacteria to take down a giant. It has happened through all of history, and it would continue to happen unless the company in power was able to truly stay more efficient or cheaper or produce a better product. Competition never goes away in a less-regulated market.
The state creates laws like the prohibition of reverse engineering because the state serves business far more than it does the people. And THAT'S because companies have been allowed to grow unchecked in terms of money and political clout. In an ideal situation, business should have NO political power at all. Governments should have no incentive to create laws in exchange for various favors from wealthy companies. And, realisticaly, there should be limits automatically imposed on the size and wealth of a company to prevent them from becoming more powerful than government. Either concentration of power in is a problem, but I'd still trust government to do the right thing before I'd EVER trust a private business
I'll throw that "total BS" line right back at you.
The problem isn't the money that businesses spend, the problem is the power that you the voters gave to the State. The more power the State has, the more money that is thrown at it. Why doesn't Microsoft lobby my small village or my county? Because the village and county don't have enough power to help them. You, the voters, gave that power to the Federal government, in direct attack of the Constitution's limit on big government. That's a fact.
I have no problem with bribing government officials or unlimited anonymous campaign contributions by anyone, even foreigners. If the State has no power or little power, money won't change that. The voters changed it by electing people who want more State, not less. You did it, you let the power grab go unheeded and out of control.
If the Federal portion of the State was truly limited to the real Constitutional limitations, this problem would not exist -- you'd have to lobby every village, county and state to get control over all the laws. Competition between localities is good, but the Federal government leaves no room for competitive laws since it strongarms other countries into passing the same laws.
I'm not a lawyer, but can you explain the following:
1. Successful lawsuit against bnetd for reverse engineering Battle.Net?
2. DVDCCA successful lawsuit against DeCSS.
3. Sega successful lawsuit against Accolade for reverse engineering software interface.
These are off the top of my head, but I am sure there are others I could list with time. How can you backup your opinion?
This is also why the market tends to fail miserably once certain people (Company X) have a lot more money than anyone else. Instead of working hard to make their product more efficient. They work HARDER to make the perception of their competition's product appear less efficient by playing with numbers and spin. If you've got money and really great PR, you can make people buy shit instead of shinola.... Which means that the capitalist marekt falls victim to the same exact flaw that communism did: Some pigs are more equal than others. In this case it's the pigs with the cash instead of the pigs with political power.
You're missing the point -- companies become big and powerful because they use laws that most of us can not afford to take advantage of (either in cost to prosecute violators, or cost to defend ourselves). As they become bigger, they make new laws that protect their growth, giving them the added advantage over others who want to enter that market. Then they become bigger and bigger, and make more and more laws.
The problem isn't the market, it is the State which has too much power.
Most neoliberals and neoconservatives want to restrict money to the State, but it isn't the money that creates the power, it is the power that attracts the money. I say let people give as much lobby and bribe money to the State as they want, just restrict the State to a tiny tiny sliver of power than can never be extended. Problem solved.
As is, Linux and Mac make it very easy for other machines to talk to them but Microsoft deliberately hides, and obfuscates its technology making it difficult to interface with if you are not also running a windows machine.
Network protocols are easy to monitor and reverse engineer with the right equipment. Why can't people reverse engineer the interfaces and duplicate them in their own software? Oh yeah, the State says it is illegal.
Aside from that, Microsoft has gotten in trouble in the past for using SHADOW API's. They tell competing vendors one way to interface with the machine and then use a better way themselves so all Microsoft's products run super fast and vendors products run slower and not as well.
Software hacker/cracker teams can reverse engineer any API including hardware key ones. Why don't competitive companies reverse engineer Microsoft apps to discover these shadow APIs? Oh yeah, the State says it is illegal.
It's sad to think that a multi-billion dollar company like Microsoft still needs to be babysat.
It doesn't. The multi-billion dollar company became that way because the State protected their growth through passing laws that prevented competition from beating Microsoft down from the start. You, the voter, are at fault.
No, actually, the problem is that the state(s) dont have enough .. coljones .. to break-up big guys like microsoft anymore, the way they did with standard oil "back in the day".
:) I've been over the Standard Oil debate for years. The State didn't break up Standard Oil, competition did. Standard Oil was no monopoly, they provided cheaper and cheaper and cheaper prices for consumers for their entire history. The competitors were unhappy because they couldn't compete at the price level. The competitors who did compete, Standard Oil bought out in order to acquire their technology -- which led to more oil and lower prices. See this article.
You must be new here
The media that wrote about the Standard Oil "problem" were people who were related to the competitors who wanted paternalistic laws to be written on their behalf. Also, those against the "robber barrons" were just friendly with the State, not good competitors. See this article.
Standard Oil lowered prices for their entire history. Today's State-priviledged oil companies do the opposite. Which is worse?
That's an excellent question and I'll be honest -- I'm not sure.
:)
I do agree that there seems to be need for a State just in deciding what is considered "enough maintenance," especially in high-demand property. I can see this existing solely at the local level, though, and not at the federal or state level. I'm self-debating your question now (and have been for months) to come up with a free market answer. Thanks for reminding me
Unfortunately, in even such an idealistic free market, big companies can game the system. There has to be *some* regulation, just like there has to be laws against murder, and theft, and placing weasels down your trousers for the purposes of gambling. (Ahh, Chief Wiggum.)
Laws against violating someone's body, physical property or tools I can understand (even if I don't support them)> Laws preventing how I use my tools, on my land, with my hands, are ridiculous. Laws preventing how I think are also wrong. Copyright and patent laws are both laws against you using your land, your tools and your mind.
It's not like Microsoft would be in a different position now than they would be in the world in which you describe. Their obfuscated protocols would still be a barrier to entry. They would still have their exclusive contracts with hardware vendors, locking out competitors based only on negotiated contracts.
That's completely NOT true. Software is a tool to produce labor. We want to pay for software, correct? The way we pay for software that we use is in the maintenance stage, not the initial stage. Let's say that copyright and patent protections were gone -- who would develop software if it was free to duplicate? Initially, we'd see the consultants who install and maintain the systems providing software through cooperatives. I want to work on your PC for a long time, so it is in my best interest to find software that meets your needs. Closed software generally meets the least needs, but Microsoft Windows is definitely NOT closed software if you look at all the third party applications available for it, which I would estimate is two orders of magnitude more in number than any other OS (I made that number up). We, the consultants, would want the best for our customers, so it would be in our best interest to continue buying Microsoft support contracts in order to be the first in line to get their official software. We could wait for it to be duplicated, certainly, but it would increase our costs because of the waiting time, the risk of getting infected software, and the loss of supporting a company that supports our needs. Also, many non-consultant direct customers will want to purchase Microsoft's official CD just so they continue supporting the company AND so they get (possibly) some direct support from the company.
Music is the same way. The CD is just a form of advertising for a band so that they develop fans who want to support their live shows. Give the CD/music away, and generate more interest in your tour -- this means bands get paid for work they do, not work they've done. Some fans will want to buy the band's official CD because they know they're supporting the band. Some bands might give their fans who buy CDs access to their member's website with frequent updates (which could be bootlegged as a secondary market by those who don't want to support the band directly).
Why must the file formats be secret?
...
They don't have to be, but it is the State that creates these secrets, not the company. Without ridiculous laws against reverse-engineering, and ridiculous patent laws, anyone would be able to dissassemble any file format and then write software to use that format. Your State prevents you from doing this and entering the market, hence prices go up and service goes down, dig?
Why must the tools avoid standards in their respective fields? (typesetting, ISO C99, proper W3C XHTML...)
Because standards bodies, like all committees, are too slow to react to demand on time. Sometimes people want something before the committees can agree. Sometimes developers want to try something new to see if people want it. Standards come AFTER the research and development stage, which is the most competitive atmosphere.
Why must the tools only work in Windows?
See my answer to your first question -- because the State made it that way, not Microsoft. They were only taking advantage of what you, the voter, wanted.
The problem with Microsoft is that it creates these tools which only serve to further insider goals (e.g. Visual Studio only exists to sell Windows) then pumps it with shady deals and the like. Why must I get Windows with my Dell Laptop? Why can't I get a discount to go with a blank HD? (note: I think Dell is a lousy anti-trust violator too)
If I made a laptop, you better believe I would make it to work with whatever is the most popular operating system -- that is called demand. If I sold a laptop with NO software, I bet the customers would want me to support it with EVERY software. Just fielding calls to say "Sorry, we have no idea" is VERY costly, so it is better to ship a working box than an unworking one.
In a truly free market, you'd see Visual Studio (which is an awesome kit) that runs under Linux/BSD and can be bound to other compilers (e.g. Intel CC, GCC, etc). In a truly free market, you'd see Office work in Linux/BSD and use well documented file formats so people could create 3rd party tools for working with the data... In a truly free market, Windows would strive for UNIX/POSIX compliance underneath so that programs written for it (under the GUI level) would be more portable,
What you write sounds good, but it is not true. In a free market, anyone would be able to disassemble how Visual Studio works and make a knock-off product that works on whatever operating system has a demand for that product at the price required to make that product. A free market doesn't force anyone to do anything, it just opens the options for others to try to mimic other products.
I'm sure if the PC revolution occurred WITHOUT Windows being forcefully bundled with EVERY SINGLE PC we'd see a different history here.
Yeah, we'd be about a decade behind where we are, because each manufacturer would have to either create their own OS and applications, or they'd have to spend 10x as long developing compatibility with dozens of OSes.
So if Ford created a car that would only use Ford tyres, only burn Ford petrol, etc. you would be OK with that? This parallel is not trivial. Over her in the UK there was an attempt by motor manufacturers to claim that new car warranties were only valid if the cars were serviced by authorised (read overpriced) dealers. The EU stopped that in exactly the same way as they are attempting to stop Microsoft from trying to prevent, for example, Open Office from reading MS Office documents.
This example is problematic, because Ford and other automakers get significant support from the State (in terms of tariffs, embargos, subsidies, and anti-competition laws for their industries). If the auto industry was less regulated (significantly), it would be open to more competition. Heck, the auto industry has a huge regulation in the States through vehicle safety requirements. When lamps are made, they're tested by independent bodies who make sure they don't catch fire. When cars are made, you need the State's (expensive) stamp of approval to sell the vehicles. This keeps small competitors completely out of the market.
If someone wants to make a fully proprietary product, they should be able to, and customers should decide if the product has value for them. Once the State gets involved in that market, it distorts the competitive atmosphere -- such as what happened with auto makers.
Okay, but you could say the same thing about physical property rights that you just said about "copyright," "patent" or "trademark." (Usefulness is a matter of opinion.)
You are right about that in some ways, but the way I see it, there are vast differences between physical property and intellectual property -- in fact, I'd say they're not even on the same level.
My belief in physical property rights comes from the thought of being able to better that property and maintain it. I find land that is unused, I develop it in some way (farm, natural resource, home, office, whatever) and I maintain it. That is my land from a physical property stance. I have my body, I have my tools, and I have my land. If I use my mind to channel those 3 physical properties to make something that duplicates what you've done, the new physical product is something I can sell. Also, if I have techniques to make your physical property better, you can hire me to maintain it.
But intellectual property means mind control, plain and simple. If I have a certain way to mow a lawn, or a certain way to design a toilet, or a certain way to put musical notes together in a certain order, all those are covered by thinking and action. If you can't mimic my actions more efficiently than I can, you can hire me to do it for you (mow your lawn, create your toilet, produce music). If you CAN mimic my actions more efficiently than I can, why should you hire me? Just do it yourself -- unless the State says you're not able to think or act that way because I have a right to those thoughts or actions, dig?
If I create a series of musical notes and put it on a disc, you can buy that disc if it is more efficient than you making those notes yourself, or discovering another copy of my disc and using your mind, hands and tools to duplicate the disc. The cost is the labor, not the initial creation. The guy who mows the lawn had to learn how to mow the lawn, but you don't license that lawn mowning -- you pay me for future labor or current labor, not past labor. Mowing a law, installing a toilet, and writing music or software are the same actions in terms of labor. No one cares what you know or what you did in the past as long as you can do something more efficiently than they can TODAY.
As for the anti-trust issue, it's because MSFT is doing things that are AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE CUSTOMERS all in a guise to raise their vendor lockin (through no valid technical need) to raise profits. Prosecuting anti-trust violators is about giving the customers freedom of choice, so they can decide how to invest their money. e,g, sure I'll run Windows, but I'd rather use Lotus, not Excel, etc, etc....
How so? The customers have about 20 different developers for spreadsheets, word processors, databases, browsers, etc. All my customers use Microsoft because the software is easy to use and is stable enough for their purposes. In fact, we haven't had one service call for thousands of desktops for a Microsoft add-on application in about 2 years, other than installation. We have repeated calls for OpenOffice mostly because of memory problems and a reboot is enough to cure it.
The basis of the anti-trust lawsuits or threats is unfounded. Did Microsoft promote vendor-lockin? I can say surely they did. So what? I can't think of any company that doesn't offer discounts for promoting that company's product over others -- everyone does it, and it is usually better for the customer in terms of price. You don't have to buy from vendors that are "locked in." Jiffy Lube gets a discount for promoting one oil over another, but there are many oil change places that provide many products. You can also do it yourself, as you can with Linux and other OSes.
My business has a vendor lockin process, too. For companies that buy our PCs and use our network infrastructure, we offer a huge deal on long term contracts (almost 70% off our hourly rate). Is that lockin? Sure, but the customers love it because everything is covered. Everything works out of the box, too, including very proprietary systems that tend to be difficult to install and maintain.
I don't see how this is anti-trust if you remove the State from the picture. The various governments created laws that allowed for this to happen -- it wouldn't happen in a significantly less regulated market because in such a market, various preferential treatment or paternalistic laws wouldn't exist, and companies that use those laws to their advantage would have to compete rather than distort the market.
While I know that what I say might come off as a troll or a Microsoft-fanboy (I am neither), I really don't understand the State in this situation at all.
First of all, the State creates laws which give some companies preferential treatment over ideas or the way a person can use their hands and mind to create something. We call these useless laws "copyright," "patent" or "trademark." The State is the only way to enforce these laws which govern how you think and use your body, it is impossible to cover these restrictions without force or the threat of force.
So companies go out of their way to try to protect their easily-distributed-and-duplicated resources. In a free market, if a widget was hard to make and reproduce, but everyone wanted one, it would be very expensive. If someone else discovered a way to mass produce widgets to outstrip demand, the price would plummet down to near $0. This is why software and music and content has a very small value compared to future work -- once the product is produced, it falls to worthless except for the law.
These companies that create content also know that even with the law, it makes sense to try to keep competitors from discovering how their products work. If I invent a new engine, I'd want to obfuscate the operation enought to keep my competitors from duplicating it, at least until I've made it more efficient. This is how manufacturing works -- you want to be the most efficient, but you also want to fight off competition who wants to be more efficient than you. This is why the market is great -- people work hard to make more efficient products.
Now, we have various competitors that are locked out of a market because the State decided to give preferential treatment to certain companies (in this case, Microsoft). Copyright, patents, trademarks can all be used to keep other people out of a given market long enough for a company to grow to a size that makes it hard to defeat. This is not what happens in a relatively free market (I'll say most deregulated). If Microsoft didn't have the backing of idiotic laws like the DCMA (in the US), overextended copyright, overencompassing patents, and overbearing trademark laws, other companies would have had access to compete many, many years ago. Microsoft itself was able to get into the information market from the start by developing products and acquiring products before the laws became unbearable in terms of the barrier to entry.
Microsoft is not a monopoly, it is just able to use the preferential treatment of the law better than their competitors. If you voted for the State, you are part of the reason that Microsoft has grown. Sure, some will say that they violated anti-trust laws, but those laws have enough loopholes to let any big company get around them.
Let's look at reality here. The State wants these fines to pad their own accounts -- they same laws will exist, and the same problem will repeat itself. This is basically a legal form of asking for bribes, and Microsoft will be happy to comply. Any changes Microsoft makes will only be enough to make the State happy, and the next run against them will be strictly for income for those making new laws. That income helps provide for more loopholes and better preferential treatment for the companies that can afford it. Microsoft is being forced to hand over "secrets" but those are past secrets -- not future ones, right? They'll just make new secrets, or obfuscate the old ones in new ways so that anything they share isn't useful in the long run (everything changes every 18months right?).
The problem isn't in the bribe money, the problem is that you all are voting for the State to be more and more powerful, which means that it can do more and more damage to your freedoms.
Different brother :)
n -dies-in-fire-at.html
Her brother that passed in the fire was:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-784260/Ma
9/11/04. Man does time fly. Crazy.
My business partner's wife died of cancer last week (24 years old). Her chemo was $40,000+ a month for over a year, I believe.
My insurance plan covers emergency room visits, but also medical emergencies such as chemotherapy and surgery. It does not cover doctor's visits for headaches or colds or allergies or the like (actually, it does but the deductible makes it stupid to use insurance).
I am thrifty with my life (small home, old cars, cook at home more than we eat out), so I can save a great portion of my money for emergencies -- and my money is saved in bullion (gold and silver) so I don't have to worry about the declination/depreciation of the dollar much. I wish I could find a $25,000 deductible plan but there are none out there that I know of. I'd probably even go with a $50,000 deductible in a few years. At $10,000, I know I have the deductible safely away, and if an emergency strikes my household, we're covered for the big stuff. I can't recall what our lifetime benefit is, but I believe it is $4 million or $5 million last we updated our policy.
The biggest problem I see is that the Medical Savings Account provision in the tax law is a "use it or lose it" policy. I'd happily buy an MSA if I could save my deductible portion that way (or one of my deductible portions).
Many of my friends and family use insurance for 100% of their medical needs, including medication. I personally don't, and we rarely take medications (diet and exercise can replace many standard medications, including what my lady used to take for asthma and bipolar, both of which she has been off for 7 years due to better diet and much better exercise).
The industry is a fraud, and I'm glad I've found my way out of it while still insuring against REAL disaster.
I applaud you for your support of that free market provision in WebMD, MH. We don't see eye to eye very often, but in this case, I'm happy we can.
Enron was never a free markat fiasco -- it was a government disaster. Enron was repeatedly given loopholes in the law to use (which were closed AFTER the fact). The more you read about Enron and the other companies that ripped off the investors, the more you see that the State was the biggest predator in the situation. A free market in energy works, except when it is a "free market" as defined by government -- never really free, never really deregulated, and never really opened to competition. Look at government-set-monopoly broadband providers versus dial-up ISPs in terms of price over their history. Look at government-set-monopoly insurance versus free market insurance prices over their history (for example: flood insurance). We can see time and again that any time the State espouses "free market!!!" it is never free, never unregulated, never unfunded. Cronyism, paternalism, preferentialism = uncompetitive.
...what kind of VR would they use for John Bobbitt, and would the pro-family values conservatives approve of that form of medical "service?"
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who will apply the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality to those suffering from Muscular Dystrophy, ALS, Leukemia and all of those others afflictions that obviously afflict far more than just the 'lazy' and 'irresponsible'. Is this compassionate conservatism in action?
I don't use an AMA Doctor in the States, I use an AAPS Doctor. He doesn't accept insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any third party payment, and neither does anyone in his clinics. They're all older doctors. He still makes housecalls. He charges me about $30 a visit for a basic checkup, and because he runs on a cash basis, he sees me for as long as I need him, and I just pay for the time. I'm in and out in 15-30 minutes. His housecalls are about $30 more. I believe he said that when he was still AMA-affiliated, his overall collections were about 40%, now he collects over 100% of his bills at the point of service (the overage is a tip, which I always give him for good service). I am significantly healthier (blood pressure down, cholesterol down, weight way down) and so is my lady (asthma gone) because of his dietary advice over medicine.
My lady's brother had MS and died in a fire because of it. This same doctor's clinic treated him at home for no additional charge, and when he lost his job, they continued to care for him at no cost at their office (we drove him there). The doctors repeatedly tell me that most health care is cheap. I have insurance for emergencies only (with a $10,000 deductible now) and my insurance is cheap even though I am a smoker and have a pre-existing condition of kidney stones -- in fact, my lady and I pay less as a household for a year than most people do in a 6-9 months with their overriding policies.
The poor and sick have always had religious hospitals to help -- as well as hospitals sponsored by donations. Today, we pay 50%+ of our gross income to government, so few of us can support religious and charitably hospitals, although my family still gives the difference between our old insurance and our new one to a local charitable hospital in Chicago that runs 100% on donations and user fees.
Don't spin the "what about the poor?" stuff since it is the poor that are hurt by government health care. Try visiting any emergency room in Lake County, Illinois and see how long it takes to get service.
Those three words together are the new definition of the word "duh."
When doesn't government go overbudget? Government is the combination of bureacracy, inefficiency, monopoly use of force and the free use of other people's money. Government agencies can never do anything under budget because if they do, they'll see their budgets cut. Each department of an agency is required to work just a little beyond budget since that is how government grows: "we only need a little more money/staff/time." Since each department does this, each agency of departments has bigger and bigger needs leading to more and more inefficiencies.
When a competitive free market group of companies goes after work, they have to balance their profit versus their ability versus the good use of their time. If you bid a job and win it, there's no going back and asking for more. For big projects that my companies do, we get bonding insurance for double the bid package -- this protects our customers from our failures. Government, on the other hand, doesn't need bonding insurance: they just go and get more money in the form of various user fees, taxes, tariffs and inflationary fiat currency.
We should not be surprised here, either, since it is a health-care market. In the U.S., health care costs have skyrocketed since government has destroyed the free market of health-care provisions. The law provides write-offs for businesses that offer health insurance, but individuals don't get that write-off, so health insurance is pushed onto the company which incurs additional overhead. We also see people using insurance for basic healthcare costs, which means that insurance companies spend money on non-emergency situations, so the cost goes up. Combine that with the AMA's fraudulent restrictions on the number of graduating doctoral students and you see a limited supply of available doctors (cost goes up when supply goes down), and then throw in the bureacracy of Medicare and the price skyrockets. England is worse, since they are (I believe) a cover-all insurance scheme.
Imagine if we all went to dinner and had to pay our own meals. We'd all get what we could afford -- burgers for some, steaks for others, soup for the few. Now imagine if we decided to split the bill equally. At first, we'd still buy what we used to, but some people would realize they could now afford steaks for just a little more cash out of pocket. When other people subsidize your irresponsibility, you become irresponsible. Eventually, everyone's buying steaks -- and all our costs go up. In government-run healthcare, everyone orders steaks, but the added bureacracy means the costs are well over the average steak -- and everyone expects to pay for soup.
The toss in IT run by government, and you have a history and a future of ineptitude, inefficiency, lack of competition to drive down costs, and the rest.
I'm not even sure what the point is of this IT upgrade. What exactly do they need this system for? Doctors work fine with paper charts and files -- this is a ridiculous amount of money -- what is the benefit and how do the costs make the benefit still beneficial?
As I said before... duh.
Sidenote: One of my lady's best friends runs a huge network for a hospital chain that is in the process of combining with another hospital. She's told me repeatedly that the biggest costs for her MIS department is integrating all the bureacratic changes that the government requires -- paperwork, forms, etc. While she's a big-government Republican (the new style), she is blown away that 80% of her staff deals with those headaches, which are constantly changing and always need more people to do the job. It disgusts me.
Actually, I don't put money aside -- all my fiat currency (cash) goes back into various markets. I save in bullion (gold and silver, primarily) and buying land (small multiacre sites). My extra money usually goes to endow others to start businesses -- especially those driven to succeed in risky new ideas. I love seeing growth of new businesses, and I never do it to earn a profit but instead to develop relationships of people who can help me out with various aspects of the businesses and charities I do focus my attention on. There is something great about seeing a young entrepreneur succeed -- that is profit in itself.
I haven't always lived in a mobile home, I did buy a house just before the dotbomb because I knew real estate would bubble. I exited a few years later at a nice cash profit. I've also bought condos in depressed areas that are now booming -- I rent them at below market value to people who are restructuring their lives and trying something new after getting hurt by bad decisions. That's a positive for me, too.
As for personal problems, maybe there is something there but I doubt it. I have a life partner, a gorgeous blonde who is smart and fun. People mistake her for Gwen Stefani all the time, so I'm assuming she's pretty from an outside perspective. I've always had great friends and family, too. I don't see a problem there.
I also spend a big portion of my free time running a new charity since Aug 2006 -- www.vipministry.com . It costs me about $2000 a month out of pocket, but it is making huge strides in that industry, and we're serving our "customers" very well. It is very exciting. We run it out of our trailer, mostly.
My life is dedicated to helping encourage people to shrug off the common myths of life. Go to college. Get a 9-5 job. Invest in the stock market. Support your government. Get a mortgage for 30 years. A lot of myth with no real backing in reality. Considering how many people thank me over the years and continue to do so, I think I'm succeeding in what my goals are.
That is a fear, yes. In fact, I think it is one of the good foundational arguments against being an AnarCap, and I honestly have no reply YET. I am forming one, though. Give me a year :)
I do believe that the State as it exists now is a cartel, and it is a monopoly of force. In fact, I do believe that monopolies in the market can not exist without the State enforcing those monopolies, or using practices that create monopolies in the market. All monopolies in the market because of laws -- copyright, tariffs, embargoes, licensing, regulation. All these things lead to the creation of a monopoly.
Industries with the least regulation, taxes, and laws promoting preferential treatment tend to be the most competitive. Look at the towel industry. Or the toilet paper industry. Or the printing paper industry! Or the car tire industry. Little or low regulation, highly competitive. Even if the item requires safety, it is still competitive in price versus safety. We get to choose, and the market provides buyers and sellers (supply and demand).
Would cartels happen? I think maybe, it is possible. Defensive co-ops might also congregate together to create some semblence of protected rights, we're not sure.
All I know is that I want to live in a world with MUCH LESS regulation, taxation and force. Is anarcho-capitalism more utopia than reality? Maybe, but I try to live my life with that end in mind, even if I preach less government, less force, less regulation. I know it'll never go away, but as more people embrace personal responsibility, thrift and love for their neighbor, we'll hopefully see more people who realize that government IS bad -- and it is better to have a small local government than a large federal one.
I've already endowed a few individuals in Costa Rica and Honduras, and plan on visiting again in Spring of 2007. Where are you from? Hit me up with an e-mail. Love the area.