I don't see why the term "pro-corporate" needs to be a epithet instead of a positive note. Businesses in any unregulated market such as the web are the prime example of why the free market works best -- flickr is a corporation. Yes, it is a big-bad-daddy-business for those anti-market politicos here (conservative and liberal alike). They're taking a big step here by offering their customers an exit policy without contractual cost, and this is a good step for corporations as a whole.
Why do most corporations NOT allow these exit offerings? Because they're licensed or regulated by the State -- they're given an advantage, and they use their excessive contracts to keep that advantage. Don't think this is a "big business" fault, it is a "big State" fault that the businesses are taking advantage of.
For example, If you should actually write something good, I could take it and sell it for my personal gain. Giving you nothing.
My last two books (one self published, one not) sold just fine without copyright and netted me 5 figures each. My next two books (one being released any day now and one around Christmas) should do even better -- and I don't copyright them at all. My publisher could theoretically steal my information but why would they?
Did you know that when you write a book and submit it to publishers for consideration, they frown on you including a copyright statement on your work?
If I try that today, you could easily get a lawyer, and successfully suing would be trivial.
You don't know the meaning of trivial then. Attorney fees for a copyright case start at US$200 per hour and go up from there. The most recent trial that I am aware of was Chihuly and his legal team charged over US$1000 per hour and were billing out at a few dozen hours per month. You think that's trivial?
The current fact of copyright is that very few creators of content actually profit greatly from their work on a self-employed basis. Those who get salaried jobs to create are the ones who generally get paid the best of the actual creators (look at TV show writers versus movie script writers, or in-house web designers versus painters).
Today, a band has absolutely zero chance of making it big, and about a 5% chance of actually making enough money to live on. Why is this? Because of copyright. Currently only the content distribution cartels are in a position of profitability -- they use the law and the costly legal system to enforce their profits. Without copyright, this form of monopolization would not exist.
Would "pirates" in a copyright-free society quickly destroy profit? I doubt it. Even with rampant "piracy" as it exists today, musicians still sell albums. They have to sell them through the cartels though, as non-cartelized albums don't get the distribution via radio, video and concert promotion. Try getting an indie song on the (regulated) radio, the (regulated) cable stations or the (regulated) concert venues. It is nearly impossible.
I do believe that we'd see MORE profits per artist, or at least a more equalized playing field, when you remove the cartels from the structure. Today's artist market sees barely a few dozen artists actually making it big, and very few of them actually make their own art (look at big label bands, famous movie actors, etc). The artists who are talented but not part of the cartel have very little chance to promote their work.
We're changing it. We're working with local theatrical studios around the world to actually make and then syndicate theater as TV-show. Why do stupid theater when you can do a regular scripted work with memorable characters, etc? We're going to use it as a tool to promote their local productions, and hopefully see a profit on the digital side. The same is true with musicians -- we're taking their digital music and using it to promote their albums and live shows. If you buy the official album, you might get a free ticket to a show, or a password to watch the band practice and record the next album (live or online). You might get guitar lessons or who knows what. With painting artists, the capacity to reproduce their work is much slimmer, which is why you see so many successful galleries in any metro area. In my area (Chicagoland) we have over 700 successful art galleries -- this is a media that doesn't require copyright to protect profits, so the cartels don't exist.
First, copyright lawyers are incredibly expensive. A copyright trial against an "infringer" can take years and tens of thousands of dollars. If you write a song or a book and someone wants to take it, they will. There is nothing stopping them. The law does not protect you at all.
I'm not a hippy, I'm a capitalist businessman. I don't smoke pot, I produce content. In the next 2 months I'll be doling out thousands of dollars to bands and artists to create profitable content that will not be protected by any legal obligations such as copyright, patents, trademarks or other elitism. Profits can be made, and will be made, without copyright.
Don't believe me? Watch the site. We're working on signing two bands right now that are already profitable and believe they'll be more profitable by repudiating copyright and legal coercion.
I'm the founder of No Copyright Studios, a production company that repudiates legal copyright and everything that goes with the use of force.
We're currently in the process of signing bands, podcasters and other free market pro-freedom content creators to our "movement" which is nothing more than a new way to find ways to profit without using the law. We believe that the law creates cartels and monopoly markets that are nearly impossible to penetrate -- copyright is one of those legal manipulations that only helps the big boys and hurts the little guy.
I have created content for nearly 18 years and have NEVER used copyright to protect my work. I've written songs, books, blogs and newsletters and I openly advocate the copying of them (or what I call "Free Marketing" for me). I even let people drop my name if they wish, but I warn them that if I catch them I'll publicly embarass them for putting their own name on it.
Once you create something that is easily mimiced or duplicated, there is NOTHING you can do to protect yourself. Copyright laws? How will you fight in civil court? With what money? Why even embrace copyright when there are already ways to make money without it. I make money on my sites, on my music that I produce, and on the books (e- and printed) that I've created, and I openly admit that I don't use any protection on the content other than a moral obligation for my reader not to copy it.
I can't enforce the morals of others, other than public embarassment and humiliation. That is the best way to protect your content -- and it also opens up a huge audience of people who don't realize how much copyright frustrates them, once they realize that copyright doesn't protect anyone but the largest content distribution cartels.
The consumer is the most powerful entity in a market where goods are readily available (such as MP3 players). They _don't_ have to buy. How does Apple's contract force others to accept it? There is no excuse for accepting a bad contract. We accepted 3 such contracts from Apple (and we buy off iTunes as well) because the contract isn't so bad. So what if they change the terms of the contract, I buy the iPod for today. If Apple changes their contract terms tomorrow, some competitor will come in an planet them beneath daisies.
Do a little research and you'll find that Sinclair was aghast that laws were created over just 10 or so pages of his book. These laws, Sinclair knew, would create preferential treatment ("monopoly") of an industry, and it did: it created cartelization of the meat industry that still exists today.
Sinclair was an admitted socialist, and wrote the fictional book because he hated capitalism. He had no idea that the book would work against his wishes, though, and instead of creating "worker's rights" where none were needed, we see preferential treatment of a cartel now. I'm sure he's rolling in his grave.
The book is fiction, it is based on almost no real research, studies, or references. He didn't reference anything for his book, I won't reference my research here when ad hominems are used against me. If you really think the book had any basis in fact, you need to just dig deeper.
Two parties make an agreement. Both parties are not in any way being forced to accept this agreement. Both parties agree. How is that anti-consumer?
I have _not_ made 3 purchases in the past week based on bad contracts. One was with a roofer (my other roofer decided to accept my terms), one was with a mechanic (I struck out the part about going over the quote and he didn't accept it) and one was with a lawyer. We couldn't come to terms, so we didn't do business. That's the free market.
If people are _dumb_ and can't read a contract, then why should the law be their daddies?
Sinclair's "The Jungle" was pure fiction -- not based on facts at all. Roosevelt needed a demand for socialism from residents in the U.S.A. and Sinclair's book came out with perfect timing. Sinclair was pro-socialism himself, so he wrote the fictional piece in order to scare residents into supporting Roosevelt's ridiculous pro-State changes to the law.
Familiar with the rotting meat in the book? That was government's doing. Meat packers had shipped meat for military use and had told the government to keep the meat chilled or it would go bad. The government didn't listen, and the meat spoiled. Guess who got blamed?
Humans and rats didn't fall into meat grinders -- Sinclair made this up. To this day people still talk about the myth of human flesh and rat flesh in the hot dog. Didn't happen. But the FDA was created due to the outcry from reading the book, and the FDA has definitely murdered millions over 100 years by not allowing certain drugs and health regimes to be released in time to save those who died. They still hold up many medical miracles from our country.
Years later, Sinclair admitted that the book was a fabrication and was only written to change the minds of America toward government control. And many of the meat packers were in full support of the book because they knew that new regulations would keep competition out of the market, a market that didn't have the problems that Sinclair wrote about.
Don't use fictional works of socialism to back up your theory that regulation ever helps. It doesn't, it never will. Proper tort laws and contract enforcement is what will keep companies and consumers both safe and sound and allow both to have opportunities to profit fairly.
Their original contract allows for a modification of the terms and conditions. What is the problem there? If you agree that the contract can be changed, accept it. If you disagree, don't accept it. The market works because if people don't want modifiable contracts, they wouldn't exist.
How does that make me look trollish? This has everything to do with contracts instead of regulations and mandates by government. Contracts let EVERY transaction be different (I purposely strike out terms on many contracts that I sign and have done so recently with my cell phone provider and my roofer). Laws force every transaction to be the same.
All of these organizations are pro-control anti-consumer and we all should realize that immediately. No government mandate on companies is ever good for consumers because it decreases the amount of competition in a market and it raises prices. You can't prove otherwise. Higher prices with less competition usually mean lower quality products and even lower quality research for new products.
Thank you Apple for the iPod. My household has 3 (2 we bought new, 1 we won) and The Freaky Blonde has downsized her CD collection to storage and we've recaptured almost 10 square feet of space. She uses them in all our cars and she uses them hen exercizing. I personally don't use one (I'm happy just burning MP3s to CD) but the device is incredible, and would never have been made if Apple was forced to follow mandates that supposedly protect the consumer.
If they had to follow these idiotic laws in the beginning, the consumer would be protected, surely: protected from ever seeing great devices like the iPod and whatever the next competitor will release.
The only thing missing right now would be a revocation of the DMCA so that hackers could legally find ways to allow the iPod to run other software. Don't you see how it is always government that reduces our choices and our freedoms? Apple can't freely say no to running another company's songs, and the consumer can't say yes to modifying his own product that he bought.
I do business in China. My customers have more R&D groups stationed in China than in the U.S., a huge change from 10 years ago. If you honestly think the U.S. is the engineering capitol of the world, have a vacation in China for 2 weeks.
wait until clear channel stations begin playing there music and not paying them.
Clear Channel is a copyright-created cartel that would not exist if it wasn't for their right to monopoly given to them by copyright laws.
Not nearly the amount of maney they could make if there music was paying them roalties. Assuming they were popular and good*.
My wife and I are friends with 2 bands that are in the Top 100 right now. They make almost NO money from the distribution of their music (one of them will sell millions of albums in the next 2 years). They make ALL their money from touring. How does copyright help them? They understand that the only way to enter the monopoly-controlled market (FCC and copyright created artificial barrier to entry) is to give up the rights to their music to the cartels.
I'm one of a few people on slashdot who repudiate copyright. In fact, everything I create in an intellectual sense I freely offer to others to use as their own, if they wish. The more information that is out there, the more that industrial people can work with to create new inventions that satisfy our desire for more information and cheaper products.
China has been a Mecca of technology, and I think part of the reason for it is the rampant "piracy" and "theft of intellectual property" that has always been part of their culture. Cheap DVD players that play multiple formats, cheap pocket-sized CD players, even telephones that possess capabilities of file sharing and copying, well beyond what we get in the States and in the EU.
I also produce music (that would be the person behind raising the money), and I'm working with more local bands to repudiate copyright as well. As more smaller bands give up the right to their thoughts, words and hand motions, their fan base grows. When their fan base grows, their shows bring in more money -- much more money. Some bands are even facilitating "piracy" of "their" music by letting people bring their iPods to the show to get a free sync of all the music. There is more money to be made in entertainment without copyright than with.
I'm sad to see China cater to the West and their mad-monopoly-over-information craze. This step means nothing, though, as the average consumer will still use their own capital (their time, their computer and their internet connection) to satisfy the laws of supply and demand. Near infinite supply? Near microscopic price.
Really, the gist of my argument is right here, it's that feudalism has never gone away, we just keep reinventing it and calling it something else..
I agree. The sad thing is that I am not anti-government as some people believe. I am a Unanimocrat -- I believe that people should be free to pick which government they live under, and are free to secede if the government they chose doesn't meet their needs. Of course, contracts with governments you choose might have exit costs, but I'm pro-contract, so that is part of life.
You could even lie about your product, but if lying wasn't covered by a law or regulation, oh well. You haven't killed or sickened them directly, you let them choose to eat your bogus stuff, their lookout, so they can't hold your responsible, correct?
I believe that in a free market, the purchase of goods would be contractual -- "I am paying you this (real) money in exchange for your (safe) food product. If A, B or C happens to me, you could be held liable." I believe that there might be numerous competing contracts, but in the long run the best ones will rise to the top. Today, government is WAY TOO SLOW to deal with passing laws on unsafe products, and they still have numerous laws against safe products (criminalizing the act of selling or using the product).
How would the humans know in advance what was safe or not, trial and error? Remember, lying wouldn't be illegal, if it was, that means it is a regulation to not lie.
Lying could be considered fraud if you contractually stipulated to tell the truth. Also, trial and error works -- look at eBay's generally good feedback system. I believe a free market will bring many different feedback companies that you could reference before making a purchase. You could also only deal with bonded and insured companies (to fend off diseased products or ones that might fail). You could also self-insure by buying products covered (and tested) by your self-insuring company.
The joe sixpack serf workers had the choice of being on the country plantation at the lords mercy, or living in town where they were at the landlords and factory owners mercy. and, we can see what happened in the past when it was like that (it still is some places).
The fault, again, is with government, not the market. The use of force is held by the government and their preferred companies. Try selling watermelons out of the back of your car and you'll quickly learn that one. I still believe that child labor is bad, but I don't think it is illegal.
We are still a very predatory and cruel species in general terms.
Which is good to a point because this allows competitive forces to promote the better people. THe big problem is that uncompetitive regulations tend to keep the worst people in the power positions.
the best we can do is a more-fair market and constantly work at lowering numbers of regs and by our actions trying to get as many honest and fair people at the top levels as we can, but it will be near impossible without *some* regs/laws.
I'm not sure of that. In the past 3 years I have extricated myself from so many regulations and laws by buying directly from suppliers -- food from farmers in my area, clothing from people who make their own, etc. Over time, I think I'll find more bartering options as people get upset about government's madness -- with the dollar heading to the toilet any year now, we'll see more and more madness.
Thats all well and good except that the barrier to market entry and not government created. They are fundamental to capitalism. Since it costs initial capital to enter a market, a company can not enter the market and be competitive immediately. There is a reason you or I couldn't start making cars that ran on butter tomorrow.
There are NUMEROUS independent auto makers in the country right now. They can not sell their cars directly due to government regulations created by the large automakers that require certain government testing of vehicles to call them "safe." The only people who should "regulate" the safety of cars should be insurance companies.
The initial capital needed to enter a market is near zero -- I know, I own a number of large businesses that started with no money, no loans and no investments. It took people to do it, and we battled so many licensing requirements that we almost didn't start some of them.
Ridiculous beyond comprehension. Learn about economics and its history. See: John D Rockefeller and Standard Oil. In an unregulated system, the natural equilibrium is monopoly.
You really don't know your facts, do you? Standard Oil was never a monopoly -- when they were on top, they were #1 because they lowered the price of oil below all the other competitors. They lowered the price of oil from 58 cents to 8 cents! By the time they were found guilty of monopoly, they were already being replaced by competitors who were bringing a new product to the market -- gasoline. Mary Ruwart wrote in great detail about it.
Tort law focuses on private property and pollution harms the common good, public property and society in general.
Prove it. All property should be private, thereby allowing tort laws to cover the trespass (civil) and destruction (tort) that occurs from pollution. Society is nothing but millions of individuals -- let each one decide what they can handle.
The children of children who were forced to work were also forced to work, are still forced to work at the same jobs.
No ad-hominem here, but you, sir, are a liar. Did you read UNICEF's article about what happened when "child-labor sweatshops" were closed in Bangladesh based on U.S. complaints? Now those same girls are prostitutes. Many of the children in these so called child labor camps are only able to eat (and their families as well) because of the work available for them. Would you prefer to eat or not eat? On top of all this, most families in poor countries are unable to extricate themselves from their poverty because of government fiat currency inflation which causes their money saved to go down in value over time rather quickly. This is happening to the U.S. dollar today.
e. Its also fundamentally anti-labor (relying solely on the marginal utility to produce value has no fundamental origin of the system). There's a reason the Austrian school has been a fringe theory of economics in every society (except ironically under the National Socialists).
The National Socialists believe in fiat currency (see the Weimar Republic), government force and regulation. Nothing Austrian about it.
The Austrians have proven time and again that human action creates markets and freedom -- only government force can take it away. No megacorporation has never forced you to pay for anything. If Wal*Mart ends up owning ever store in the world, just go buy fruits from the farmer. Or do you think that a select few can control the entire world, except through the use of force by the government? All it takes is one bullet in the head of the powermongerer to end a coercive regime quickly.
I'm surprised by how blatantly pro-socialism most of slashdot is, and it makes me sad. The geeks of the world would be far better off embracing a free market opinion than your op
A totally free market would result in MEGABIGCO Inc. owning the world and everyone being some sort of electronic plantation worker for them, never quite making enough "money" to ever get out of debt to them.
That's not true. The reason we have MEGABIGCO is because of preferential treatment such as:
1. Regulations -- Creates a very high barrier to enter a market 2. Subsidies -- Creates a financial incentive for the cronies of the law 3. Licensing -- Creates a cartel that prevents the proper number of competitors 4. Taxation -- Allows the government to create the first 3 preferential treatments
MEGABIGCO won't occur in a free market if there are no barriers to entering that market. Some barriers are those that many/. readers think they love, but in reality create cartels and monopolies that keep many people out of competiting with big companies.
You will inevitably go from lot of companies to cartels to a monopoly, because that makes more money for the monopoly owners, and because humanness means that they will continue to impose their will on governmental processes.
Monopolies ONLY occur due to government licensing. All the big companies that people think were monopolies (or are) have always had to compete to stay on top -- but there has always been competition. If you look at the past, the few companies that were branded a monopoly were actually given significant preferential treatment by the local, state and federal governments. There is no monopoly in a free market because anyone can enter the market to compete.
A "free" market means zero environmental regulations, what is in it for them? They don't care if their factory pollutes the water table over someplace, the bosses and owners will just live where that doesn't happen and buy up all the land around them to give them a clean environment, and stuff like that.
Not true. A provider of a product or service will provide what the consumer wants, including making sure that they abide by whatever environmental restrictions the market demands. Pollution is better covered by trespass and realistic tort laws than by regulation -- regulations of the environment today just move polluters around. The biggest polluter in the country is the US government, by the way.
It means no minimum wage,back to child labor, no safe working conditions, etc, because that is their historically proven over and over again humans as bosses track record back before these regs existed.
No, child labor has occured during the beginning of markets because the older workers were not able to adapt to the new markets. In most situations, children will be less productive if the government stops restricting how it pays employees. Minimum wage laws create unemployment because they rob uneducated non-productive people from finding jobs that won't pay them what they're worth until they prove their worth as employees. Many foreigners come into the country to work illegally for less than minimum wage, but quickly start earning much more than minimum wage once they've proven their worth.
The "free" market is one of those things that it is easy to say and might sound sort of good in theory, but it won't ever fly or work as advertised without tremendous negative effects. For an example of an area with more or less "anything goes free markets", look at the horn of africa.
Hah! The Horn of Africa ended up in a slushpile of overlords because of government restrictions on firearm ownership and capitalism. Preferential treatment of the elite few creates these overlords by law, not by anarchy. Even now we're seeing great leaps and bounds in technology and markets through people attempting to overthrow the regimes that were put there by the previous governments.
Yes it will take time, but free markets have been left to the black market because the only people who want to compete are criminals. Regulated markets in the U.S. have taken us from the #1 producer in th
When the economy slows down, fire some publicans. When the economy grows, fire more publicans so it can grow more. Start downsizing today, and then downsize tomorrow. Keep downsizing until you've downsized to the point of no more complaints for more money or overstretched budget.
I think there should be a law that says the minute that a government employee complains about his pay or his budget, he gets fired. Roll the money to someone else. When they complain, fire them and keep rolling it over and refunding it to the taxpayers.
I can't believe they want to tax communications more. To me, I believe that the Right to Expression is universal (inherent/God-given/natural), and that taxing expression in any way is regulating a right that can't be regulated.
From an anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, the definition I provided makes the most sense. It also makes the most sense from a general viewpoint -- the most basic definition possible.
In terms of Gandhi, his view of violence was well beyond just physical damage. He was against the salt regulations that created monopoly. He was against the tax base that destroyed small villages. Go back to his early work in Pretoria and you'll see how he was against the laws the segregated the dark skinned people from the light skinned people. He was against the local tariffs and controls that prevented his own people's cloth from being sold to the Indus. He was against the idea of central government as Mother India was composed of hundreds of individual villages that cared not for others but cared for their own survival. He was against the bifurcation of faiths even though he was Hindu -- he said he was a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu and a Jew.
If you look at his life, he was anti-State because it was always the State that harmed his people. Early on he supported the Empire's war but later in life he realized that true power came from the individual's ability to withstand great tyranny and it was only when individuals performed acts of peace against coercion, then the tyrants had to stop. It wasn't just groups that were peaceful, it was unanimous decisions of individuals that made the difference. His death fasts were performed until every individual assumed a peaceful motivation -- not just groups.
I'm not commenting on whether monopolies are good or bad; but I am saying that a capitalist, anarcho or otherwise, arguing against monopolies is a contradiction in terms, since capitalism cannot exist without private property, and private property is a monopoly on whatever it is you own.
This is a really good point and something I want to get in deeper (on my anarcho-capitalist blog).
I think where I disagree is that I _do_ believe in the use of monopoly to declare physical property rights rather than ethereal or intellectual property rights. Intellectual property monopolies are basically telling other people how they must think and act on their own property, and I am against these sorts of monopolies that restrain others from using their physical property and bodies and minds as they wish, as long as it does not violate the physical properties, bodies or minds of others.
The laws and patent-coercion that the MPAA uses are all forms of violence. The definition of violence is an act of aggression. Aggression would be the use of force to accomplish one's tasks, rather than using persuasion to get someone to concur to consent to the act. Copyright is aggression, and it is violent. Patents are aggression, and they are violent. Stealing someone's physical CD or invention is aggression, making a mimicry or copy with your own labor, capital and tools is not.
Clearly that's a justified, well balanced world view with no room for argument.
Throw your arguments here and I'll explain. Or visit my anarcho-capitalism forum and I'll be happy to answer quicker.
Teen pregnancy? Fiat currency!
Fiat currency has created a massive State expansion that in the long run created savings devaluation (even your stocks that look like they're going up in dollars are going down in value!), which has created an atmosphere that seems to require both parents working. When one parent is home and focusing on their children, teen pregnancy decreases greatly.
Racism? Fiat currency!
Fiat currency creates inflation, which is used to transfer wealth from the lower class and middle class to the elite in control of the money market. Many minorities have found it hard to get out of the ghettos and out of the social stereotyping because their savings are quickly thrown in the toilet. Put $1 a day under the bed, and in 20 years you have nothing. In a gold standard, your money gets more powerful over time, so even the poorest minorities can break free of their stereotypes. Racism often happens out of stereotypes that sometimes breed true because the minorities can't break away from the stereotypes, so they embrace them.
Substandard literacy rate? You guess it, fiat currency.
Absolutely. Fiat currency caused massive problems in educating privately because of the large expanse of the State as inflation robbed residents of wealth to support the State expansion. As inflation increased, public educators expected more money to compensate for the increasing costs of living, which accelerated taxation and inflation (savings devaluation) which forced both parents to work rather than educate their children properly. Now the State educated, of course the kids can't read.
Lack of critical thought?...anarcho-capitalism?
I used critical thought there. How about you, friend?
Actually, I am starting a series on Gandhi and Freedom where I am looking into his Anti-State life. People called him a socialist, but that is completely untrue. He had strong anti-government beliefs and realized MANY times that the law would not help him. In fact in many trials against him he offered no defense and no legal manipulations. He stood firm and said the law does not cover him, so if they plan on convicting him to just go ahead and do it.
Gandhi did NOT preach non-violence, either. It seems the socialists love the guy when he was one of the biggest seditionists in history. I'm happy to model myself after him as much as possible in terms of sedition against tyranny.
That doesn't address legitimacy or (come to think of it) uniqueness. Counterfeits of widely accepted currencies would be everywhere and everyone would be printing up their own "brands" of bills, for which there would need to be an insane web of exchange rates.
I disagree. When gold is money (as it has been for almost 8000 years until 1913), people use it as a store of wealth and a unique article of barter. When paper was redeemable for gold, we had a VERY strong and stable currency (the dollar of 1790 was only devalued about 5% by 1912). From 1913 to 2006 the paper unbacked dollar has devalued almost 96%.
In fact, the US experienced this in its earlier days of currency. The gov't decided to allow banks to print their own currency, and it was a complete mess. The US gov't finally had to step in and take over all minting itself.
Again, I disagree. Check out Rothbard's What Has Government Done To Our Money, a free e-book. Rothbard explains what happened with banks -- they were nationalized after Lincoln tried a central bank (it failed). Nationalized banks fell under a national charter that let them loan out more money than they had reserves for -- causing the historic runs. This was NOT free market banking. In fact, Lincoln (and Greenspan and now Bernanke) all believe in the monetary policy that is generally called the "real bills doctrine" which repeatedly has been found to be false.
Lastly, without some kind of backing of the currency, its worth remains very low. US currency is backed by the economic and military power of the US gov't. I would argue that any sufficiently valuable and stable currency, in the absence of government, would make whatever group produces that currency into the gov't, ipso facto.
Untrue. Government backing of the dollar through faith has caused the dollar to fall 96% in less than 100 years. Before this time, currency backed by gold has held value for thousands of years. The only time gold faltered was during gold rushes which was quickly corrected by increased buying power in one market that shipped gold elsewhere to equalize. Before that, gold standards fell apart usually when _government_ debased gold with cheaper metals.
You can't (easily) counterfeit gold, and you can use gold in an economy much larger than the one we have today. It might instill a small soft and beneficial deflation, but this would be good for every economy as it encourages savings and smart investing.
Everything we see negative in society today can be attributed to fiat currency -- wars, socialism, powermongering and wage destruction. Housing bubbles, tech bubbles and even the Great Depression occured due to fiat currency. Faith comes from a hard money standard (gold), not from war and power which require more money devaluation to occur.
I'm the original poster, otherwise I'd mod you +1 Funny. I'm sorry to say that I own TWO copies of the DVD (one to loan to friends) and that I still quote it regularly.
So taking away power from your enemy to give it to your friend is ok. What about me? How is it fair to me? We're a Nation of Independent States that are required to focus on individual liberties, not liberties of any group.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why the term "pro-corporate" needs to be a epithet instead of a positive note. Businesses in any unregulated market such as the web are the prime example of why the free market works best -- flickr is a corporation. Yes, it is a big-bad-daddy-business for those anti-market politicos here (conservative and liberal alike). They're taking a big step here by offering their customers an exit policy without contractual cost, and this is a good step for corporations as a whole.
Why do most corporations NOT allow these exit offerings? Because they're licensed or regulated by the State -- they're given an advantage, and they use their excessive contracts to keep that advantage. Don't think this is a "big business" fault, it is a "big State" fault that the businesses are taking advantage of.
Yes, copyright does protect you.
Not me it doesn't.
For example, If you should actually write something good, I could take it and sell it for my personal gain. Giving you nothing.
My last two books (one self published, one not) sold just fine without copyright and netted me 5 figures each. My next two books (one being released any day now and one around Christmas) should do even better -- and I don't copyright them at all. My publisher could theoretically steal my information but why would they?
Did you know that when you write a book and submit it to publishers for consideration, they frown on you including a copyright statement on your work?
If I try that today, you could easily get a lawyer, and successfully suing would be trivial.
You don't know the meaning of trivial then. Attorney fees for a copyright case start at US$200 per hour and go up from there. The most recent trial that I am aware of was Chihuly and his legal team charged over US$1000 per hour and were billing out at a few dozen hours per month. You think that's trivial?
The current fact of copyright is that very few creators of content actually profit greatly from their work on a self-employed basis. Those who get salaried jobs to create are the ones who generally get paid the best of the actual creators (look at TV show writers versus movie script writers, or in-house web designers versus painters).
Today, a band has absolutely zero chance of making it big, and about a 5% chance of actually making enough money to live on. Why is this? Because of copyright. Currently only the content distribution cartels are in a position of profitability -- they use the law and the costly legal system to enforce their profits. Without copyright, this form of monopolization would not exist.
Would "pirates" in a copyright-free society quickly destroy profit? I doubt it. Even with rampant "piracy" as it exists today, musicians still sell albums. They have to sell them through the cartels though, as non-cartelized albums don't get the distribution via radio, video and concert promotion. Try getting an indie song on the (regulated) radio, the (regulated) cable stations or the (regulated) concert venues. It is nearly impossible.
I do believe that we'd see MORE profits per artist, or at least a more equalized playing field, when you remove the cartels from the structure. Today's artist market sees barely a few dozen artists actually making it big, and very few of them actually make their own art (look at big label bands, famous movie actors, etc). The artists who are talented but not part of the cartel have very little chance to promote their work.
We're changing it. We're working with local theatrical studios around the world to actually make and then syndicate theater as TV-show. Why do stupid theater when you can do a regular scripted work with memorable characters, etc? We're going to use it as a tool to promote their local productions, and hopefully see a profit on the digital side. The same is true with musicians -- we're taking their digital music and using it to promote their albums and live shows. If you buy the official album, you might get a free ticket to a show, or a password to watch the band practice and record the next album (live or online). You might get guitar lessons or who knows what. With painting artists, the capacity to reproduce their work is much slimmer, which is why you see so many successful galleries in any metro area. In my area (Chicagoland) we have over 700 successful art galleries -- this is a media that doesn't require copyright to protect profits, so the cartels don't exist.
I don't usually reply to AC, but let's try.
First, copyright lawyers are incredibly expensive. A copyright trial against an "infringer" can take years and tens of thousands of dollars. If you write a song or a book and someone wants to take it, they will. There is nothing stopping them. The law does not protect you at all.
I'm not a hippy, I'm a capitalist businessman. I don't smoke pot, I produce content. In the next 2 months I'll be doling out thousands of dollars to bands and artists to create profitable content that will not be protected by any legal obligations such as copyright, patents, trademarks or other elitism. Profits can be made, and will be made, without copyright.
Don't believe me? Watch the site. We're working on signing two bands right now that are already profitable and believe they'll be more profitable by repudiating copyright and legal coercion.
I'm the founder of No Copyright Studios, a production company that repudiates legal copyright and everything that goes with the use of force.
We're currently in the process of signing bands, podcasters and other free market pro-freedom content creators to our "movement" which is nothing more than a new way to find ways to profit without using the law. We believe that the law creates cartels and monopoly markets that are nearly impossible to penetrate -- copyright is one of those legal manipulations that only helps the big boys and hurts the little guy.
I have created content for nearly 18 years and have NEVER used copyright to protect my work. I've written songs, books, blogs and newsletters and I openly advocate the copying of them (or what I call "Free Marketing" for me). I even let people drop my name if they wish, but I warn them that if I catch them I'll publicly embarass them for putting their own name on it.
Once you create something that is easily mimiced or duplicated, there is NOTHING you can do to protect yourself. Copyright laws? How will you fight in civil court? With what money? Why even embrace copyright when there are already ways to make money without it. I make money on my sites, on my music that I produce, and on the books (e- and printed) that I've created, and I openly admit that I don't use any protection on the content other than a moral obligation for my reader not to copy it.
I can't enforce the morals of others, other than public embarassment and humiliation. That is the best way to protect your content -- and it also opens up a huge audience of people who don't realize how much copyright frustrates them, once they realize that copyright doesn't protect anyone but the largest content distribution cartels.
I disagree.
The consumer is the most powerful entity in a market where goods are readily available (such as MP3 players). They _don't_ have to buy. How does Apple's contract force others to accept it? There is no excuse for accepting a bad contract. We accepted 3 such contracts from Apple (and we buy off iTunes as well) because the contract isn't so bad. So what if they change the terms of the contract, I buy the iPod for today. If Apple changes their contract terms tomorrow, some competitor will come in an planet them beneath daisies.
Do a little research and you'll find that Sinclair was aghast that laws were created over just 10 or so pages of his book. These laws, Sinclair knew, would create preferential treatment ("monopoly") of an industry, and it did: it created cartelization of the meat industry that still exists today.
Sinclair was an admitted socialist, and wrote the fictional book because he hated capitalism. He had no idea that the book would work against his wishes, though, and instead of creating "worker's rights" where none were needed, we see preferential treatment of a cartel now. I'm sure he's rolling in his grave.
The book is fiction, it is based on almost no real research, studies, or references. He didn't reference anything for his book, I won't reference my research here when ad hominems are used against me. If you really think the book had any basis in fact, you need to just dig deeper.
Two parties make an agreement. Both parties are not in any way being forced to accept this agreement. Both parties agree. How is that anti-consumer?
I have _not_ made 3 purchases in the past week based on bad contracts. One was with a roofer (my other roofer decided to accept my terms), one was with a mechanic (I struck out the part about going over the quote and he didn't accept it) and one was with a lawyer. We couldn't come to terms, so we didn't do business. That's the free market.
If people are _dumb_ and can't read a contract, then why should the law be their daddies?
Sinclair's "The Jungle" was pure fiction -- not based on facts at all. Roosevelt needed a demand for socialism from residents in the U.S.A. and Sinclair's book came out with perfect timing. Sinclair was pro-socialism himself, so he wrote the fictional piece in order to scare residents into supporting Roosevelt's ridiculous pro-State changes to the law.
Familiar with the rotting meat in the book? That was government's doing. Meat packers had shipped meat for military use and had told the government to keep the meat chilled or it would go bad. The government didn't listen, and the meat spoiled. Guess who got blamed?
Humans and rats didn't fall into meat grinders -- Sinclair made this up. To this day people still talk about the myth of human flesh and rat flesh in the hot dog. Didn't happen. But the FDA was created due to the outcry from reading the book, and the FDA has definitely murdered millions over 100 years by not allowing certain drugs and health regimes to be released in time to save those who died. They still hold up many medical miracles from our country.
Years later, Sinclair admitted that the book was a fabrication and was only written to change the minds of America toward government control. And many of the meat packers were in full support of the book because they knew that new regulations would keep competition out of the market, a market that didn't have the problems that Sinclair wrote about.
Don't use fictional works of socialism to back up your theory that regulation ever helps. It doesn't, it never will. Proper tort laws and contract enforcement is what will keep companies and consumers both safe and sound and allow both to have opportunities to profit fairly.
Their original contract allows for a modification of the terms and conditions. What is the problem there? If you agree that the contract can be changed, accept it. If you disagree, don't accept it. The market works because if people don't want modifiable contracts, they wouldn't exist.
How does that make me look trollish? This has everything to do with contracts instead of regulations and mandates by government. Contracts let EVERY transaction be different (I purposely strike out terms on many contracts that I sign and have done so recently with my cell phone provider and my roofer). Laws force every transaction to be the same.
All of these organizations are pro-control anti-consumer and we all should realize that immediately. No government mandate on companies is ever good for consumers because it decreases the amount of competition in a market and it raises prices. You can't prove otherwise. Higher prices with less competition usually mean lower quality products and even lower quality research for new products.
Thank you Apple for the iPod. My household has 3 (2 we bought new, 1 we won) and The Freaky Blonde has downsized her CD collection to storage and we've recaptured almost 10 square feet of space. She uses them in all our cars and she uses them hen exercizing. I personally don't use one (I'm happy just burning MP3s to CD) but the device is incredible, and would never have been made if Apple was forced to follow mandates that supposedly protect the consumer.
If they had to follow these idiotic laws in the beginning, the consumer would be protected, surely: protected from ever seeing great devices like the iPod and whatever the next competitor will release.
The only thing missing right now would be a revocation of the DMCA so that hackers could legally find ways to allow the iPod to run other software. Don't you see how it is always government that reduces our choices and our freedoms? Apple can't freely say no to running another company's songs, and the consumer can't say yes to modifying his own product that he bought.
Pro-consumer? Right.
They have been the Mecca for production.
I do business in China. My customers have more R&D groups stationed in China than in the U.S., a huge change from 10 years ago. If you honestly think the U.S. is the engineering capitol of the world, have a vacation in China for 2 weeks.
wait until clear channel stations begin playing there music and not paying them.
Clear Channel is a copyright-created cartel that would not exist if it wasn't for their right to monopoly given to them by copyright laws.
Not nearly the amount of maney they could make if there music was paying them roalties. Assuming they were popular and good*.
My wife and I are friends with 2 bands that are in the Top 100 right now. They make almost NO money from the distribution of their music (one of them will sell millions of albums in the next 2 years). They make ALL their money from touring. How does copyright help them? They understand that the only way to enter the monopoly-controlled market (FCC and copyright created artificial barrier to entry) is to give up the rights to their music to the cartels.
Copyright is evil. Q.E.D.
I'm one of a few people on slashdot who repudiate copyright. In fact, everything I create in an intellectual sense I freely offer to others to use as their own, if they wish. The more information that is out there, the more that industrial people can work with to create new inventions that satisfy our desire for more information and cheaper products.
China has been a Mecca of technology, and I think part of the reason for it is the rampant "piracy" and "theft of intellectual property" that has always been part of their culture. Cheap DVD players that play multiple formats, cheap pocket-sized CD players, even telephones that possess capabilities of file sharing and copying, well beyond what we get in the States and in the EU.
I also produce music (that would be the person behind raising the money), and I'm working with more local bands to repudiate copyright as well. As more smaller bands give up the right to their thoughts, words and hand motions, their fan base grows. When their fan base grows, their shows bring in more money -- much more money. Some bands are even facilitating "piracy" of "their" music by letting people bring their iPods to the show to get a free sync of all the music. There is more money to be made in entertainment without copyright than with.
I'm sad to see China cater to the West and their mad-monopoly-over-information craze. This step means nothing, though, as the average consumer will still use their own capital (their time, their computer and their internet connection) to satisfy the laws of supply and demand. Near infinite supply? Near microscopic price.
Really, the gist of my argument is right here, it's that feudalism has never gone away, we just keep reinventing it and calling it something else..
I agree. The sad thing is that I am not anti-government as some people believe. I am a Unanimocrat -- I believe that people should be free to pick which government they live under, and are free to secede if the government they chose doesn't meet their needs. Of course, contracts with governments you choose might have exit costs, but I'm pro-contract, so that is part of life.
You could even lie about your product, but if lying wasn't covered by a law or regulation, oh well. You haven't killed or sickened them directly, you let them choose to eat your bogus stuff, their lookout, so they can't hold your responsible, correct?
I believe that in a free market, the purchase of goods would be contractual -- "I am paying you this (real) money in exchange for your (safe) food product. If A, B or C happens to me, you could be held liable." I believe that there might be numerous competing contracts, but in the long run the best ones will rise to the top. Today, government is WAY TOO SLOW to deal with passing laws on unsafe products, and they still have numerous laws against safe products (criminalizing the act of selling or using the product).
How would the humans know in advance what was safe or not, trial and error? Remember, lying wouldn't be illegal, if it was, that means it is a regulation to not lie.
Lying could be considered fraud if you contractually stipulated to tell the truth. Also, trial and error works -- look at eBay's generally good feedback system. I believe a free market will bring many different feedback companies that you could reference before making a purchase. You could also only deal with bonded and insured companies (to fend off diseased products or ones that might fail). You could also self-insure by buying products covered (and tested) by your self-insuring company.
The joe sixpack serf workers had the choice of being on the country plantation at the lords mercy, or living in town where they were at the landlords and factory owners mercy. and, we can see what happened in the past when it was like that (it still is some places).
The fault, again, is with government, not the market. The use of force is held by the government and their preferred companies. Try selling watermelons out of the back of your car and you'll quickly learn that one. I still believe that child labor is bad, but I don't think it is illegal.
We are still a very predatory and cruel species in general terms.
Which is good to a point because this allows competitive forces to promote the better people. THe big problem is that uncompetitive regulations tend to keep the worst people in the power positions.
the best we can do is a more-fair market and constantly work at lowering numbers of regs and by our actions trying to get as many honest and fair people at the top levels as we can, but it will be near impossible without *some* regs/laws.
I'm not sure of that. In the past 3 years I have extricated myself from so many regulations and laws by buying directly from suppliers -- food from farmers in my area, clothing from people who make their own, etc. Over time, I think I'll find more bartering options as people get upset about government's madness -- with the dollar heading to the toilet any year now, we'll see more and more madness.
I appreciate your post.
Thats all well and good except that the barrier to market entry and not government created. They are fundamental to capitalism. Since it costs initial capital to enter a market, a company can not enter the market and be competitive immediately. There is a reason you or I couldn't start making cars that ran on butter tomorrow.
There are NUMEROUS independent auto makers in the country right now. They can not sell their cars directly due to government regulations created by the large automakers that require certain government testing of vehicles to call them "safe." The only people who should "regulate" the safety of cars should be insurance companies.
The initial capital needed to enter a market is near zero -- I know, I own a number of large businesses that started with no money, no loans and no investments. It took people to do it, and we battled so many licensing requirements that we almost didn't start some of them.
Ridiculous beyond comprehension. Learn about economics and its history. See: John D Rockefeller and Standard Oil. In an unregulated system, the natural equilibrium is monopoly.
You really don't know your facts, do you? Standard Oil was never a monopoly -- when they were on top, they were #1 because they lowered the price of oil below all the other competitors. They lowered the price of oil from 58 cents to 8 cents! By the time they were found guilty of monopoly, they were already being replaced by competitors who were bringing a new product to the market -- gasoline. Mary Ruwart wrote in great detail about it.
Tort law focuses on private property and pollution harms the common good, public property and society in general.
Prove it. All property should be private, thereby allowing tort laws to cover the trespass (civil) and destruction (tort) that occurs from pollution. Society is nothing but millions of individuals -- let each one decide what they can handle.
The children of children who were forced to work were also forced to work, are still forced to work at the same jobs.
No ad-hominem here, but you, sir, are a liar. Did you read UNICEF's article about what happened when "child-labor sweatshops" were closed in Bangladesh based on U.S. complaints? Now those same girls are prostitutes. Many of the children in these so called child labor camps are only able to eat (and their families as well) because of the work available for them. Would you prefer to eat or not eat? On top of all this, most families in poor countries are unable to extricate themselves from their poverty because of government fiat currency inflation which causes their money saved to go down in value over time rather quickly. This is happening to the U.S. dollar today.
e. Its also fundamentally anti-labor (relying solely on the marginal utility to produce value has no fundamental origin of the system). There's a reason the Austrian school has been a fringe theory of economics in every society (except ironically under the National Socialists).
The National Socialists believe in fiat currency (see the Weimar Republic), government force and regulation. Nothing Austrian about it.
The Austrians have proven time and again that human action creates markets and freedom -- only government force can take it away. No megacorporation has never forced you to pay for anything. If Wal*Mart ends up owning ever store in the world, just go buy fruits from the farmer. Or do you think that a select few can control the entire world, except through the use of force by the government? All it takes is one bullet in the head of the powermongerer to end a coercive regime quickly.
I'm surprised by how blatantly pro-socialism most of slashdot is, and it makes me sad. The geeks of the world would be far better off embracing a free market opinion than your op
A totally free market would result in MEGABIGCO Inc. owning the world and everyone being some sort of electronic plantation worker for them, never quite making enough "money" to ever get out of debt to them.
/. readers think they love, but in reality create cartels and monopolies that keep many people out of competiting with big companies.
That's not true. The reason we have MEGABIGCO is because of preferential treatment such as:
1. Regulations -- Creates a very high barrier to enter a market
2. Subsidies -- Creates a financial incentive for the cronies of the law
3. Licensing -- Creates a cartel that prevents the proper number of competitors
4. Taxation -- Allows the government to create the first 3 preferential treatments
MEGABIGCO won't occur in a free market if there are no barriers to entering that market. Some barriers are those that many
You will inevitably go from lot of companies to cartels to a monopoly, because that makes more money for the monopoly owners, and because humanness means that they will continue to impose their will on governmental processes.
Monopolies ONLY occur due to government licensing. All the big companies that people think were monopolies (or are) have always had to compete to stay on top -- but there has always been competition. If you look at the past, the few companies that were branded a monopoly were actually given significant preferential treatment by the local, state and federal governments. There is no monopoly in a free market because anyone can enter the market to compete.
A "free" market means zero environmental regulations, what is in it for them? They don't care if their factory pollutes the water table over someplace, the bosses and owners will just live where that doesn't happen and buy up all the land around them to give them a clean environment, and stuff like that.
Not true. A provider of a product or service will provide what the consumer wants, including making sure that they abide by whatever environmental restrictions the market demands. Pollution is better covered by trespass and realistic tort laws than by regulation -- regulations of the environment today just move polluters around. The biggest polluter in the country is the US government, by the way.
It means no minimum wage,back to child labor, no safe working conditions, etc, because that is their historically proven over and over again humans as bosses track record back before these regs existed.
No, child labor has occured during the beginning of markets because the older workers were not able to adapt to the new markets. In most situations, children will be less productive if the government stops restricting how it pays employees. Minimum wage laws create unemployment because they rob uneducated non-productive people from finding jobs that won't pay them what they're worth until they prove their worth as employees. Many foreigners come into the country to work illegally for less than minimum wage, but quickly start earning much more than minimum wage once they've proven their worth.
The "free" market is one of those things that it is easy to say and might sound sort of good in theory, but it won't ever fly or work as advertised without tremendous negative effects. For an example of an area with more or less "anything goes free markets", look at the horn of africa.
Hah! The Horn of Africa ended up in a slushpile of overlords because of government restrictions on firearm ownership and capitalism. Preferential treatment of the elite few creates these overlords by law, not by anarchy. Even now we're seeing great leaps and bounds in technology and markets through people attempting to overthrow the regimes that were put there by the previous governments.
Yes it will take time, but free markets have been left to the black market because the only people who want to compete are criminals. Regulated markets in the U.S. have taken us from the #1 producer in th
Stop spending so much.
When the economy slows down, fire some publicans. When the economy grows, fire more publicans so it can grow more. Start downsizing today, and then downsize tomorrow. Keep downsizing until you've downsized to the point of no more complaints for more money or overstretched budget.
I think there should be a law that says the minute that a government employee complains about his pay or his budget, he gets fired. Roll the money to someone else. When they complain, fire them and keep rolling it over and refunding it to the taxpayers.
I can't believe they want to tax communications more. To me, I believe that the Right to Expression is universal (inherent/God-given/natural), and that taxing expression in any way is regulating a right that can't be regulated.
From an anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, the definition I provided makes the most sense. It also makes the most sense from a general viewpoint -- the most basic definition possible.
In terms of Gandhi, his view of violence was well beyond just physical damage. He was against the salt regulations that created monopoly. He was against the tax base that destroyed small villages. Go back to his early work in Pretoria and you'll see how he was against the laws the segregated the dark skinned people from the light skinned people. He was against the local tariffs and controls that prevented his own people's cloth from being sold to the Indus. He was against the idea of central government as Mother India was composed of hundreds of individual villages that cared not for others but cared for their own survival. He was against the bifurcation of faiths even though he was Hindu -- he said he was a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu and a Jew.
If you look at his life, he was anti-State because it was always the State that harmed his people. Early on he supported the Empire's war but later in life he realized that true power came from the individual's ability to withstand great tyranny and it was only when individuals performed acts of peace against coercion, then the tyrants had to stop. It wasn't just groups that were peaceful, it was unanimous decisions of individuals that made the difference. His death fasts were performed until every individual assumed a peaceful motivation -- not just groups.
I'm not commenting on whether monopolies are good or bad; but I am saying that a capitalist, anarcho or otherwise, arguing against monopolies is a contradiction in terms, since capitalism cannot exist without private property, and private property is a monopoly on whatever it is you own.
This is a really good point and something I want to get in deeper (on my anarcho-capitalist blog).
I think where I disagree is that I _do_ believe in the use of monopoly to declare physical property rights rather than ethereal or intellectual property rights. Intellectual property monopolies are basically telling other people how they must think and act on their own property, and I am against these sorts of monopolies that restrain others from using their physical property and bodies and minds as they wish, as long as it does not violate the physical properties, bodies or minds of others.
The laws and patent-coercion that the MPAA uses are all forms of violence. The definition of violence is an act of aggression. Aggression would be the use of force to accomplish one's tasks, rather than using persuasion to get someone to concur to consent to the act. Copyright is aggression, and it is violent. Patents are aggression, and they are violent. Stealing someone's physical CD or invention is aggression, making a mimicry or copy with your own labor, capital and tools is not.
Clearly that's a justified, well balanced world view with no room for argument.
...anarcho-capitalism?
Throw your arguments here and I'll explain. Or visit my anarcho-capitalism forum and I'll be happy to answer quicker.
Teen pregnancy? Fiat currency!
Fiat currency has created a massive State expansion that in the long run created savings devaluation (even your stocks that look like they're going up in dollars are going down in value!), which has created an atmosphere that seems to require both parents working. When one parent is home and focusing on their children, teen pregnancy decreases greatly.
Racism? Fiat currency!
Fiat currency creates inflation, which is used to transfer wealth from the lower class and middle class to the elite in control of the money market. Many minorities have found it hard to get out of the ghettos and out of the social stereotyping because their savings are quickly thrown in the toilet. Put $1 a day under the bed, and in 20 years you have nothing. In a gold standard, your money gets more powerful over time, so even the poorest minorities can break free of their stereotypes. Racism often happens out of stereotypes that sometimes breed true because the minorities can't break away from the stereotypes, so they embrace them.
Substandard literacy rate? You guess it, fiat currency.
Absolutely. Fiat currency caused massive problems in educating privately because of the large expanse of the State as inflation robbed residents of wealth to support the State expansion. As inflation increased, public educators expected more money to compensate for the increasing costs of living, which accelerated taxation and inflation (savings devaluation) which forced both parents to work rather than educate their children properly. Now the State educated, of course the kids can't read.
Lack of critical thought?
I used critical thought there. How about you, friend?
Actually, I am starting a series on Gandhi and Freedom where I am looking into his Anti-State life. People called him a socialist, but that is completely untrue. He had strong anti-government beliefs and realized MANY times that the law would not help him. In fact in many trials against him he offered no defense and no legal manipulations. He stood firm and said the law does not cover him, so if they plan on convicting him to just go ahead and do it.
Gandhi did NOT preach non-violence, either. It seems the socialists love the guy when he was one of the biggest seditionists in history. I'm happy to model myself after him as much as possible in terms of sedition against tyranny.
That doesn't address legitimacy or (come to think of it) uniqueness. Counterfeits of widely accepted currencies would be everywhere and everyone would be printing up their own "brands" of bills, for which there would need to be an insane web of exchange rates.
I disagree. When gold is money (as it has been for almost 8000 years until 1913), people use it as a store of wealth and a unique article of barter. When paper was redeemable for gold, we had a VERY strong and stable currency (the dollar of 1790 was only devalued about 5% by 1912). From 1913 to 2006 the paper unbacked dollar has devalued almost 96%.
In fact, the US experienced this in its earlier days of currency. The gov't decided to allow banks to print their own currency, and it was a complete mess. The US gov't finally had to step in and take over all minting itself.
Again, I disagree. Check out Rothbard's What Has Government Done To Our Money, a free e-book. Rothbard explains what happened with banks -- they were nationalized after Lincoln tried a central bank (it failed). Nationalized banks fell under a national charter that let them loan out more money than they had reserves for -- causing the historic runs. This was NOT free market banking. In fact, Lincoln (and Greenspan and now Bernanke) all believe in the monetary policy that is generally called the "real bills doctrine" which repeatedly has been found to be false.
Lastly, without some kind of backing of the currency, its worth remains very low. US currency is backed by the economic and military power of the US gov't. I would argue that any sufficiently valuable and stable currency, in the absence of government, would make whatever group produces that currency into the gov't, ipso facto.
Untrue. Government backing of the dollar through faith has caused the dollar to fall 96% in less than 100 years. Before this time, currency backed by gold has held value for thousands of years. The only time gold faltered was during gold rushes which was quickly corrected by increased buying power in one market that shipped gold elsewhere to equalize. Before that, gold standards fell apart usually when _government_ debased gold with cheaper metals.
You can't (easily) counterfeit gold, and you can use gold in an economy much larger than the one we have today. It might instill a small soft and beneficial deflation, but this would be good for every economy as it encourages savings and smart investing.
Everything we see negative in society today can be attributed to fiat currency -- wars, socialism, powermongering and wage destruction. Housing bubbles, tech bubbles and even the Great Depression occured due to fiat currency. Faith comes from a hard money standard (gold), not from war and power which require more money devaluation to occur.
I'm the original poster, otherwise I'd mod you +1 Funny. I'm sorry to say that I own TWO copies of the DVD (one to loan to friends) and that I still quote it regularly.
So taking away power from your enemy to give it to your friend is ok. What about me? How is it fair to me? We're a Nation of Independent States that are required to focus on individual liberties, not liberties of any group.