That's right, the environmentalists, who insist on interfering with the most efficient and effective distribution method possible: the free market.
And organic agriculture can produce plenty of food, sure, if you're willing to settle for cutting down more rainforest to compensate for the lowered crop yields.
Everything's a trade-off. You should really listen to Thomas Sowell more often. He's generally right.
My own alternative to Wikipedia, that I've been working on for six months or so and begging for people to come and help contribute: http://opencycle.vacommunity.net/
There's no such thing as inherent rights, unless you count the "rights" you can make for yourself by being bigger/stronger/faster/better armed than the people around you.
Wrong.
All rights are artificial in nature, a product of a particular society and what that society can agree on,
Wrong.
I could just as easily claim that people have a right to kill anyone they don't like because it's "inherent in one's existence as a human being". What evidence could you produce that your idea of "rights" is right and that mine is wrong?
The fact that my argument is perfectly logically consistent--both within itself and and with the fundamental principles of the Universe--while yours must necessarily involve either a mistaken premise or a logical fallacy somewhere along the line.
It's the government's job to enact the will of the people. No, it's not.
The legitimate function of government--and the US government was the first (and so far the only) government set up in line with this principle--is to protect individual rights regardless of the will of the "people", the "king", or anyone else. Individual rights are more important than the majority willl.
Some of us know that the free market does not work efficiently where there are natural monopolies, externalities or imbalance of information. That is irrelevant. As Ayn Rand explained, the proper justification for the free market is not that it is the most effective at producing wealth (though it is), but rather that it is the only system that respects individual rights. Because of this, any attack on the free market is an attack on individual rights.
We have chosen to enact a government that regulates the free market. We believe it is the government's place to care. You don't get to make that choice, because no government is entitled to violate individual rights.
If you do not want to participate, you are free to leave. Where you go, or even if you have a place to go, is not our concern. I am not obligated to give up my property and my current life--which are mine not by permission or privilege but by right--simply to avoid having my rights violated. Rather, you are simply obligated to cease violating my rights.
Actually anti-trust is one of the few legitimate places for the government to care. Fixing the fundamentally broken corner-cases of capitalism is a fine use of government power. No, it's not--desirable end results are none of government's concern.
Okay, maybe your idea of utopia is where all food manufacturers are bought by wal-mart and the contract you "choose" to sign with them is whatever the hell they want because your choice is to sign or starve to death, but for the rest of us sane people, I'd like to prevent that kind of thing even in its less extreme forms. Then you are pure evil and have no moral right to exist, because you are willing to endorse the wholesale violation of individual rights.
Whether or not monopolies are "good for consumers" is irrelevant.
It's not government's place to care.
It's government's place to stay the hell out of the way. All government needs to do is enforce contracts that any given set of individuals choose to make among themselves and arrest and punish those who initiate, attempt to initiate, or threaten to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.
I don't recall seeing that one in the Constitution, the Bible, the Federalist Papers or Dask Kapital, or any of the other moral and ethical frameworks that people have come up with...
Try Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness, both by the epochal 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She explains quite clearly how: 1) There is only one objectively correct set of moral principles and laws
2) Its substantial nature is an inherent part of man's nature and is not dependent upon codification in a document
3) She has properly discovered and identified said set of moral principles
4) Any principle or civil law that contradicts those principles is wrong, unjust, illegitimate, and evil.
society doesn't allow producers of goods to just define whatever conditions and terms they feel like.
"Society" doesn't get to do that. A producer has EVERY MORAL RIGHT to determine for himself what terms he wishes to set on his products. If other people don't like it, tough shit for them. Their collective desire for other terms does not justify forcing the producer to choose other terms. Sorry, collectivist, but you're wrong.
in canada, the law says i can copy a CD for my own use whether the producer says i can or not.
Then the law is wrong and unjust--and you are evil for taking advantage of an unjust law to pseudo-legitimize your immoral acts.
To hell with what the law says. Objective moral principle is all that matters. If the law contradicts objective moral principle, then guess what wins out? That's right, objective moral principle!
All cost of production determines is whether or not the good is offered in the first place. If the market price is higher than the cost of production, the good will be offered; if not, then it won't.
It's not about whether or not it hurts profits. It's about the simple fact that if the producer of a good chooses to place certain terms and conditions on the consumer's use of that good, the consumer is morally obligated to abide by all those terms (whatever they may be) or refrain from using the product altogether.
Unfortunately, the RIAA lacks either the guts, the intellect, or both to realize that--and until they do, they will continue to be beaten by base pragmatics that are, quite frankly, utterly irrelevant in the face of a greater moral principle.
Cost of production has nothing to do with the market price of a good. All cost of production determines is whether or not the good is offered in the first place. If the market price is higher than the cost of production, the good will be offered; if not, then it won't. The price itself is determined simply by supply relative to demand, period. The notion that cost of production affects price is nothing more than a remnant of the long-ago debunked "Labor Theory of Value"
Immoral to whom? You?! Like it or not, morality absolutely IS subjective. Some folks believe eating meat is immoral, others don't.
That doesn't mean that morality is subjective; it simply means that one side is wrong. I'm sick and tired of seeing this incredibly obvious and unbelievably shallow fallacy.
I don't want either side of that argument legislating what I eat for breakfast based on their concept of morality.
That is not a matter for law, because regardless of its moral status eating meat does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of individual rights. Copyright violation does (remember, copyright is an absolute moral principle, not merely a legal construction--the legal institution of copyright is merely to protect the absolute moral principle of copyright)
Just because YOU say software piracy is immoral doesn't make it so.
Nor am I claiming it does. It's not "I say it is true; therefore, it is true" but rather "It is true; therefore, I say it is true."
You aren't God, nor do you speak on God's behalf.
Of course not. Such an entity does not exist. It is logically impossible for me to be that which does not exist.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion of morality, but that's all it is pal, opinion.
No, it's not an opinion--it is an objective fact, true regardless of whether I or anyone else accept it as such. I, however, DO choose accept it as true (which it is); you do not--since you have chosen to reject reality, you are wrong.
One last thing: Try to reserve the word "immoral" for crimes that really are immoral, like rape, murder, child molestation, etc. It you paint stupid sh*t like software piracy with the word "immoral", the word will eventually lose it's gravity.
Why not? All constitute violations of individual rights; thus, all are equally immoral.
No, I'm not--that's my whole point. It's immoral regardless of whether or not it's illegal. If it's not illegal, then it should be BECAUSE it is immoral, but even if it is not illegal one should not engage in it because it is immoral.
An act that is immoral is immoral regardless of whether or not it's against the law, and an act that's morally OK is morally OK regardless of whether or not it's against the law.
Copyright violation is an immoral act, period--regardless of the law. If it's not against the law in a certain jurisdiction, then it should be--or that government becomes illegitimate, because it is failing in its sole proper purpose of protecting individual rights.
Wal-Mart has every right to decide what it will and will not sell, and to base that decision on whatever criteria it likes. Don't want to play with them? Don't sell at Wal-Mart. You don't own Wal-Mart; therefore, you're not entitled to sell your stuff on its shelves. It's an opportunity Wal-Mart can extend to your or not at its discretion.
Actually, 48 states + DC--that is 49 ballots, but not 49 states. He missed it in NH for the reason you cited, and in Oklahoma because of unnecessarily stringent ballot-access rules.
I live about 30 miles north of NORFED's HQ in Evansville, IN and I spend a good deal of time down there. If you want, I can put you in contact with someone who can explain it to you.
Farah et al is just a publicity front for Nader. They're not at all interested in getting candidates such as Badnarik, Peroutka, or Cobb involved as evidenced by their choice of methodology for determining who should or should not participate.
Similarly, you have outlined a plan for confining prisoners to their beds for the first month of their incarcaration, in order to atrophy their muscles, thereby reducing their ability to make trouble. How do you reconcile this proposal with the 8th amenment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"?
Simple. It's neither cruel nor unusual. Both those imply that the punishment is too severe for the crime. What Mike's proposed is not. For a murderer, a rapist, a kidnapper, or a thief, NOTHING is too severe.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup--and guess who's responsible for that?
That's right, the environmentalists, who insist on interfering with the most efficient and effective distribution method possible: the free market.
And organic agriculture can produce plenty of food, sure, if you're willing to settle for cutting down more rainforest to compensate for the lowered crop yields.
Everything's a trade-off. You should really listen to Thomas Sowell more often. He's generally right.
My own alternative to Wikipedia, that I've been working on for six months or so and begging for people to come and help contribute:
http://opencycle.vacommunity.net/
Actually, no, Rand explicitly rejected the doctrine of psychological egoism--and rightly so.
Rand simply held that one should have his own rational self-interest as his primary motive, not necessarily that everyone does
There's no such thing as inherent rights, unless you count the "rights" you can make for yourself by being bigger/stronger/faster/better armed than the people around you.
Wrong.
All rights are artificial in nature, a product of a particular society and what that society can agree on,
Wrong.
I could just as easily claim that people have a right to kill anyone they don't like because it's "inherent in one's existence as a human being". What evidence could you produce that your idea of "rights" is right and that mine is wrong?
The fact that my argument is perfectly logically consistent--both within itself and and with the fundamental principles of the Universe--while yours must necessarily involve either a mistaken premise or a logical fallacy somewhere along the line.
I am not morally obligated to abide by a wrong law.
Government is not morally entitled to either enact a wrong law or susbequently enforce it.
So, I don't need to do anything.
But, if the government keeps getting uppity like it has than I am certainly willing to remind it of its place.
It's the government's job to enact the will of the people.
No, it's not.
The legitimate function of government--and the US government was the first (and so far the only) government set up in line with this principle--is to protect individual rights regardless of the will of the "people", the "king", or anyone else. Individual rights are more important than the majority willl.
Some of us know that the free market does not work efficiently where there are natural monopolies, externalities or imbalance of information.
That is irrelevant. As Ayn Rand explained, the proper justification for the free market is not that it is the most effective at producing wealth (though it is), but rather that it is the only system that respects individual rights. Because of this, any attack on the free market is an attack on individual rights.
We have chosen to enact a government that regulates the free market. We believe it is the government's place to care.
You don't get to make that choice, because no government is entitled to violate individual rights.
If you do not want to participate, you are free to leave. Where you go, or even if you have a place to go, is not our concern.
I am not obligated to give up my property and my current life--which are mine not by permission or privilege but by right--simply to avoid having my rights violated. Rather, you are simply obligated to cease violating my rights.
Actually anti-trust is one of the few legitimate places for the government to care. Fixing the fundamentally broken corner-cases of capitalism is a fine use of government power.
No, it's not--desirable end results are none of government's concern.
Okay, maybe your idea of utopia is where all food manufacturers are bought by wal-mart and the contract you "choose" to sign with them is whatever the hell they want because your choice is to sign or starve to death, but for the rest of us sane people, I'd like to prevent that kind of thing even in its less extreme forms.
Then you are pure evil and have no moral right to exist, because you are willing to endorse the wholesale violation of individual rights.
Shame on you.
Nope.
One's rights are an inherent fact of one's existence as a human being.
They are static and universal, and their existence or extent is not subject to government fiat.
The only variable is the extent to which governments choose to respect those rights.
Whether or not monopolies are "good for consumers" is irrelevant.
It's not government's place to care.
It's government's place to stay the hell out of the way. All government needs to do is enforce contracts that any given set of individuals choose to make among themselves and arrest and punish those who initiate, attempt to initiate, or threaten to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.
Actually, those are all bad things.
A potentially desirable outcome is not justification for government intervention.
Everything you mentioned above violates the rights of certain individuals, and that is NEVER justified.
So Rand was right after all...you really CAN'T make money by rejecting reality.
Hence the reason for the Enron failure--the executives believed that their ideas SHOULD make money, so they ignored it when it turned out they didn't.
See http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4490
I don't recall seeing that one in the Constitution, the Bible, the Federalist Papers or Dask Kapital, or any of the other moral and ethical frameworks that people have come up with...
Try Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness, both by the epochal 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She explains quite clearly how:
1) There is only one objectively correct set of moral principles and laws
2) Its substantial nature is an inherent part of man's nature and is not dependent upon codification in a document
3) She has properly discovered and identified said set of moral principles
4) Any principle or civil law that contradicts those principles is wrong, unjust, illegitimate, and evil.
society doesn't allow producers of goods to just define whatever conditions and terms they feel like.
"Society" doesn't get to do that. A producer has EVERY MORAL RIGHT to determine for himself what terms he wishes to set on his products. If other people don't like it, tough shit for them. Their collective desire for other terms does not justify forcing the producer to choose other terms. Sorry, collectivist, but you're wrong.
in canada, the law says i can copy a CD for my own use whether the producer says i can or not.
Then the law is wrong and unjust--and you are evil for taking advantage of an unjust law to pseudo-legitimize your immoral acts. To hell with what the law says. Objective moral principle is all that matters. If the law contradicts objective moral principle, then guess what wins out? That's right, objective moral principle!
Including this:
All cost of production determines is whether or not the good is offered in the first place. If the market price is higher than the cost of production, the good will be offered; if not, then it won't.
It's not about whether or not it hurts profits. It's about the simple fact that if the producer of a good chooses to place certain terms and conditions on the consumer's use of that good, the consumer is morally obligated to abide by all those terms (whatever they may be) or refrain from using the product altogether.
Unfortunately, the RIAA lacks either the guts, the intellect, or both to realize that--and until they do, they will continue to be beaten by base pragmatics that are, quite frankly, utterly irrelevant in the face of a greater moral principle.
This is some really really fallacious economics.
Cost of production has nothing to do with the market price of a good. All cost of production determines is whether or not the good is offered in the first place. If the market price is higher than the cost of production, the good will be offered; if not, then it won't. The price itself is determined simply by supply relative to demand, period. The notion that cost of production affects price is nothing more than a remnant of the long-ago debunked "Labor Theory of Value"
Immoral to whom? You?! Like it or not, morality absolutely IS subjective. Some folks believe eating meat is immoral, others don't.
That doesn't mean that morality is subjective; it simply means that one side is wrong. I'm sick and tired of seeing this incredibly obvious and unbelievably shallow fallacy.
I don't want either side of that argument legislating what I eat for breakfast based on their concept of morality. That is not a matter for law, because regardless of its moral status eating meat does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of individual rights. Copyright violation does (remember, copyright is an absolute moral principle, not merely a legal construction--the legal institution of copyright is merely to protect the absolute moral principle of copyright)
Just because YOU say software piracy is immoral doesn't make it so.
Nor am I claiming it does. It's not "I say it is true; therefore, it is true" but rather "It is true; therefore, I say it is true."
You aren't God, nor do you speak on God's behalf.
Of course not. Such an entity does not exist. It is logically impossible for me to be that which does not exist.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion of morality, but that's all it is pal, opinion.
No, it's not an opinion--it is an objective fact, true regardless of whether I or anyone else accept it as such. I, however, DO choose accept it as true (which it is); you do not--since you have chosen to reject reality, you are wrong.
One last thing: Try to reserve the word "immoral" for crimes that really are immoral, like rape, murder, child molestation, etc. It you paint stupid sh*t like software piracy with the word "immoral", the word will eventually lose it's gravity.
Why not? All constitute violations of individual rights; thus, all are equally immoral.
Then you are wrong on both counts.
You're confusing "immoral" with "illegal".
No, I'm not--that's my whole point. It's immoral regardless of whether or not it's illegal. If it's not illegal, then it should be BECAUSE it is immoral, but even if it is not illegal one should not engage in it because it is immoral.
Morality is subjective
Patently false.
An act that is immoral is immoral regardless of whether or not it's against the law, and an act that's morally OK is morally OK regardless of whether or not it's against the law.
Copyright violation is an immoral act, period--regardless of the law. If it's not against the law in a certain jurisdiction, then it should be--or that government becomes illegitimate, because it is failing in its sole proper purpose of protecting individual rights.
Wal-Mart has every right to decide what it will and will not sell, and to base that decision on whatever criteria it likes. Don't want to play with them? Don't sell at Wal-Mart. You don't own Wal-Mart; therefore, you're not entitled to sell your stuff on its shelves. It's an opportunity Wal-Mart can extend to your or not at its discretion.
Actually, 48 states + DC--that is 49 ballots, but not 49 states. He missed it in NH for the reason you cited, and in Oklahoma because of unnecessarily stringent ballot-access rules.
I live about 30 miles north of NORFED's HQ in Evansville, IN and I spend a good deal of time down there. If you want, I can put you in contact with someone who can explain it to you.
Farah et al is just a publicity front for Nader. They're not at all interested in getting candidates such as Badnarik, Peroutka, or Cobb involved as evidenced by their choice of methodology for determining who should or should not participate.
Simple. It's neither cruel nor unusual. Both those imply that the punishment is too severe for the crime. What Mike's proposed is not. For a murderer, a rapist, a kidnapper, or a thief, NOTHING is too severe.