Have you ever seen a record contract? I work in the recording industry and I have.
They are usually about 70-90 pages of small print which are "the result of the accumulation of thousands of lawsuits through the years".
These contracts are written to minimize liability for the label and obviously maximize return. However, there is always a "this contract applies to any current, future, or past medium of distribution, seen or unforeseen etc..." clause written in. It is up to the artist and his attorney to negotiate that out of the contract if they feel the need to.
Ahh yes, cue the obligatory puns of "there are three players in this incident, the people screwing, the people doing the screwing, and We The People getting screwed"
Recent polls have shown that 28-35% of US voters lean libertarian. It is essentially the party that has a firm and hard stance on issues based upon principle.
I am libertarian in nature so I am against almost all of this nonsense.
However, since aircraft have been used in attacks, and there is a reasonable security risk, and most planes go into federal airspace (over 18k ft), the Fed has a bit of legitimacy actually searching people like this. Although I tend to oppose it on principle.
What they DON'T have is the right to demand to see ID. Your ID has NOTHING to do with whether or not you are carrying dangerous items onboard the aircraft. This isn't Soviet Russia and "papers please" is not required to go from state to state. Airports should not become a de facto checkpoint.
All they need to do is ensure that you are not carrying anything dangerous or deadly onboard the aircraft. If your friend had been willing to be searched without showing ID the entire thing would've actually made point, and he would've been in the right.
... are the ladies and dudes who wear sandals or flip-flops with no socks or stockings. When they make them take off their shoes and they walk barefoot across that floor through the metal detector that is absolutely gross.
Think of the thousands of people who have walked on the same spot, some with shoes on, some barefoot, and all of the bacteria and germs that are associated with that. God help them if anyone has a foot fungus.
An economic major I am not, but I always considered a natural monopoly to be one that wasn't supported by the government. For example, the original Standard Oil, the steel industry, and the coal industries of early last century. Contrasting that to the telcos, the cable companies, electric/water companies and what one would consider "utilities" that usually are supported by government.
Even a market with entrenched players doesn't need regulation because the market is still free. I do believe that predatorial and anti-competitve practices SHOULD be stamped out. This isn't really the same thing as regulation, it is simply having the government punish those that infringe on other's rights to a free market.
Now, in your example you used, a firm would send its henchmen to kill/mame etc a startup and his wife/family. That is covered under existing laws and has NOTHING to do with the market. That is criminal action against someone else and is illegal already without the FTC or PUC stepping in.
I am a fellow libertarian but I would like to point out that it isn't indeed a free market. Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T all have government granted monopolies. Many of them are defined as "public utilities" given protection, and maybe even subsidies. Also, in order to start a "utility" public or not, the amount of regulation and legislation that you would have to wade through means that the barrier to entry is excessively high meaning that those that are already in the business, have an effective cartel/monopoly already.
The better question should be "why does the ESRB or the PRMC even exist?" NEITHER are of which Constitutional or a function of the government.
Conservatives try to impose their values upon others via law. Liberals try to impose no values upon others via law.
Libertarians believe that values should be determined by the individual and/or their family, upbringing, religion, etc. Either way, the government SHOULDN'T be involved. Government exists only to secure rights and keep each other from violating each other's rights.
If you want to do TV or radio broadcasts, you have to spend a LOT of money to get through the FCC. This means that the barrier to entry is so high, that the government might as well just write a receipt for each station that says "Permission to Monopolize" on the top of it.
Government is the problem, NOT the solution!
Fortunately the Net has leveled the playing field a bit.
This is an absolute downgrade. Why would I want a propritary format? Why would I want a limited number of plays? Even though it is free, so is P2P but without all of the limitations.
Someone at EMI didn't think this all the way through.
...the Catholic Church doesn't speak for all of us.
Anything that can lead us to more knowledge of the universe, or can get us closer to knowing or understanding our creator, or what caused us to be here is fair game. Why would God give us free will and self awareness along with a huge brain and expect that we bury our heads in the sand? It doesn't make sense.
Organized religion is the bane of any any faith. I consider myself a bit of an intellectual semi-agnostic Judeo-Christian non-interventional deist.
The problem is that none of these firms (cable or telco) operate in the free market. Both cable and telco companies are government granted monopolies.
If the government didn't grant de facto monopolies to these industries, we might actually see REAL competition and innovation.
Broadband over the air, or satellite-based ISPs still have a significant amount of red tape and governmental regulation to go through in order to do business. Thus the barriers to entry are exceptionally high effectively limiting competition.
Regulation 99 times out of 100 is a bad thing. Natural monopolies don't last very long, governmental granted monopolies last a very very long time.
Word gets around, and on the Internet it gets around QUICKLY!
Consumers have MUCH more information available to them these days than they used to. Discussion groups, forums of disgruntled employees, consumer advocacy groups, e-mail lists, DAs, chambers of commerce, the FTC etc etc.
Anyone who is LOOKING for information can more than likely find it.
It wouldn't take long for a service that has been screwing customers for people to start making negative posts on the Net about it.
Actually if you live in the US there IS something wrong with excessive regulation; it goes against the founding principles of this country.
I grew up living in Orlando, and their are one of the worse places in the world for urban sprawl. The problem in their case is a lack of planning for growth; usually as a result of the local government officials being bought and paid for by the developers. The housing market down there is huge, and they let them build new developments without any thought to infrastructure or thru-capacity.
In your steam engine case, yes things may have changed quickly, but the government should not have been involved (unless there was willful malice or intent to cause harm). The free market would've sorted it out if people cared enough. But no one was forced to ride on a train if they thought it was dangerous. Trains that kept killing or injuring people wouldn't have been ridden on for very long.
Free market economics are not a tool, they are a law like physics. They are always there, and they can always be applied. The natural laws of the universe are always relevant and in effect.
You talk about bridges and regulations and such. Most bridges are built by the government or government contractors. Firms that are certified by independent and reputable trade associates can be held accountable according to their affiliation. Think IEEE, UL, API, etc etc. Standards should not be forced, the free and independent market should derive them on its own and the best one will win. That is called natural selection, evolution, and progress.
It's real simple. If someone uses two services, and over the course of a month service A provides 3 dates, and service B provides 8 dates, which service do you think the consumer will continue to spend their money with?
And while you say it is easy to spread false information about a specific service etc (I agree with that), there are always trusted and reputable sources (consumer reports, the DA, your local chamber of commerce, etc) that can provide more credible and verifiable information.
If you are working a physics problem, the laws of physics still apply. Sometimes things like gravity and wind resistance are negligible to your situation, sometimes they are not and must be factored in. regardless, the fundamental natural laws of physics, or in this case economics, don't change.
New theories can be brought about, and there can indeed be paradigm shifts in the ways of thinking as we as humans progress, nevertheless, the natural laws of the universe are in existence and we have to accept and deal with them and operate within its framework. Natural laws of the universe are very similar to a Michelangelo sculpture. Everything is there, we just need to chip away the excess to get to what's inside.
It's real simple, there is a demand for them. Some people (I don't) see a value in purchasing cancer-sticks. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supplier.
Misinformation and bait-and-switch tactics violate the balance of a fair and informed transaction. In that case everyone involved in deception has caused damage to another party and should pay restitution. It is in the best interest of firms to provide their customers with accurate and honest information. If they don't they risk losing their customers and even a possible lawsuit, or even both.
In your last paragraph I think you miss an important point.
In a free market with little or no regulation/legislation, the barriers to entry are low and practically anyone can start their own firm.
Think of all of the monopolies you can today. Most of them are government-supported. MS is an exception, however the barrier to entry into the OS and software market is relatively low. Most college CS students write their own very limited and basic OS. Think Linux. Think OSx.
Consolidation is a part of the market, but so is competition and startups. Natural monopolies are usually short lived because of competition. Long-living monopolies are usually government granted.
Any freshman marketing major will tell you that it is 2x or 3x more expensive to generate new customers than it is to make continued sales to your existing customers.
Also on the consumer side of things, consumers have every tool available to them these days to research firms in order to help them make a better informed decision. The government including the FTC and local DA's are all online. Local chambers of commerce, consumer protection orgs, disgruntled employee forums and customer discussion groups, etc etc.
Outright fraud and deception does indeed violate a consumer's right to a fair transaction. I have no problem with a firm or persons being held accountable for giving false information, deception, committing fraud, etc etc. They have wronged someone and should make restitution and pay damages. But I honestly believe most of the time the free market will take care of these people before it comes to the courts.
The free market is about everyone for themselves. It is about saving and making money.
Consumers try to get the best value for their money. Firms try to maximize profit.
This dating service is a great example. If a service proves only 1 or 2 dates over the course of a month, and another service has provided 5 or 6 dates over the same amount of time, who do you think the consumer will continue to spend their money with?
Firms that do not provide what the market demands, will go out of business. Plain and simple. People who continue to spend their dollars unwisely and make poor decisions will go broke.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever seen a record contract? I work in the recording industry and I have.
They are usually about 70-90 pages of small print which are "the result of the accumulation of thousands of lawsuits through the years".
These contracts are written to minimize liability for the label and obviously maximize return. However, there is always a "this contract applies to any current, future, or past medium of distribution, seen or unforeseen etc..." clause written in. It is up to the artist and his attorney to negotiate that out of the contract if they feel the need to.
Ahh yes, cue the obligatory puns of "there are three players in this incident, the people screwing, the people doing the screwing, and We The People getting screwed"
You sound like a libertarian to me!
If only more people would take an attitude and understanding as you have.
I wish I had mod points as I would mod you up!
Recent polls have shown that 28-35% of US voters lean libertarian. It is essentially the party that has a firm and hard stance on issues based upon principle.
t .php
You should really study it a bit more:
http://cato.org/about/about.html
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_lis
I am libertarian in nature so I am against almost all of this nonsense.
However, since aircraft have been used in attacks, and there is a reasonable security risk, and most planes go into federal airspace (over 18k ft), the Fed has a bit of legitimacy actually searching people like this. Although I tend to oppose it on principle.
What they DON'T have is the right to demand to see ID. Your ID has NOTHING to do with whether or not you are carrying dangerous items onboard the aircraft. This isn't Soviet Russia and "papers please" is not required to go from state to state. Airports should not become a de facto checkpoint.
All they need to do is ensure that you are not carrying anything dangerous or deadly onboard the aircraft. If your friend had been willing to be searched without showing ID the entire thing would've actually made point, and he would've been in the right.
... are the ladies and dudes who wear sandals or flip-flops with no socks or stockings. When they make them take off their shoes and they walk barefoot across that floor through the metal detector that is absolutely gross.
:-(
Think of the thousands of people who have walked on the same spot, some with shoes on, some barefoot, and all of the bacteria and germs that are associated with that. God help them if anyone has a foot fungus.
blah!
I appreciate your insightful comments.
An economic major I am not, but I always considered a natural monopoly to be one that wasn't supported by the government. For example, the original Standard Oil, the steel industry, and the coal industries of early last century. Contrasting that to the telcos, the cable companies, electric/water companies and what one would consider "utilities" that usually are supported by government.
Even a market with entrenched players doesn't need regulation because the market is still free. I do believe that predatorial and anti-competitve practices SHOULD be stamped out. This isn't really the same thing as regulation, it is simply having the government punish those that infringe on other's rights to a free market.
Now, in your example you used, a firm would send its henchmen to kill/mame etc a startup and his wife/family. That is covered under existing laws and has NOTHING to do with the market. That is criminal action against someone else and is illegal already without the FTC or PUC stepping in.
I am a fellow libertarian but I would like to point out that it isn't indeed a free market. Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T all have government granted monopolies. Many of them are defined as "public utilities" given protection, and maybe even subsidies. Also, in order to start a "utility" public or not, the amount of regulation and legislation that you would have to wade through means that the barrier to entry is excessively high meaning that those that are already in the business, have an effective cartel/monopoly already.
We need less government regulation, NOT more!
The better question should be "why does the ESRB or the PRMC even exist?" NEITHER are of which Constitutional or a function of the government.
Conservatives try to impose their values upon others via law. Liberals try to impose no values upon others via law.
Libertarians believe that values should be determined by the individual and/or their family, upbringing, religion, etc. Either way, the government SHOULDN'T be involved. Government exists only to secure rights and keep each other from violating each other's rights.
...should be your title.
If you want to do TV or radio broadcasts, you have to spend a LOT of money to get through the FCC. This means that the barrier to entry is so high, that the government might as well just write a receipt for each station that says "Permission to Monopolize" on the top of it.
Government is the problem, NOT the solution!
Fortunately the Net has leveled the playing field a bit.
This is an absolute downgrade. Why would I want a propritary format? Why would I want a limited number of plays? Even though it is free, so is P2P but without all of the limitations.
Someone at EMI didn't think this all the way through.
...the Catholic Church doesn't speak for all of us.
Anything that can lead us to more knowledge of the universe, or can get us closer to knowing or understanding our creator, or what caused us to be here is fair game. Why would God give us free will and self awareness along with a huge brain and expect that we bury our heads in the sand? It doesn't make sense.
Organized religion is the bane of any any faith. I consider myself a bit of an intellectual semi-agnostic Judeo-Christian non-interventional deist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
The problem is that none of these firms (cable or telco) operate in the free market. Both cable and telco companies are government granted monopolies.
If the government didn't grant de facto monopolies to these industries, we might actually see REAL competition and innovation.
Broadband over the air, or satellite-based ISPs still have a significant amount of red tape and governmental regulation to go through in order to do business. Thus the barriers to entry are exceptionally high effectively limiting competition.
Regulation 99 times out of 100 is a bad thing. Natural monopolies don't last very long, governmental granted monopolies last a very very long time.
Word gets around, and on the Internet it gets around QUICKLY!
Consumers have MUCH more information available to them these days than they used to. Discussion groups, forums of disgruntled employees, consumer advocacy groups, e-mail lists, DAs, chambers of commerce, the FTC etc etc.
Anyone who is LOOKING for information can more than likely find it.
It wouldn't take long for a service that has been screwing customers for people to start making negative posts on the Net about it.
Actually if you live in the US there IS something wrong with excessive regulation; it goes against the founding principles of this country.
I grew up living in Orlando, and their are one of the worse places in the world for urban sprawl. The problem in their case is a lack of planning for growth; usually as a result of the local government officials being bought and paid for by the developers. The housing market down there is huge, and they let them build new developments without any thought to infrastructure or thru-capacity.
In your steam engine case, yes things may have changed quickly, but the government should not have been involved (unless there was willful malice or intent to cause harm). The free market would've sorted it out if people cared enough. But no one was forced to ride on a train if they thought it was dangerous. Trains that kept killing or injuring people wouldn't have been ridden on for very long.
Free market economics are not a tool, they are a law like physics. They are always there, and they can always be applied. The natural laws of the universe are always relevant and in effect.
You talk about bridges and regulations and such. Most bridges are built by the government or government contractors. Firms that are certified by independent and reputable trade associates can be held accountable according to their affiliation. Think IEEE, UL, API, etc etc. Standards should not be forced, the free and independent market should derive them on its own and the best one will win. That is called natural selection, evolution, and progress.
It's real simple. If someone uses two services, and over the course of a month service A provides 3 dates, and service B provides 8 dates, which service do you think the consumer will continue to spend their money with?
And while you say it is easy to spread false information about a specific service etc (I agree with that), there are always trusted and reputable sources (consumer reports, the DA, your local chamber of commerce, etc) that can provide more credible and verifiable information.
I don't think your point makes any sense.
If you are working a physics problem, the laws of physics still apply. Sometimes things like gravity and wind resistance are negligible to your situation, sometimes they are not and must be factored in. regardless, the fundamental natural laws of physics, or in this case economics, don't change.
New theories can be brought about, and there can indeed be paradigm shifts in the ways of thinking as we as humans progress, nevertheless, the natural laws of the universe are in existence and we have to accept and deal with them and operate within its framework. Natural laws of the universe are very similar to a Michelangelo sculpture. Everything is there, we just need to chip away the excess to get to what's inside.
Which is why you should vote libertarian. They beleive that less government is the best government.
p
For more info:
http://lp.org/issues/issues.shtml
http://cato.org/about/about.html
http://theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_list.ph
Cigarettes?
It's real simple, there is a demand for them. Some people (I don't) see a value in purchasing cancer-sticks. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supplier.
Misinformation and bait-and-switch tactics violate the balance of a fair and informed transaction. In that case everyone involved in deception has caused damage to another party and should pay restitution. It is in the best interest of firms to provide their customers with accurate and honest information. If they don't they risk losing their customers and even a possible lawsuit, or even both.
In your last paragraph I think you miss an important point.
In a free market with little or no regulation/legislation, the barriers to entry are low and practically anyone can start their own firm.
Think of all of the monopolies you can today. Most of them are government-supported. MS is an exception, however the barrier to entry into the OS and software market is relatively low. Most college CS students write their own very limited and basic OS. Think Linux. Think OSx.
Consolidation is a part of the market, but so is competition and startups. Natural monopolies are usually short lived because of competition. Long-living monopolies are usually government granted.
This guy is an asshat troll!
Actually it's not.
Any freshman marketing major will tell you that it is 2x or 3x more expensive to generate new customers than it is to make continued sales to your existing customers.
Also on the consumer side of things, consumers have every tool available to them these days to research firms in order to help them make a better informed decision. The government including the FTC and local DA's are all online. Local chambers of commerce, consumer protection orgs, disgruntled employee forums and customer discussion groups, etc etc.
Outright fraud and deception does indeed violate a consumer's right to a fair transaction. I have no problem with a firm or persons being held accountable for giving false information, deception, committing fraud, etc etc. They have wronged someone and should make restitution and pay damages. But I honestly believe most of the time the free market will take care of these people before it comes to the courts.
The free market is about everyone for themselves. It is about saving and making money.
Consumers try to get the best value for their money. Firms try to maximize profit.
This dating service is a great example. If a service proves only 1 or 2 dates over the course of a month, and another service has provided 5 or 6 dates over the same amount of time, who do you think the consumer will continue to spend their money with?
Firms that do not provide what the market demands, will go out of business. Plain and simple. People who continue to spend their dollars unwisely and make poor decisions will go broke.
The free market DOES work!
Yes - but when people actually use their services, they will quickly see which service provides a better quality experience.
Service A might only provide 1 date a month
Service B might only provide 5 dates a month
Where would you rather spend your money, service A, or service B?