"If the threat to my liberty is my daughter's asthma, it doesn't matter to me whether she dies because some factory nearby is pumping toxins into the air or because the government forced me to accept socialized medicine which was inferior."
The key erroroneus statement is the notion about the "factory nearby". If you have a child with asthma, and there is a factory that introduces toxins that aggravate that condition, you have the power to move away. You CHOSE to live there, you knew the risks. (this is assuming the factory existed prior to your arrival).
If the factory did not exist prior to arrival, personal property laws (which are guaranteed by the Constitution) when exercised by a community would do much to prevent the buidling of the factory, or in the least, create a "buy-out" situation to cover relocating.
It is often the sloth of the masses that allows the government and business to encroach on liberties. This, of course, is the fault of the individual, not the coporations or government. You lose the right to complain if you do nothing to protect your property or your own rights.
In regards to what I have to assume is an "eron" statement, minus the media buzzword: the overcharge by a corporation, if controlled by consumerism (and free market) are often self-correcting. As in the case of Enron, even with previous bad government policy (see: botched deregulation 101 by prof. Gray Davis) the eventual NON involvement of government allowed for the poor business practice to lead the company into extinction.
The strongest proof to the benefit of a free-market is the rise/fall of the "new economy". Bad ideas with shaky business models have been purged (by and large). Business' with solid models based on REAL economics, and unchecked by massive amounts of (socialist)government regulation are able to thrive.
(for the record - I still hold to my conspiracy theory that the Fed burst the "internet bubble" prematurely on purpose.)
Again, leave the power of choice (the dollar is mightier than the vote, ask a lobbyist)to the consumer and leave the government to it's Constitutional duties.
Regulation need not be by elected officials, it requires only an education on the part of the people. (meaning, you have to get out of the college town coffee house and stop asking the government to do what you won't)...
funny how the more socialist rants I come across the more I laugh.....why is it assumed that a government can be created that will only regulate that which they think is "kewl" ??
First, this article reeked of the usual slashdot socialist nonsense. Then, reading about "psuedo libertarian" malarchy compelled me to respond.
Here's a brief lesson in AVOIDING having liberties threatened by commercial entities. Stop giving money to that entity.
Very simple, eh?
Libertarians stand for free markets, government that operates on the rules outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and personal responsability.
A government that punishes success (anti-monopoly laws, welfare programs, tariffs and protectionism) is no different than the government that invades the home, confiscates weapons, and violates other civil liberties.
You cannot have it one way and not the other. The only way to achieve true market integrity and prevent "uber-corporations" from taking over (a nonsensical conspiracy as it is) is to leave the power of choice to the consumer. This is NOT a role of government, and mandates that government NOT be involved.
The free market only fails when government regulations prevent it from being truly free (see health insurance, et al).
Now, to the issue of the article.
Nowhere is it stated that "downloading is hurting record sales, we need to help the poor wounded record companies".
Rather it states, quite plainly, if people shift thier desired form of media -in this case from CD to strictly MP3- then in the long run CD sales will suffer. This is the EXACT same thing that occured when people shifted from record to 8-track, from 8-track to cassette, and cassette to CD.
Regarding copyright, it merely examines the flaws in current copyright legislation and possible ways to preserve a market where the artist is able to receive adequate compensation for their work.
If ignorance is bliss, then more and more I've determined the mass of slashdot readers must be the happiest people on earth.
Slashdot Mirror
"If the threat to my liberty is my daughter's asthma, it doesn't matter to me whether she dies because some factory nearby is pumping toxins into the air or because the government forced me to accept socialized medicine which was inferior."
The key erroroneus statement is the notion about the "factory nearby". If you have a child with asthma, and there is a factory that introduces toxins that aggravate that condition, you have the power to move away. You CHOSE to live there, you knew the risks. (this is assuming the factory existed prior to your arrival).
If the factory did not exist prior to arrival, personal property laws (which are guaranteed by the Constitution) when exercised by a community would do much to prevent the buidling of the factory, or in the least, create a "buy-out" situation to cover relocating.
It is often the sloth of the masses that allows the government and business to encroach on liberties. This, of course, is the fault of the individual, not the coporations or government. You lose the right to complain if you do nothing to protect your property or your own rights.
In regards to what I have to assume is an "eron" statement, minus the media buzzword: the overcharge by a corporation, if controlled by consumerism (and free market) are often self-correcting. As in the case of Enron, even with previous bad government policy (see: botched deregulation 101 by prof. Gray Davis) the eventual NON involvement of government allowed for the poor business practice to lead the company into extinction.
The strongest proof to the benefit of a free-market is the rise/fall of the "new economy". Bad ideas with shaky business models have been purged (by and large). Business' with solid models based on REAL economics, and unchecked by massive amounts of (socialist)government regulation are able to thrive.
(for the record - I still hold to my conspiracy theory that the Fed burst the "internet bubble" prematurely on purpose.)
Again, leave the power of choice (the dollar is mightier than the vote, ask a lobbyist)to the consumer and leave the government to it's Constitutional duties.
Regulation need not be by elected officials, it requires only an education on the part of the people. (meaning, you have to get out of the college town coffee house and stop asking the government to do what you won't)...
funny how the more socialist rants I come across the more I laugh.....why is it assumed that a government can be created that will only regulate that which they think is "kewl" ??
First, this article reeked of the usual slashdot socialist nonsense. Then, reading about "psuedo libertarian" malarchy compelled me to respond.
Here's a brief lesson in AVOIDING having liberties threatened by commercial entities. Stop giving money to that entity.
Very simple, eh?
Libertarians stand for free markets, government that operates on the rules outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and personal responsability.
A government that punishes success (anti-monopoly laws, welfare programs, tariffs and protectionism) is no different than the government that invades the home, confiscates weapons, and violates other civil liberties.
You cannot have it one way and not the other. The only way to achieve true market integrity and prevent "uber-corporations" from taking over (a nonsensical conspiracy as it is) is to leave the power of choice to the consumer. This is NOT a role of government, and mandates that government NOT be involved.
The free market only fails when government regulations prevent it from being truly free (see health insurance, et al).
Now, to the issue of the article.
Nowhere is it stated that "downloading is hurting record sales, we need to help the poor wounded record companies".
Rather it states, quite plainly, if people shift thier desired form of media -in this case from CD to strictly MP3- then in the long run CD sales will suffer. This is the EXACT same thing that occured when people shifted from record to 8-track, from 8-track to cassette, and cassette to CD.
Regarding copyright, it merely examines the flaws in current copyright legislation and possible ways to preserve a market where the artist is able to receive adequate compensation for their work.
If ignorance is bliss, then more and more I've determined the mass of slashdot readers must be the happiest people on earth.
quoth tha Ranger