I think both Airbus and Boeing use government subsidies to prevent fair competition
That is exactly what subsidies do: they contaminate the market with force (government) in order to benefit some group (special interests) at the expense of everyone else.
The free market is built on the principle of voluntary association -- nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume, and nobody may forcibly prevent either from occurring. Subsidies are the exact opposite: the producers are forced to produce according to the demands of government, and the consumers are forced to fund the whole scheme. (Of course, like all redistribution of wealth, government keeps a profit for themselves.)
Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Aren't our rights supposed to be first and foremost in their minds?
That's what the statist claims, of course. That's the justification for all government, is it not?
The simple truth is that all individuals are driven by self-interest. The act of being elected to public office (chosen to posess the unique "right" to initiate force) does not change the laws of human nature. Individuals in government are driven by self-interest, just like any other individual.
It's not hard to see why government has a tendency to expand its powers over time. There is a simple reason why the US government today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago: because it benefits those in power.
My point? Always question the motives of those in power. US patent law is sloppy, ambiguous, and highly expoitable for one simple reason: because it expands the scope and cost of government.
OK, sounds good. Here's another link I should have provided: the LP's official Issues page. This should put the Libertarian stance into perspective, addressing real issues and not just philosophy. Just to clarify, I am not a member of the LP myself, I am actually what you'd call an anarcho-capitalist. The Libertarian philosophy, however, is much closer to my own philosophy than other statist philosophies (those which believe that the initiation of force is necessary to achieve justice).
Listen to any computer commercial, and they pretty much all have those 5 co-advertising tones at the end. That's monopoly power, that's market clout.
Market influence, sure. Monopoly power? Give me a break. Last I heard, Intel has about 75% market share (correct me if I'm wrong). That's 25 points short of my definition of monopoly. What exactly is your definition of monopoly?
Now we're getting somewhere. Extortion certainly qualifies as an initiation of force. (Influence still does not.) If they're guilty of extortion, then they have committed a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.
Don't over-analyze what I've said. It's a simple, unambiguous concept. A man who holds a gun to my head threatens me with force. This is an example of involuntary human interaction.
Microsoft has a high level of market influence, I'm not going to argue that. But influence does not equate to force. Force includes theft, murder, extortion, blackmail, fraud, harrassment, etc -- all examples of involuntary interaction. Influence is an example of voluntary interaction.
You could write a book on it; in fact many people have. To make a long story dangerously short, voluntary association is a more productive, more just, more logical model of social interaction than involuntary association (government).
Refer to libertarian.org for a short, concise intro to libertarian philosophy (it's not long, I promise).
Way to build up the straw man. Of course organizations besides government can be corrupt: otherwise "street criminals" (non-government initiators of force) would not exist.
Let's put away the dictionary and analyze this issue from a common-sense perspective.
Human interaction is the basic unit (building block) of all economics, government, and personal relations. Without human interaction, there wouldn't be a reason to discuss what we're discussing right now, nor would there be a means to discuss it. Wealth, knowledge, and market presence (among other concepts) have no bearing on our lives and no logical meaning without human interaction. The issue is not what arbitary definitions the dictionary offers for "power" -- the issue is how "power" is applied to human interaction.
There are exactly two modes of human interaction possible: voluntary and involuntary. Every single interaction you engage in throughout your life -- working, playing, grocery shopping, holding a conversation, being mugged on the street -- every interaction must fall into exactly one of these two categories. Either the interaction was voluntary (meaning that no force was invoked and that no violation of individual soverignty has occurred), or the interaction was involuntary (meaning that force was applied as a means to an end, thereby violating individual soverignty). There is no logical exception to this rule.
Power, applied to human interaction, can only be defined as the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end: the "right" to engage an involuntary interaction, thereby violating individual soverignty. This is a clean, unambiguous concept. Those individuals who posess this "right" to initiate force hold power; those individuals who don't posess the "right" do not hold power.
Does Microsoft have influence on other people? Yes, of course. Do they posess the "right" to "influence" other people by invoking force? No, certainly not.
First, Microsoft holds no actual power (the ability to initiate force as a means to an end). Only government holds actual power. What Microsoft holds is market presence. Government may initiate force on behalf of Microsoft, but if Microsoft initiates force without the "blessing" of government, they are criminals.
Second, Microsoft (like many corporations) acquired their market presence largely by exploiting the law. But the law is only exploitable because it is overly complex, ambiguous, and catered towards special interests -- a direct result of big government. A libertarian government, being strictly limited in power, wouldn't be able to "assist" corporations in this way -- corporations would have to compete soley on the grounds of voluntary association.
I suggest you do a search on mises.org for a much better analysis than I can provide.
It's worth saying again: Individuals in power (government) are driven by self interest, just like every other individual. The difference is that government holds the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the common individual does not.
Power is guaranteed to be corrupted, I agree. But under a Libertarian (limited) government, the ability of those in power to abuse their powers would be limited. Corruption is proportional to the size of government (the amount of power that exists).
The very existance of Open Source software demonstrates that motives other than profit can produce a public benefit and proliferation of knowledge.
I just want to clarify a few things. The profit incentive does not necessarily refer to raw dollars or material posessions. A profit incentive could be represented by (for example) gained experience, acknowledgement, or the simple satisfaction of working. What the profit incentive implies is not wealth, but that individuals chose to work for themselves, for their own benefit. Some call this "selfishness" or "greed", as if it's a negative quality and should be denounced. Objectivists like myself call it human nature, and the driving force behind all social, technological, and economic advancements.
Contrary to what you're saying, open source developers work on their projects not to please "society" -- they work for their own individual benefit, just like every other individual who voluntarily chooses to work. (What sane individual would voluntarily act against their best interest?) And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
But here is my prediction: Tougher anti-spam legislation will be used as a power-grab by the US feds.
There's no question about that. There is a reason why the US government today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, in scope, cost, and power over the people: Because it benefits those in power. Business as usual.
They found they can get rich by a little bend here, a loophole there, and a tiny little bit of fraud over here. Since everyone is happy when shares go up, a whistleblower is ostracized since they might hurt the value of the stock!
As you say, of course, most consumers don't have access to the original master. But that's no reason to proclaim that "lossless" encoding is the be-all and end-all of audio compression.
But, for audio of any bitrate, you can't possibly do better than an exact digital copy, i.e. lossless compression. It's the end of the line -- you either have an exact digital copy, or you don't. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a high-bitrate recording master or a noisy low-bitrate mp3 -- you can't possibly do any better than an exact digital copy. Right?
If recording studios released music compressed from the original masters with AAC at 669 kbit/sec, the accuracy of sound reproduction would definitely beat FLAC at the same bitrate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AAC is lossy. If they had a lossless format which preserved the original high-bitrate recording exactly, then it would have to beat AAC.
the original master copy is stored at a significantly higher bitrate than 44kHz/16 bit CD quality
I understand what you're saying, but as far as the consumer is concerned, the consumer product is the master lossless copy. How many consumers actually have access to the producer's master recording (DAT for example), let alone the hardware required to make any use of it? For all intents and purposes, the consumer audio CD is the standard master lossless copy. For that reason, it's worth preserving -- and that's what lossless compression is all about.
Right on. I have my entire music collection on my hard disk in FLAC format (about 60GB). Not only is it a great backup solution, it's the ultimate jukebox when you hook it up to the stereo. Having 2000 songs from 200 CD's play randomly always impresses the guests. You'll hear music you never knew you had, or forgot about a long time ago!
Considering that most people couldnt tell the difference
Being able to tell the difference is really besides the point. Lossless is better simply because it's an exact duplicate of the original, master digital copy. If you have the original master, you can make first-generation mp3's or convert to any other audio format with just a few clicks -- and you can always go back to the master. It's the holy grail. Vendors will advertise this advantage, and it's only a matter of time before the public gains at least a basic understanding of lossless vs. lossy compression. (A good analogy for Joe Sixpack would be CD-quality audio vs. analog cassette tapes.)
As you said, the only thing holding lossless back is bandwidth and disk space. Eventually, when bandwidth and disk space get big/cheap enough, lossless will take over. Lossy will stick around for a while, but as time goes on its uses will be eclipsed by the evolution of bandwidth and disks.
you aren't allowed to re-record the copy for either backup purposes or personal use
If that's true, then the law is wrong, and the only solution is civil disobedience. If I obtained a music recording legally, then I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me I can't back it up or convert it to MP3 to play in my car.
The issue is not so much whether you can hear it or not, the issue is that you lose actual data (introducing error into the file) with each lossy "generation", just like a JPEG photo. The point is that by converting from one lossy format to another, you are throwing away data twice over, and there's no "right" way to do this. It's a kludge, not a real solution. If you insist on doing this (perhaps to free yourself from a proprietrary or DRM-crippled format), then make sure to mark them as 2nd generation lossy before somebody tries it a third time.
Slashdot Mirror
That is exactly what subsidies do: they contaminate the market with force (government) in order to benefit some group (special interests) at the expense of everyone else.
The free market is built on the principle of voluntary association -- nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume, and nobody may forcibly prevent either from occurring. Subsidies are the exact opposite: the producers are forced to produce according to the demands of government, and the consumers are forced to fund the whole scheme. (Of course, like all redistribution of wealth, government keeps a profit for themselves.)
That's what the statist claims, of course. That's the justification for all government, is it not?
The simple truth is that all individuals are driven by self-interest. The act of being elected to public office (chosen to posess the unique "right" to initiate force) does not change the laws of human nature. Individuals in government are driven by self-interest, just like any other individual.
It's not hard to see why government has a tendency to expand its powers over time. There is a simple reason why the US government today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago: because it benefits those in power.
My point? Always question the motives of those in power. US patent law is sloppy, ambiguous, and highly expoitable for one simple reason: because it expands the scope and cost of government.
OK, sounds good. Here's another link I should have provided: the LP's official Issues page. This should put the Libertarian stance into perspective, addressing real issues and not just philosophy. Just to clarify, I am not a member of the LP myself, I am actually what you'd call an anarcho-capitalist. The Libertarian philosophy, however, is much closer to my own philosophy than other statist philosophies (those which believe that the initiation of force is necessary to achieve justice).
How exactly does voluntarily choosing to work equate to exploitation?
Market influence, sure. Monopoly power? Give me a break. Last I heard, Intel has about 75% market share (correct me if I'm wrong). That's 25 points short of my definition of monopoly. What exactly is your definition of monopoly?
Now we're getting somewhere. Extortion certainly qualifies as an initiation of force. (Influence still does not.) If they're guilty of extortion, then they have committed a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.
Don't over-analyze what I've said. It's a simple, unambiguous concept. A man who holds a gun to my head threatens me with force. This is an example of involuntary human interaction.
Microsoft has a high level of market influence, I'm not going to argue that. But influence does not equate to force. Force includes theft, murder, extortion, blackmail, fraud, harrassment, etc -- all examples of involuntary interaction. Influence is an example of voluntary interaction.
Refer to libertarian.org for a short, concise intro to libertarian philosophy (it's not long, I promise).
Way to build up the straw man. Of course organizations besides government can be corrupt: otherwise "street criminals" (non-government initiators of force) would not exist.
Let's put away the dictionary and analyze this issue from a common-sense perspective.
Human interaction is the basic unit (building block) of all economics, government, and personal relations. Without human interaction, there wouldn't be a reason to discuss what we're discussing right now, nor would there be a means to discuss it. Wealth, knowledge, and market presence (among other concepts) have no bearing on our lives and no logical meaning without human interaction. The issue is not what arbitary definitions the dictionary offers for "power" -- the issue is how "power" is applied to human interaction.
There are exactly two modes of human interaction possible: voluntary and involuntary. Every single interaction you engage in throughout your life -- working, playing, grocery shopping, holding a conversation, being mugged on the street -- every interaction must fall into exactly one of these two categories. Either the interaction was voluntary (meaning that no force was invoked and that no violation of individual soverignty has occurred), or the interaction was involuntary (meaning that force was applied as a means to an end, thereby violating individual soverignty). There is no logical exception to this rule.
Power, applied to human interaction, can only be defined as the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end: the "right" to engage an involuntary interaction, thereby violating individual soverignty. This is a clean, unambiguous concept. Those individuals who posess this "right" to initiate force hold power; those individuals who don't posess the "right" do not hold power.
Does Microsoft have influence on other people? Yes, of course. Do they posess the "right" to "influence" other people by invoking force? No, certainly not.
Second, Microsoft (like many corporations) acquired their market presence largely by exploiting the law. But the law is only exploitable because it is overly complex, ambiguous, and catered towards special interests -- a direct result of big government. A libertarian government, being strictly limited in power, wouldn't be able to "assist" corporations in this way -- corporations would have to compete soley on the grounds of voluntary association.
I suggest you do a search on mises.org for a much better analysis than I can provide.
It's worth saying again: Individuals in power (government) are driven by self interest, just like every other individual. The difference is that government holds the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the common individual does not.
Power is guaranteed to be corrupted, I agree. But under a Libertarian (limited) government, the ability of those in power to abuse their powers would be limited. Corruption is proportional to the size of government (the amount of power that exists).
Nice try, but you're describing market interventionists, not free market "ideologues". Way to set up the straw man argument.
No, it gets passed as law because government accepts the bribe. Government holds the key.
I just want to clarify a few things. The profit incentive does not necessarily refer to raw dollars or material posessions. A profit incentive could be represented by (for example) gained experience, acknowledgement, or the simple satisfaction of working. What the profit incentive implies is not wealth, but that individuals chose to work for themselves, for their own benefit. Some call this "selfishness" or "greed", as if it's a negative quality and should be denounced. Objectivists like myself call it human nature, and the driving force behind all social, technological, and economic advancements.
Contrary to what you're saying, open source developers work on their projects not to please "society" -- they work for their own individual benefit, just like every other individual who voluntarily chooses to work. (What sane individual would voluntarily act against their best interest?) And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
There's no question about that. There is a reason why the US government today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, in scope, cost, and power over the people: Because it benefits those in power. Business as usual.
Sounds a lot like government.
But, for audio of any bitrate, you can't possibly do better than an exact digital copy, i.e. lossless compression. It's the end of the line -- you either have an exact digital copy, or you don't. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a high-bitrate recording master or a noisy low-bitrate mp3 -- you can't possibly do any better than an exact digital copy. Right?
If recording studios released music compressed from the original masters with AAC at 669 kbit/sec, the accuracy of sound reproduction would definitely beat FLAC at the same bitrate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AAC is lossy. If they had a lossless format which preserved the original high-bitrate recording exactly, then it would have to beat AAC.
I understand what you're saying, but as far as the consumer is concerned, the consumer product is the master lossless copy. How many consumers actually have access to the producer's master recording (DAT for example), let alone the hardware required to make any use of it? For all intents and purposes, the consumer audio CD is the standard master lossless copy. For that reason, it's worth preserving -- and that's what lossless compression is all about.
Right on. I have my entire music collection on my hard disk in FLAC format (about 60GB). Not only is it a great backup solution, it's the ultimate jukebox when you hook it up to the stereo. Having 2000 songs from 200 CD's play randomly always impresses the guests. You'll hear music you never knew you had, or forgot about a long time ago!
As I was saying, being able to tell the difference is besides the point.
Being able to tell the difference is really besides the point. Lossless is better simply because it's an exact duplicate of the original, master digital copy. If you have the original master, you can make first-generation mp3's or convert to any other audio format with just a few clicks -- and you can always go back to the master. It's the holy grail. Vendors will advertise this advantage, and it's only a matter of time before the public gains at least a basic understanding of lossless vs. lossy compression. (A good analogy for Joe Sixpack would be CD-quality audio vs. analog cassette tapes.)
As you said, the only thing holding lossless back is bandwidth and disk space. Eventually, when bandwidth and disk space get big/cheap enough, lossless will take over. Lossy will stick around for a while, but as time goes on its uses will be eclipsed by the evolution of bandwidth and disks.
If that's true, then the law is wrong, and the only solution is civil disobedience. If I obtained a music recording legally, then I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me I can't back it up or convert it to MP3 to play in my car.
The issue is not so much whether you can hear it or not, the issue is that you lose actual data (introducing error into the file) with each lossy "generation", just like a JPEG photo. The point is that by converting from one lossy format to another, you are throwing away data twice over, and there's no "right" way to do this. It's a kludge, not a real solution. If you insist on doing this (perhaps to free yourself from a proprietrary or DRM-crippled format), then make sure to mark them as 2nd generation lossy before somebody tries it a third time.