File sharing is the only reason to have broadband.
What a ridiculous statement. Have you ever tried browsing the web on a dialup? I run Debian at home. Do you think I enjoy waiting half a day for my "apt-get upgrade" to finish?
the whole protection of privacy thing is a PR hoax and that they are really worried about the extra operational overhead necessary to hand the RIAA the information it needs
I, for one, would be glad to be able to make legal copies of music and other goods, and only having to pay a small tax on media and (possibly) computer products.
And I'm sure you would have no problem with allowing government to FORCE the same on everyone else, ignoring the fact that other people use these technologies for purposes that have nothing to do with your special interests.
This is exactly how government becomes so expensive, oppressive, and destructive in the first place. Everyone wants their little piece of the pie, which they don't realize comes at the expense of everyone else (or they simply don't give a damn). Pretty soon we end up with a huge web of complex, ambiguous law, the vast majority of which benefit special interests at the expense of everyone else. And with the vast resources now available to those in power (thanks in large part to socialism), they have the ability to wreak havoc around the world, spreading the disease of big government whereever they go, and at the same time creating new problems to solve with big government.
So we all get screwed because of people who all think they're entitled to SOMETHING from government. The only real winner is government itself, which generates incredible profits for those in power, and enjoys the continuous production of new "problems" to solve with even more government.
Of course, those who just want to live their lives in peace and be left the hell alone (me) are the ones who pay the biggest price.
Perhaps because the government has imposed a legal system which is so overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable that only corporations with large resources can afford to sue?
As long as governement doesn't interfere, there will always be competition for Google. Remember, as big as Google becomes, they will never have the right to adopt force as a business model. They must abide by the rules of voluntary association like everyone else. Should government decide to tilt the market via force, then we have something to worry about.
Microsoft is a perfect example of how government contaminates the market with force. Microsoft would never have been able to dominate the market without exploiting the overly complex, ambiguous system of law (including but not limited to IP law) created by government.
Above all, private industry would explore space through voluntary means, while government can only do so through coercion. The voluntary means to the end represents the interests of those who actually provide the funding, while the coercive means to the end represents the interests of those in power (those who seize their funding from others).
But that's the problem with modern business thinkers. It's not about providing a service and seeing if you can get paid for it. It's about controlling channels and leveraging that control.
That is a direct result of big government, and the overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable system of law which naturally accompanies big government. People want a piece of the pie because they see others getting a piece, and they want theirs too. Why try to profit by the rules of voluntary association, as the free market requires, when you can simply profit through the force of government?
The solution is not to bake more pie, as government naturally proposes, but to reduce the size of the pie. Only through strict limits on the size and scope of government will business compete on fair and honest grounds.
Same thing that's been going on since the beginning of time: Power is being abused. It's inevitable. It's guaranteed. History has proven it time and time again, and unfortunately, the people are too willing to forget about it and buy into the propaganda government feeds them.
What is the solution? Limit the power available to government. That is the only possible way to limit the abuse of power. Logically, the smaller the government, the less resources available to them, and the less destruction they are capable of.
I think most people have a very strong sense that creators - authors, composers, inventors, poets, artists, programmers - have some sort of 'ownership' over their creations.
Most people don't consider ideas (including music) as real property that can be "stolen". That's why so many people participate in the P2P music networks (believe it or not, I'm actually not one of them). Like the example that was mentioned earlier, law-abiding individuals don't decline to shoplift because of a fear of getting caught. This assumes that people are dishonest with criminal tendencies by default, and that's absurd. They decline to shoplift because they know that by shoplifting, they are committing real theft (in general terms, initiating force) on somebody else. They make a moral decision not to shoplift, because they know that by doing so, they will be harming others, and they simply don't want to cause harm to others.
Music sharing is already illegal, and it's been illegal for a long time. But still, a lot of people do it, way more people than the number of shoplifters. Why? It's not because it's easier to do without getting caught. It's because they don't consider it an initiation of force. It's the same reason why most people speed a bit on the road, or do the "rolling stop" instead of coming to a complete stop at the sign when the cop's not looking. It's also the reason why, despite decades of violent drug prohibition, people still use drugs. They don't consider it to be an initiation of force, because it's not. It's just a violation of some arbitrary law imposed by government.
"I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built."
That is a logical fallacy. Government doesn't generate it's own revenue; it simply takes it from the people who do. This means that government does not experience loss as private business does. When government sustains a "loss", they in fact profit. Those in power still get paid. Government as a whole gets bigger, no matter what the cash is spent on. A huge percentage of government expense is wasted on administration. (Of course, those in power would never call it a "waste" for obvious reasons.)
When Theo accepts the grant, (1) it does not take money away from other government programs, because it does not affect government's ability to generate more revenue, and (2) it increases the overall scope of government, as any use of taxpayer money does, by simply giving them something to spend money on.
Why do we have so many ridiculous laws in the US today, some of which are downright laughable? Because they all gave government something to spend money on, and they all helped to make government bigger and more expensive. That is the definition of profit for those in power.
I don't understand the overwhelming sympathy for those who steal
Have you considered the possibility that most people DON'T consider music (or thoughts and ideas for that matter) to be property? After all, nobody did until the concept of "intellectual property" was forced on the people by government. The fact is that intellectual property rights were NOT a product of natural social evolution, as traditional property rights are. Perhaps this has something to do with the public's perception of sharing music and whether it's right or wrong?
the relationship between the government and the people tends to get distorted through campaign contributions, the media, large corporations and wealthy individuals
No, the relationship between the government and the people is distorted through POWER. The fact that the majority gets to choose who obtains power does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government.
It is power, and power alone, which allows government to abuse its position. You can change the way campaign conributions work, or the way the media operates, or the way corporations conduct their business, but none of this will change the fact that government is derived from power. That is the root of the problem.
So what can we do to limit the abuse of power? There is only one possible solution: Limit the overall amount of power available to government. Logically, the smaller the government, the less abuse they are capable of. Of course, this stands in direct opposition to the goals of those in power (to increase the value of their business which is government).
personal liberties are being stripped away in some futile attempt to protect us from ourselves
It's not even that complicated.
Power corrupts. It's that simple. Power has been abused since the beginning of time, and as long as power exists, it WILL be abused.This is why I advocate limited government. Logically, the smaller the government, the less destruction they are capable of.
At the root of the issue, government wants bigger government. It's only natural. What business executive wouldn't want to increase the value of their business? The only way to address the continuous expansion of government is to enforce strict limits on the scope of government, as the US constitution was intended.
Right, and the root of the problem is government, not the corporations who are only playing the hand they were dealt by government. If we reduce the government's ability to initiate force (holding them strictly accountable to say, a constitution which limits their powers), then we reduce the corporations' incentive to bribe government into giving them the unfair advantage.
Simply put, everyone wants a piece of the pie (government), because they see everyone else getting a piece of the pie. The solution is to limit the size of the pie, not to continually expand the pie as government intends. (Government's solution to any concievable problem always involves expanding the pie.)
My point is that it is illegal to initiate force for any individual or group (including corporations) BUT government. This is a constant. This is how government has worked since the beginning of time, and this is how government always will work -- force is the essence and first prerequisite of government. If government didn't hold the monopoly on force, it couldn't be government. Non-government groups or individuals who initiate force are called criminals. Corporations, therefore, cannot possibly initiate force UNLESS they are granted that power by government. Otherwise they are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.
There are exactly 2 modes of human interaction possible in this world: voluntary and involuntary. Force includes physical harm or threat of harm, theft, fraud, and in general any involuntary mode of interaction. Everything else is voluntary, and therefore, devoid of force.
This is not in your dictionary because it's not a simple generic definition. It's an objective analysis of exactly what government represents, exactly what everybody else represents, and exactly how the two entities interact.
Please try to educate yourself on the matter before arriving at your conclusion. Libertarianism is not, in any concievable way, derived from (or even related to) anarchy.
Power is defined as the ability to initiate force "legally". This is only possible through government, because government dictates what is "legal" and what is not. A non-government entity which initiates force, as in your hitman example, is criminal and should be dealt with accordingly. So no, you have not proven anything.
It depends on as unrealistic a view of the world as communism does.
Ah, the tired old "we want to have our cake and eat it too" rant. What you're really trying to say is "in general I think freedom is good, although there are some things people do voluntarily that I don't agree with and want government to address with force. Instead of admitting my hipocrasy, I'll just state that both extremes are evil, and therefore we'll just conclude that the only solution is a mix of freedom and oppression, however necessarily arbitrary it is".
Power is defined as the legal ability to initiate force. Microsoft does not posess this power, unless they are granted that power through government.
Your examples of "power" are in fact examples of voluntary association. You are describing a simple change in contract, not an initiation of force. You, as a customer, are free to refuse the offer. Not so with government.
The simple fact is that power begets power. History has proven it time and time again. The only way to prevent government from continually expanding power is to enforce strict limits on the purpose and scope of government, as the founders intended. It was those in power (government), not the people, who threw away the constitution and its limits on government power.
More to the point, the fact that the people choose who obtains power does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government, or dismiss the fact that power begets power.
Money is nothing but a representation of value, used to conduct trade. Trade does not imply (or have anything to do with) power, the ability to initiate force "legally". Logically, power is the product of force, not trade.
Money is simply a representation of trade. Trade does not, in any concievable way, imply the "legal right" to initiate force. Only government holds that power, and only government can grant that power to others.
Better yet, anyone else sick of the governments which make it happen?
Big business has money, but only government can turn that money into power. Without the aid of government, big business would have no more or less power than you or me. Let's address the root of the issue, not the symptoms.
Slashdot Mirror
What a ridiculous statement. Have you ever tried browsing the web on a dialup? I run Debian at home. Do you think I enjoy waiting half a day for my "apt-get upgrade" to finish?
Does it really matter? Both are valid concerns.
And I'm sure you would have no problem with allowing government to FORCE the same on everyone else, ignoring the fact that other people use these technologies for purposes that have nothing to do with your special interests.
This is exactly how government becomes so expensive, oppressive, and destructive in the first place. Everyone wants their little piece of the pie, which they don't realize comes at the expense of everyone else (or they simply don't give a damn). Pretty soon we end up with a huge web of complex, ambiguous law, the vast majority of which benefit special interests at the expense of everyone else. And with the vast resources now available to those in power (thanks in large part to socialism), they have the ability to wreak havoc around the world, spreading the disease of big government whereever they go, and at the same time creating new problems to solve with big government.
So we all get screwed because of people who all think they're entitled to SOMETHING from government. The only real winner is government itself, which generates incredible profits for those in power, and enjoys the continuous production of new "problems" to solve with even more government.
Of course, those who just want to live their lives in peace and be left the hell alone (me) are the ones who pay the biggest price.
Perhaps because the government has imposed a legal system which is so overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable that only corporations with large resources can afford to sue?
It's already worked for those in power -- they just bagged 87 billion dollars for it. Anyone care to guess how much of that goes to administration?
Are you kidding? I have never been on an airplane that averaged less than 100 dB, nor have I ever been on an airplane where I could "lie back".
If you ask me, traveling by airplane is ridiculously uncomfortable, and that ain't about to change anytime soon.
As long as governement doesn't interfere, there will always be competition for Google. Remember, as big as Google becomes, they will never have the right to adopt force as a business model. They must abide by the rules of voluntary association like everyone else. Should government decide to tilt the market via force, then we have something to worry about.
Microsoft is a perfect example of how government contaminates the market with force. Microsoft would never have been able to dominate the market without exploiting the overly complex, ambiguous system of law (including but not limited to IP law) created by government.
Above all, private industry would explore space through voluntary means, while government can only do so through coercion. The voluntary means to the end represents the interests of those who actually provide the funding, while the coercive means to the end represents the interests of those in power (those who seize their funding from others).
That is a direct result of big government, and the overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable system of law which naturally accompanies big government. People want a piece of the pie because they see others getting a piece, and they want theirs too. Why try to profit by the rules of voluntary association, as the free market requires, when you can simply profit through the force of government?
The solution is not to bake more pie, as government naturally proposes, but to reduce the size of the pie. Only through strict limits on the size and scope of government will business compete on fair and honest grounds.
Same thing that's been going on since the beginning of time: Power is being abused. It's inevitable. It's guaranteed. History has proven it time and time again, and unfortunately, the people are too willing to forget about it and buy into the propaganda government feeds them.
What is the solution? Limit the power available to government. That is the only possible way to limit the abuse of power. Logically, the smaller the government, the less resources available to them, and the less destruction they are capable of.
Most people don't consider ideas (including music) as real property that can be "stolen". That's why so many people participate in the P2P music networks (believe it or not, I'm actually not one of them). Like the example that was mentioned earlier, law-abiding individuals don't decline to shoplift because of a fear of getting caught. This assumes that people are dishonest with criminal tendencies by default, and that's absurd. They decline to shoplift because they know that by shoplifting, they are committing real theft (in general terms, initiating force) on somebody else. They make a moral decision not to shoplift, because they know that by doing so, they will be harming others, and they simply don't want to cause harm to others.
Music sharing is already illegal, and it's been illegal for a long time. But still, a lot of people do it, way more people than the number of shoplifters. Why? It's not because it's easier to do without getting caught. It's because they don't consider it an initiation of force. It's the same reason why most people speed a bit on the road, or do the "rolling stop" instead of coming to a complete stop at the sign when the cop's not looking. It's also the reason why, despite decades of violent drug prohibition, people still use drugs. They don't consider it to be an initiation of force, because it's not. It's just a violation of some arbitrary law imposed by government.
That is a logical fallacy. Government doesn't generate it's own revenue; it simply takes it from the people who do. This means that government does not experience loss as private business does. When government sustains a "loss", they in fact profit. Those in power still get paid. Government as a whole gets bigger, no matter what the cash is spent on. A huge percentage of government expense is wasted on administration. (Of course, those in power would never call it a "waste" for obvious reasons.)
When Theo accepts the grant, (1) it does not take money away from other government programs, because it does not affect government's ability to generate more revenue, and (2) it increases the overall scope of government, as any use of taxpayer money does, by simply giving them something to spend money on.
Why do we have so many ridiculous laws in the US today, some of which are downright laughable? Because they all gave government something to spend money on, and they all helped to make government bigger and more expensive. That is the definition of profit for those in power.
Have you considered the possibility that most people DON'T consider music (or thoughts and ideas for that matter) to be property? After all, nobody did until the concept of "intellectual property" was forced on the people by government. The fact is that intellectual property rights were NOT a product of natural social evolution, as traditional property rights are. Perhaps this has something to do with the public's perception of sharing music and whether it's right or wrong?
No, the relationship between the government and the people is distorted through POWER. The fact that the majority gets to choose who obtains power does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government.
It is power, and power alone, which allows government to abuse its position. You can change the way campaign conributions work, or the way the media operates, or the way corporations conduct their business, but none of this will change the fact that government is derived from power. That is the root of the problem.
So what can we do to limit the abuse of power? There is only one possible solution: Limit the overall amount of power available to government. Logically, the smaller the government, the less abuse they are capable of. Of course, this stands in direct opposition to the goals of those in power (to increase the value of their business which is government).
It's not even that complicated.
Power corrupts. It's that simple. Power has been abused since the beginning of time, and as long as power exists, it WILL be abused.This is why I advocate limited government. Logically, the smaller the government, the less destruction they are capable of.
At the root of the issue, government wants bigger government. It's only natural. What business executive wouldn't want to increase the value of their business? The only way to address the continuous expansion of government is to enforce strict limits on the scope of government, as the US constitution was intended.
Right, and the root of the problem is government, not the corporations who are only playing the hand they were dealt by government. If we reduce the government's ability to initiate force (holding them strictly accountable to say, a constitution which limits their powers), then we reduce the corporations' incentive to bribe government into giving them the unfair advantage.
Simply put, everyone wants a piece of the pie (government), because they see everyone else getting a piece of the pie. The solution is to limit the size of the pie, not to continually expand the pie as government intends. (Government's solution to any concievable problem always involves expanding the pie.)
My point is that it is illegal to initiate force for any individual or group (including corporations) BUT government. This is a constant. This is how government has worked since the beginning of time, and this is how government always will work -- force is the essence and first prerequisite of government. If government didn't hold the monopoly on force, it couldn't be government. Non-government groups or individuals who initiate force are called criminals. Corporations, therefore, cannot possibly initiate force UNLESS they are granted that power by government. Otherwise they are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.
There are exactly 2 modes of human interaction possible in this world: voluntary and involuntary. Force includes physical harm or threat of harm, theft, fraud, and in general any involuntary mode of interaction. Everything else is voluntary, and therefore, devoid of force.
This is not in your dictionary because it's not a simple generic definition. It's an objective analysis of exactly what government represents, exactly what everybody else represents, and exactly how the two entities interact.
Please try to educate yourself on the matter before arriving at your conclusion. Libertarianism is not, in any concievable way, derived from (or even related to) anarchy.
Ah, the tired old "we want to have our cake and eat it too" rant. What you're really trying to say is "in general I think freedom is good, although there are some things people do voluntarily that I don't agree with and want government to address with force. Instead of admitting my hipocrasy, I'll just state that both extremes are evil, and therefore we'll just conclude that the only solution is a mix of freedom and oppression, however necessarily arbitrary it is".
Power is defined as the legal ability to initiate force. Microsoft does not posess this power, unless they are granted that power through government.
Your examples of "power" are in fact examples of voluntary association. You are describing a simple change in contract, not an initiation of force. You, as a customer, are free to refuse the offer. Not so with government.
The simple fact is that power begets power. History has proven it time and time again. The only way to prevent government from continually expanding power is to enforce strict limits on the purpose and scope of government, as the founders intended. It was those in power (government), not the people, who threw away the constitution and its limits on government power.
More to the point, the fact that the people choose who obtains power does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government, or dismiss the fact that power begets power.
Money is nothing but a representation of value, used to conduct trade. Trade does not imply (or have anything to do with) power, the ability to initiate force "legally". Logically, power is the product of force, not trade.
Money is simply a representation of trade. Trade does not, in any concievable way, imply the "legal right" to initiate force. Only government holds that power, and only government can grant that power to others.
First, what makes you think government can magically wave the wand of force and turn the product of voluntary association into something better?
Second, although you claim to have reliable telephone service and reasonable rates, my experience with Bell South is exactly the opposite.
Better yet, anyone else sick of the governments which make it happen?
Big business has money, but only government can turn that money into power. Without the aid of government, big business would have no more or less power than you or me. Let's address the root of the issue, not the symptoms.