And why not have the government gain complete control?
...Where are our civil rights?
I believe you have just answered your own question: freedom is directly proportional to the size of government. If you value your freedom, you'd better think long and hard about the what powers government should and should not hold.
Decrease the size of government, and increase freedom. Increase the size of government, and limit freedom. It has worked this way since the beginning, and it will work this way as long as human society exists.
Good post. I'll add that, at the root of it all, the simple reason why [some] drugs are illegal is because it benefits those in power. Each and every expansion of government, measured not just in tax dollars but civil liberty, represents a net profit for those in power. Rationale? Imagine what would happen if they eliminated the war on drugs: Some very expensive agencies (DEA for example) with very highly paid officials would have to go. The police force would have to be cut in half, since half of them would be sitting around doing nothing. At the root, the federal government would lose a very big chunk of revenue, and you would be able to spend more of your money on what you want, not what government wants. What does all of this spell for government? NET LOSS!
when corporations are overthrown by the starving masses, declared illegal, and their suppressed documents are released, causing a second renaissance and pulling all the world out of the second dark ages
Good luck on that. And don't worry about the little fact that by criminalizing free trade, your government will gain complete, unescapable control over your body, your mind, your behavior, and your entire life in general.
Nope, let's just ignore the fact that government is every bit as self-serving as private business, only with the unique ability to invoke force as a business model.
Yes, I know your comment was meant to be funny. People also laugh about the fact that 99.9% of the population cannot understand the tax code (or what those taxes will be used for), but they shrug their shoulders and pay anyway. Logically, if the vast majority of the people cannot (not "do not want to", but "cannot") understand why or how they're being taxed, we are looking at an accounting scandal that makes the Enron execs look like kids stealing candy from 7-11.
The tools required are money, organization, lawyers, and an utter lack of morality.
You forgot the most important one, the one which makes it all possible in the first place: government. People tend to put the blame on the private organization doing the suing -- but in reality, private organizations are only playing the game which is designed, implemented, and enforced by government.
Eliminate the powers of government which make it possible to use lawsuits as a competitive weapon, and private organizations won't be able to take advantage of the law. Yes, it's that simple, and yes, government is the ultimate root of the problem.
I agree, but what you are suggesting would spell obsolesence for those in power. And they are certainly not about to sacrifice their lucrative positions of power.
As the saying goes, you can't rule a nation of innocents. The more complex and ambiguous the tax code, the more "responsibility" -- hence profit and control -- for those in power. A textbook example of this would be drug prohibition. Any rational, educated individual realizes that drug prohibition creates violent crime (from the resulting black market), requires insane tax rates and police effort, paves the way for corruption in government, destroys civil rights, and in the end, creates more problems than it solves. But again, you can't rule a nation of innocents. Imagine if drug prohibition was abolished -- business-wise, it would be the equivalant of dropping out of a profitable market. Entire government agencies (and the controlling elite) would have to be eliminated. And what business person wants to do that?
It is the logical nature of government to expand. The people who are most interested in gaining power are those who wish to control others -- not those who wish to mind their own business and live in peace. This is precisely why the US government is so overly complex and expensive today: Power and profit for those in control expands proportionately to the size of government (measured not just in tax dollars but liberty). You have probably heard of "political pork", i.e. government designed precisely to benefit those in power by expanding their "responsibilities". In the end, ALL government is "pork" to some degree, because it is impossible that government benefit everybody at the same time (except perhaps for government which protects against force, for example the local police responding to theft). By the reality of human nature, every person represents a unique thinking individual -- and thus a unique opinion on government.
You have to view government as the business it really is, driven by profit and market share like any other business. Those in power are not there to benefit you -- they are there precisely to benefit themselves.
Incidentally, this is the most important flaw in the concept of "government by the people". How can government be both "by those who wish to control others" AND "by those who wish to control themselves" at the same time? It is logically impossible.
In that idyllic place without private ownership, everybody will live and love together, there will be no wars, and everybody will have plenty, of course
I really hope you're joking. A society "without" private ownership is a society based on force (in contrast to a society based on private ownership which is a society based on voluntary association). I put "without" in quotes because if you actually believe that your fantasy society is "without" private ownership than you'd better think long and hard about how you're going to achieve that. Wake up: There is no such thing as "public" ownership. A socialist society is a society owned by those in power, who maintain their ownership by force. "Public ownership" is a flat out myth.
Private ownership is natural. It requires no force, except to defend against force. "Public ownership" (which is really government ownership) is anything but natural, because it requires the initiation of force by definition.
Don't spread FUD. The RIAA (or any private organization) only has the power of coercion if government grants them the power of coercion. Without government, the RIAA (or any private organization) would be equal in power to you, me, and the rest of the private industry. Coercion can only be invoked "legally" by government.
Government is the source of these problems, not private industry. You are barking up the wrong tree if you feel the need to attack the RIAA. They are only as powerful as government makes them.
It interesting that the lack of copyright protection has apparently not hindered the creation of a wide variety of fonts.
It's not just interesting, it's reality. Force (government) does not yield innovation -- freedom yields innovation. Government would have you believe otherwise, of course. In a state of freedom, there isn't much work for those who seek to control others.
When he says there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, he's either lying, or an idiot.
You're not on the same page. The democrats and republicans are equivalant in that they both work towards expanding the scope and power of government (hence, they work towards limiting freedom). They may do it in slightly different ways, but it should be obvious that both major parties prefer big government. Look at the political history of the US over the past century. The US government today is many times more powerful, more expensive, and more opressive than just 100 years ago. Now tell me, what two parties do you think are responsible for this expansion of government?
If we continue to fall into the trap of believing there actually is a difference between the two major parties, where do you think we'll be in another 100 years? (I won't even touch on the fact that the 2 major parties have long worked together to effectively block any third parties from changing the way government works.)
There used to be different import taxes on "dolls" and "toys".
And therein lies the problem: government. This wouldn't have been an issue if the tax code wasn't so complex and biased in the first place. The issue represents yet another blunder from government that, in the end, comes out of the taxpayer's pocket (that's you and me). Government doesn't pay for their mistakes like private business. They simply foot the bill to you and me.
The difference, of course, is that private business gambles with their own money (*). When private business fails, they pay the price. Government, OTOH, gambles with your money. When governemnt fails, more often than not the failed program is rewarded with even more of your money. I agree with the concept of open source government, as long as they are simply changing the license of existing government software -- instead of simply looking for ways to spend more tax money.
* NOTE: In today's world, government is so entangled in private business that private business sometimes does end up gambling with your money. This can take many forms, the most obvious of which is corporate welfare (handouts).
Think the lawmakers will see a need to revise or abolish the DMCA? Fat chance. The DMCA (rather, any law) benefits lawmakers more than it benefits any individual private corporation. This is exactly why the cost of the US government today (measured not just in tax rate but civil rights) dwarfs the cost of the US government only 100 years ago. Lawmakers are human beings who are driven by self-interest, just like any other human being. You need to view government as the profitable business it really is, and realize that lawmakers, like any human being, are driven by the profit incentive.
Look at it this way. If you are in business to devise and force certain behaviors upon the people (which government is), each new law serves to increase your "market share", your worth as a lawmaker (power), and ultimately, your profit.
On a related note, the concept of "government for the people" is illogical and deceptive. Government works for its own interests, always and by definition -- just like any private organization. The difference, of course, is that govennment operates on the business model of coercion, while private organizations operate on the business model of voluntary association (otherwise they are criminals).
Oh my. Please explain why the cost of the US government today (measured in civil rights as well as tax dollars) dwarfs the size of the US government 100 years ago.
Government does *not* regulate itself, precisely because government programs (no matter how ridiculous) always server to benefit those in power. If they didn't benefit those in power, they wouldn't be implemented in the first place. No such thing as a useless, wasteful government program? Wake up and smell the power, my friend.
Four years of experience with the "anti-circumvention" provisions of the DMCA demonstrate that the statute reaches too far, chilling a wide variety of legitimate activities in ways congress did not intend.
Of course they intended it: The DMCA benefits government more than it benefits the corporations who bribed congress into passing it. Any expansion of government yields power and profit for those in control. Government has ultimate control, not the corporations.
When the full-scale "war on drugs" was forced upon the people some 50 years ago, congress fully understood that the consequences would be measured in violent crime (from the resulting black market), loss of civil rights (most of which have nothing to do with drug use), skyrocketing tax rates, and corruption on all levels of government. But they chose to wage war against the people for exactly the same reason they chose to adopt the DMCA: Because it benefits government. Like any business, the primary objective of government is to profit and expand market share. These laws do exactly that.
As the saying goes, you can't rule a nation of innocents. The more laws forced upon the people, the more power and profit yielded for government.
Precisely. The more "responsibilities" (power) government acquires, the more incentive people have to take advantage of it. Think we have a problem with large corporations attempting to bribe politicians today? Well here's the sole reason why: Because government provides the incentive.
Sometimes, the burden for getting something done should be placed on the person who needs it, not the government.
The burden is not on the government. The burden is on the people who are forced to pay for government. Government cannot be "burdened" because government doesn't generate their own revenue through voluntary association. This is precisely why failed government programs (Amtrak for instance) are typically rewarded with more funding instead of facing the consequences of failed investment. The failed investment does not represent a burden when the money you invested wasn't yours in the first place.
I certainly agree with your assertion that people should take responsibility for their own wants and needs. A market-based economy represents the choices of the people themselves. A government-based economy represents the choices of those in power.
Re:Principles of Un-enforceable Rules
on
You Can't Link Here
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'd like to point out the simple reason why these ridiculous laws exist: Government is a business operated by human beings who are driven by self-interest, just like every other human being. The primary objective of business is to profit and expand market share. Each and every one of these ridiculous laws does just that -- they increase the scope and cost of government (measured not just in tax dollars but civil liberty), thereby increasing profit and market share for those in power.
Accordingly, the percentage of politicians who intend to expand the powers of government is much higher than the percentage who intend to limit the powers of government. Those who prefer to mind their own business and take responsibility for their own lives aren't nearly as interested in gaining power as those who want to control others. This is precisely why governments tend to expand throughout their existence, and precisely why the US government costs more today (in terms of both tax dollars and civil liberty) than it did in the past.
And the focus of the American government should be to promote the interests of U.S. citizens
No, the focus of the US government should be to protect the civil rights of US citizens. When government is applied to social "problems", the solution benefits only some at the expense of all others. In this scenario, you can expect waste, inefficiency, corruption, and oppression -- just like we have today in the US.
The problem: As soon as you say "OK", or even "what are you trying to sell me", that's an affirmative. This is a signal to the telemarketer that the "customer" (victim) is at least mildly interested, and you can bet this goes into their statistics.
What I do is say "hold on a minute, my water's boiling" (or similar) and then just leave them hanging. That's it. The way I see it, if they're going to waste my time, I'm going to waste theirs too. Hopefully they hold for at least 2 minutes before figuring it out. And mind you, this is probably one of the best ways to piss off the telemarketer. Hopefully I've "convinced" a few of them to quit this nonsense and get a respectable job.
Simple: Because they make the laws. Those who have power use it to their advantage. Politicians are human beings driven by self-interest, just like everybody else. The difference, again, is that they make the laws (i.e. they have the power to intiate force which private citizens do not). The fact that politicians exempt themselves from the same rules they impose on the people is no surprise to me.
Another example would be the lottery. Gambling in most states is prohibited -- except for government! Somehow, when 2 private parties mutually agree to engage in gambling, it's a danger to all other individual members of society so great it requires prohibition. Yet, when government provides the gambling service (and reaps the profits of course), there's absolutly nothing wrong.
Another example would be the US post office. Here is a for-profit organization which benefits from the force of government, in the form of government-mandated monopoly. Or how about Amtrak? If Amtrak was a private organization, they would have went bankrupt a long, long time ago. But -- with the magical help of coercion -- Amtrak keeps scraping along due to handouts from their parent company (the US government).
There are certainly ethical ways to do things that don't necesarilly require banning large areas of research.
The most ethical of which is to keep government out of science completely. Given a choice of whether to (a) force the people to support research, (b) force people to abandon research, or (c) let the people decide for themselves how to spend thier efforts, it should be obvious that freedom is the clearest path to scientific advancement, and the only one which is fair to everybody.
If you think that society will fall apart without the stratifying influence of capitalism, and that the idea of intellectual property is necessary
Intellectual property is not a requirement of capitalism, and certainly not a product of the free market. IP is a product of government, because it could not possibly exist without government. It could be argued that IP represents a constraint on the economic model of free trade, rather than a benifit as many people suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you have just answered your own question: freedom is directly proportional to the size of government. If you value your freedom, you'd better think long and hard about the what powers government should and should not hold.
Decrease the size of government, and increase freedom. Increase the size of government, and limit freedom. It has worked this way since the beginning, and it will work this way as long as human society exists.
Sure he did -- I believe his exact words were "when corporations are declared illegal...".
Good post. I'll add that, at the root of it all, the simple reason why [some] drugs are illegal is because it benefits those in power. Each and every expansion of government, measured not just in tax dollars but civil liberty, represents a net profit for those in power. Rationale? Imagine what would happen if they eliminated the war on drugs: Some very expensive agencies (DEA for example) with very highly paid officials would have to go. The police force would have to be cut in half, since half of them would be sitting around doing nothing. At the root, the federal government would lose a very big chunk of revenue, and you would be able to spend more of your money on what you want, not what government wants. What does all of this spell for government? NET LOSS!
Good luck on that. And don't worry about the little fact that by criminalizing free trade, your government will gain complete, unescapable control over your body, your mind, your behavior, and your entire life in general.
Nope, let's just ignore the fact that government is every bit as self-serving as private business, only with the unique ability to invoke force as a business model.
Yes, I know your comment was meant to be funny. People also laugh about the fact that 99.9% of the population cannot understand the tax code (or what those taxes will be used for), but they shrug their shoulders and pay anyway. Logically, if the vast majority of the people cannot (not "do not want to", but "cannot") understand why or how they're being taxed, we are looking at an accounting scandal that makes the Enron execs look like kids stealing candy from 7-11.
You forgot the most important one, the one which makes it all possible in the first place: government. People tend to put the blame on the private organization doing the suing -- but in reality, private organizations are only playing the game which is designed, implemented, and enforced by government.
Eliminate the powers of government which make it possible to use lawsuits as a competitive weapon, and private organizations won't be able to take advantage of the law. Yes, it's that simple, and yes, government is the ultimate root of the problem.
I agree, but what you are suggesting would spell obsolesence for those in power. And they are certainly not about to sacrifice their lucrative positions of power.
As the saying goes, you can't rule a nation of innocents. The more complex and ambiguous the tax code, the more "responsibility" -- hence profit and control -- for those in power. A textbook example of this would be drug prohibition. Any rational, educated individual realizes that drug prohibition creates violent crime (from the resulting black market), requires insane tax rates and police effort, paves the way for corruption in government, destroys civil rights, and in the end, creates more problems than it solves. But again, you can't rule a nation of innocents. Imagine if drug prohibition was abolished -- business-wise, it would be the equivalant of dropping out of a profitable market. Entire government agencies (and the controlling elite) would have to be eliminated. And what business person wants to do that?
It is the logical nature of government to expand. The people who are most interested in gaining power are those who wish to control others -- not those who wish to mind their own business and live in peace. This is precisely why the US government is so overly complex and expensive today: Power and profit for those in control expands proportionately to the size of government (measured not just in tax dollars but liberty). You have probably heard of "political pork", i.e. government designed precisely to benefit those in power by expanding their "responsibilities". In the end, ALL government is "pork" to some degree, because it is impossible that government benefit everybody at the same time (except perhaps for government which protects against force, for example the local police responding to theft). By the reality of human nature, every person represents a unique thinking individual -- and thus a unique opinion on government.
You have to view government as the business it really is, driven by profit and market share like any other business. Those in power are not there to benefit you -- they are there precisely to benefit themselves.
Incidentally, this is the most important flaw in the concept of "government by the people". How can government be both "by those who wish to control others" AND "by those who wish to control themselves" at the same time? It is logically impossible.
Apologies for misunderstanding you post!
I really hope you're joking. A society "without" private ownership is a society based on force (in contrast to a society based on private ownership which is a society based on voluntary association). I put "without" in quotes because if you actually believe that your fantasy society is "without" private ownership than you'd better think long and hard about how you're going to achieve that. Wake up: There is no such thing as "public" ownership. A socialist society is a society owned by those in power, who maintain their ownership by force. "Public ownership" is a flat out myth.
Private ownership is natural. It requires no force, except to defend against force. "Public ownership" (which is really government ownership) is anything but natural, because it requires the initiation of force by definition.
Don't spread FUD. The RIAA (or any private organization) only has the power of coercion if government grants them the power of coercion. Without government, the RIAA (or any private organization) would be equal in power to you, me, and the rest of the private industry. Coercion can only be invoked "legally" by government.
Government is the source of these problems, not private industry. You are barking up the wrong tree if you feel the need to attack the RIAA. They are only as powerful as government makes them.
It's not just interesting, it's reality. Force (government) does not yield innovation -- freedom yields innovation. Government would have you believe otherwise, of course. In a state of freedom, there isn't much work for those who seek to control others.
You're not on the same page. The democrats and republicans are equivalant in that they both work towards expanding the scope and power of government (hence, they work towards limiting freedom). They may do it in slightly different ways, but it should be obvious that both major parties prefer big government. Look at the political history of the US over the past century. The US government today is many times more powerful, more expensive, and more opressive than just 100 years ago. Now tell me, what two parties do you think are responsible for this expansion of government?
If we continue to fall into the trap of believing there actually is a difference between the two major parties, where do you think we'll be in another 100 years? (I won't even touch on the fact that the 2 major parties have long worked together to effectively block any third parties from changing the way government works.)
And therein lies the problem: government. This wouldn't have been an issue if the tax code wasn't so complex and biased in the first place. The issue represents yet another blunder from government that, in the end, comes out of the taxpayer's pocket (that's you and me). Government doesn't pay for their mistakes like private business. They simply foot the bill to you and me.
The difference, of course, is that private business gambles with their own money (*). When private business fails, they pay the price. Government, OTOH, gambles with your money. When governemnt fails, more often than not the failed program is rewarded with even more of your money. I agree with the concept of open source government, as long as they are simply changing the license of existing government software -- instead of simply looking for ways to spend more tax money.
* NOTE: In today's world, government is so entangled in private business that private business sometimes does end up gambling with your money. This can take many forms, the most obvious of which is corporate welfare (handouts).
Think the lawmakers will see a need to revise or abolish the DMCA? Fat chance. The DMCA (rather, any law) benefits lawmakers more than it benefits any individual private corporation. This is exactly why the cost of the US government today (measured not just in tax rate but civil rights) dwarfs the cost of the US government only 100 years ago. Lawmakers are human beings who are driven by self-interest, just like any other human being. You need to view government as the profitable business it really is, and realize that lawmakers, like any human being, are driven by the profit incentive.
Look at it this way. If you are in business to devise and force certain behaviors upon the people (which government is), each new law serves to increase your "market share", your worth as a lawmaker (power), and ultimately, your profit.
On a related note, the concept of "government for the people" is illogical and deceptive. Government works for its own interests, always and by definition -- just like any private organization. The difference, of course, is that govennment operates on the business model of coercion, while private organizations operate on the business model of voluntary association (otherwise they are criminals).
Oh my. Please explain why the cost of the US government today (measured in civil rights as well as tax dollars) dwarfs the size of the US government 100 years ago.
Government does *not* regulate itself, precisely because government programs (no matter how ridiculous) always server to benefit those in power. If they didn't benefit those in power, they wouldn't be implemented in the first place. No such thing as a useless, wasteful government program? Wake up and smell the power, my friend.
Of course they intended it: The DMCA benefits government more than it benefits the corporations who bribed congress into passing it. Any expansion of government yields power and profit for those in control. Government has ultimate control, not the corporations.
When the full-scale "war on drugs" was forced upon the people some 50 years ago, congress fully understood that the consequences would be measured in violent crime (from the resulting black market), loss of civil rights (most of which have nothing to do with drug use), skyrocketing tax rates, and corruption on all levels of government. But they chose to wage war against the people for exactly the same reason they chose to adopt the DMCA: Because it benefits government. Like any business, the primary objective of government is to profit and expand market share. These laws do exactly that.
As the saying goes, you can't rule a nation of innocents. The more laws forced upon the people, the more power and profit yielded for government.
Precisely. The more "responsibilities" (power) government acquires, the more incentive people have to take advantage of it. Think we have a problem with large corporations attempting to bribe politicians today? Well here's the sole reason why: Because government provides the incentive.
The burden is not on the government. The burden is on the people who are forced to pay for government. Government cannot be "burdened" because government doesn't generate their own revenue through voluntary association. This is precisely why failed government programs (Amtrak for instance) are typically rewarded with more funding instead of facing the consequences of failed investment. The failed investment does not represent a burden when the money you invested wasn't yours in the first place.
I certainly agree with your assertion that people should take responsibility for their own wants and needs. A market-based economy represents the choices of the people themselves. A government-based economy represents the choices of those in power.
Accordingly, the percentage of politicians who intend to expand the powers of government is much higher than the percentage who intend to limit the powers of government. Those who prefer to mind their own business and take responsibility for their own lives aren't nearly as interested in gaining power as those who want to control others. This is precisely why governments tend to expand throughout their existence, and precisely why the US government costs more today (in terms of both tax dollars and civil liberty) than it did in the past.
No, the focus of the US government should be to protect the civil rights of US citizens. When government is applied to social "problems", the solution benefits only some at the expense of all others. In this scenario, you can expect waste, inefficiency, corruption, and oppression -- just like we have today in the US.
The problem: As soon as you say "OK", or even "what are you trying to sell me", that's an affirmative. This is a signal to the telemarketer that the "customer" (victim) is at least mildly interested, and you can bet this goes into their statistics. What I do is say "hold on a minute, my water's boiling" (or similar) and then just leave them hanging. That's it. The way I see it, if they're going to waste my time, I'm going to waste theirs too. Hopefully they hold for at least 2 minutes before figuring it out. And mind you, this is probably one of the best ways to piss off the telemarketer. Hopefully I've "convinced" a few of them to quit this nonsense and get a respectable job.
Simple: Because they make the laws. Those who have power use it to their advantage. Politicians are human beings driven by self-interest, just like everybody else. The difference, again, is that they make the laws (i.e. they have the power to intiate force which private citizens do not). The fact that politicians exempt themselves from the same rules they impose on the people is no surprise to me.
Another example would be the lottery. Gambling in most states is prohibited -- except for government! Somehow, when 2 private parties mutually agree to engage in gambling, it's a danger to all other individual members of society so great it requires prohibition. Yet, when government provides the gambling service (and reaps the profits of course), there's absolutly nothing wrong.
Another example would be the US post office. Here is a for-profit organization which benefits from the force of government, in the form of government-mandated monopoly. Or how about Amtrak? If Amtrak was a private organization, they would have went bankrupt a long, long time ago. But -- with the magical help of coercion -- Amtrak keeps scraping along due to handouts from their parent company (the US government).
The most ethical of which is to keep government out of science completely. Given a choice of whether to (a) force the people to support research, (b) force people to abandon research, or (c) let the people decide for themselves how to spend thier efforts, it should be obvious that freedom is the clearest path to scientific advancement, and the only one which is fair to everybody.
Intellectual property is not a requirement of capitalism, and certainly not a product of the free market. IP is a product of government, because it could not possibly exist without government. It could be argued that IP represents a constraint on the economic model of free trade, rather than a benifit as many people suggest.