Let me guess who foots the bill for this: the end-user. Either the government funds it, and gets the money through increased taxation, or the government forces the ISP to pay for all the data storage, and the ISP has to pass the cost on to the customer to stay in business. Either way, citizens are paying for themselves to be monitored.
I find it hilarious that - in order to defend "men of ideas" - you linked to an obviously illegal copy of an essay.
Ahh, you're right, my apologies. I'm usually good about that too, but slipped up here. A few months ago I threw out my entire collection of copied CDs/DVDs - at least 300 in total. I'm still working to integrate it into everything I do.
Are you trying to say the US system, in which about 80% of the population is sacrificed so that upper management can receive their bonuses, is so much better?
Which "US system" is that? We haven't had laissez-faire capitalism, although we've come close in the past.
It is impossible to have any kind of society in which every single member believes that their rights are not somehow violated.
Bald assertion. What is this based on? If everyone understands the source of individual rights, and likewise understands what those rights are, people may claim their rights are violated (anyone can claim anything, of course), but they wouldn't be able to show it to be true in a court of law.
I actually have a question: do you support taxes or tariffs for the purpose of providing the military, police, and courts?
I support moving our current system towards that, however no, I do not support that as an end in itself. Taxes should be voluntary.
Assuming you have a society that regards things like health care and education as human rights, how can you justify the former and not the latter?
Those are not valid rights, for they require the violation of valid rights in order to be provided. There is a *need* for education and an *need* for healthcare, but not a *right* to either. The same goes for food, or any other material good.
If that's the case, then why does research show that people in those countries have a relative economic mobility equal to or greater than those in the United States? It would seem that the policies in the countries that the grandparent cited are affording their citizens more freedom to achieve their goals and values, if the data is any indication.
Have you read Watership Down? Your comment reminds me of the rabbit farm, in which all the rabbits live happily and are well-fed, but occasionally have to give up one of their own to be slaughtered. The situations are equivalent in that the rights of certain individuals are being sacrificed to benefit everyone else. That the majority somehow fares better as a result is no justification for the means of their affluence. This is the sacrifice of the minority to the majority. For people to be truly free means that everyone has that freedom, not simply that the majority do.
First of all, stop reading Ayn Rand as it's obviously giving you very very strange ideas about socialism.
Ad hominem. Try again.
Various implementations of socialism (i.e. highly authoritarian ones), sure. But not socialism as an idea.
The only variation is in the degree to which that fundamental notion is evaded or accepted.
Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden are all very socialist countries. High taxes, high level of social security (free school, education, health care etc), and they're all very keen on getting people educated in college (i.e. making men of ideas). They see their future as one that has interlectual companies outperforming regular industry.
Pay lip service to intellectuals is not the same as giving them the freedoms they need to achieve their goals and values. Neither their good intentions (wanting successful nationalized companies) nor their ends (actually having successful nationalized companies) justify the means (nationalization through the violation of individual rights).
They do believe a man with ideas are important in only one sense - in the sense that they are able to leech off him.
Apparently, the folks at iSuppli subscribe to the socialist notion that the men of ideas are of no importance. Obviously, if you just take all the parts and throw them in a box, they'll magically form a Kindle.
This reminds me of a story from a WSJ article from 1974, about the nationalization of plants in Chile, quote in Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It:
Among them was Dow Chemical Company, which owned a plastics plant in Chile. Bob G. Caldwell, Dow's director of operations for South America, came with a technical team to inspect the remains of their plant. "'What we found was unbelievable to us,' he recalls, 'The plant was still operable, but in another six months we wouldn't have had a plant at all. They never checked anything.'....Worse yet, the highly inflammable chemicals handled at the plant were in imminent danger of blowing up. 'Safety went to pot,' Mr. Caldwell says. 'The fire-sprinkler system was disconnected and the valves taken away for some other use outside. Then they were smoking in the most dangerous areas. They told us, "You didn't have any fires while you were here before, so it must not be as dangerous as you said."'"
Why is it that when I click on the Slashdot homepage link, I am presented with a blank page. Then I click on it again and it shows the newest entries. Click it again, and they all disappear. Is this new system supposed to be a belated April Fools Day joke?
First we hear that he's near death, now he's going to recover... it's almost as if he got trapped in a black hole, and was only able to escape by spawning an anti-Hawking to be left inside... yes, that's the only thing that makes sense.
Don't worry, I'm not being chased anywhere.:) I have enough positive karma from my previous ~1,000 comments to last me ten lifetimes. Plus, I am correct in my views, so I have that motivation as well.
Funny thing. In the U.S. at least, taking credit for someone else's work is not a copyright infringement.
Did I say it was? They are all violations of property rights - that is what unites them. Whether it's fraud or copyright infringement is irrelevant to the question of whether it violates rights and should be prosecuted.
how do you propose 'protecting intellectual property' at the same time you 'reject government intervention in the economy'?
You're equivocating. I'm not opposed to all government, just improper government. The proper role of government is reflected in the courts, police, and military, in the protection of those rights that are necessary for individuals to live and pursue their values and goals. So if you try to attack me, you are violating my rights, and the government - which has a monopoly on force - should intervene and go after you. If I plagiarize your book, steal your invention blueprints, take credit for it, or otherwise distribute your written thoughts without your consent or the consent of whomever you have sold your thoughts to, then I have violated your rights and the government should go after me.
What I mean by "government intervention of the economy" is precisely force-backed rights violations. The government has a monopoly on force, so only they could get away with forcing anyone to do anything - there's no higher power to which they must answer. A company or crony who buys a political vote that benefits them and violates the rights of others, or even if it benefits others and violates their rights, is force-backed rights violation.
I'm fine with showing companies how idiotic their rules are, how they're destroying their own business, driving away their customers and fans, etc, all out of some irrational fear of the internet. I'm also opposed to the kind of public-private partnership that has become all too common from the recording/film industry, from which we get excessive fines based on little or no evidence.
What I'd like to make clear, though, is that I fully oppose those people who would like to take it a step too far, and claim that there's no such thing as intellectual property, no property rights, that people don't have the right to the product of their own ideas, etc. It's one thing to identify and rage against politicians bought by the RIAA, and it's quite another thing to then influence politicians to pass laws that trample on everyone's rights. Take the high road and support individual rights across the board, and reject government intervention in the economy. It doesn't have to be dog-eat-dog.
Because of the supply control effects, sellers in an oligopoly often try strategies to switch from being (for example) the number 2 or 3 player to being the number 1 player. These tactics are largely a matter of game theory, but can and do include tactics like selling things at a loss in order to grab market share from a competitor.
This is all the more reason for more responsibility in the hands of the consumer. Through the education you provide, I as a consumer am better able to decide what companies to deal with, and I will not deal with a company if they are simply trying to grab market share. If they're selling at a loss, I can't count on them remaining viable in the future - no tech support 5 years down the road, no updates, etc. Yet you are arguing for less responsibility for the consumer. You would have responsibility handed over to the government, leading me - the consumer - to make worse decisions over time, and to expect the government to help me out whenever I made bad decisions from lack of education.
The study of oligopolies is one of the hot fields in microeconomics.
That is fine so long as it does not influence the government to write legislation violating individual rights... yet this is precisely why the study of oligopolies is so "hot".
This is not the manufacturer and retailer agreeing to a price between them. This is the manufacturer dictating to the retailer what price the RETAILER gets to charge its own customers.
Yes, that is contract law. You can require anything under a contract - so long as it doesn't violate individual rights - and if the other person agrees to those requirements, they are contractually obligated to abide by them. Where is the problem?
Once the manufacturer has sold a product they should no longer have any control of it.
If that is in the terms of the contract, then you would be right. If not, then you wouldn't be.
Should the car dealer you bought from be able to dictate the price you charge when you resell it later on?
I would be an idiot to sign such a contract, but if I did, then yes, they would and should be able to. Again, I wouldn't sign such a contract. I want the car to be my property, so I don't allow them any situations where they can control it after I have given then $X of my money.
Once the product is sold the prior owner should have no control over the new owners dealing with that product.
But the product is not sold at that point. It is not until they sign the contract that the product is sold. This is essentially a merger between manufacturer and retailer. If they want to merge, and no rights are violated by such a merger - obviously true - then they should be free to do so.
I'd suggest you learn your economic theory from something other than an Ayn Rand book
It is not a matter of "economic theory" but of individual rights. For it to be any other case would mean that the ends justify the means. No ethical system is possible if you are to be judged on the results of your actions rather than the actions themselves (given your knowledge at the time of the actions). It is not possible to answer the question, "What should I do in this situation?" if you must account for unknowable future events and unforeseen consequences.
In reality, monopolies form (not in and of itself illegal) and then abuse their position as a monopoly to manipulate the market in other ways
There is nothing inherently wrong with monopolies, just as there is nothing inherently good about competition. So long as people are free to decide whether to buy something or not, the seller is responsible for their actions. Only when people are able to lobby the government to pass laws in their favor, and the government willingly enforces those laws, do rights actually get violated.
It's when they leverage their position as a monopoly to do bad things.
You will have to provide more specific examples where a company apart from government legislation to their benefit was able to violate the rights of individuals. This would be quite an astonishing example, as it would mean the company openly broke the law and nothing was done about it. If you mean something else by "bad things", let me know.
Go read up on deadweight loss, predatory pricing, price discrimination, exclusive dealing, and price gouging and learn why anti-trust laws exist, for your own good, please.
I have read up on all of these, and found no examples violates individual rights without government intervention (either to stop those rights violations, or to enforce them). What you are doing is trading the illusion of lower prices now for the reality of higher prices (as opposed to artificially inflated prices) later - as a utilitarian you should be able to appreciate that, though you would do better to get more fundamental and understand individual rights.
But refusing means they can't sell the product at all.
Exactly. The person or company who made the product owns it until they sell it. That is called private property, and is a right required for a person to make rational decisions to benefit his life and his values.
And if the vendor uses the same "contract" with all the retailers, that means the vendor is now setting the prices, so there is no longer competition between retailers.
Of course there is still competition. Some stores are more convenient than others, and stores would compete to be as convenient to the customer as possible. At the same time, other vendors make other products that are sold in other stores. It's ridiculous how the so-called "pro-competition" camp is opposed to a single vendor's product being sold at the same price in all stores, but is in favor of all competing vendors' products being sold at the same prices in all stores - anything else is considered anti-competitive. You're in favor of a contrived competition, which violates the rights of people to set the terms of their contracts and the price of their property, and in the long run will mean products staying at higher prices than they would have otherwise.
I'm not arguing whether or not it's illegal - that's a matter of fact. I'm arguing whether it should be illegal.
To do otherwise is price fixing - it destroys competition in the marketplace by forcing everyone to sell at the same (inflated) price.
You contradict yourself in the same sentence. You say that competition will be destroyed, but then say that everyone will have to sell at a higher price. What prevents a competitor from selling a similar product at a lower price? And how do you justify the violation of rights that comes with such regulations against setting the terms of one's contracts?
A law that forbids price fixing leads to lower prices for the consumer as it allows different vendors of a product to compete against each other.
This is quite a remarkable statement, and you will have to do both of the following for me to be convinced:
1. Back up your claim with evidence showing that a company would be able to maintain customers despite inflated prices.
2. Show that the ends justify the means - that it is alright to violate the individual rights of the members of a company to offer their property - their product - at a price they decide, and be held responsible for their actions in the success or failure of those prices.
However, this also means that the producer looses some of its control over his products.
In any other situation, losing the freedom of action over your property is grounds for police intervention against the perpetrator. What is different here?
In the United States, anti-trust law usually will look at harm to consumers.
Doesn't that imply that consumers have a right to any product for which they would be considered to be harmed were they not able to have access to it? With every other right - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness - for someone to be "harmed" would mean that another entity was preventing them access to their life, to their property, to their choice of actions in their attempt at happiness. Doesn't this implication of a "right" to a product thereby violate the pre-existing rights of individuals to do with their property - the product they make - as they please? This all seems like common sense to me.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, our children and grandchildren should pay for technological advances that make our lives easier.
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." -- Thomas Jefferson
Let me guess who foots the bill for this: the end-user. Either the government funds it, and gets the money through increased taxation, or the government forces the ISP to pay for all the data storage, and the ISP has to pass the cost on to the customer to stay in business. Either way, citizens are paying for themselves to be monitored.
Orwellian much?
I find it hilarious that - in order to defend "men of ideas" - you linked to an obviously illegal copy of an essay.
Ahh, you're right, my apologies. I'm usually good about that too, but slipped up here. A few months ago I threw out my entire collection of copied CDs/DVDs - at least 300 in total. I'm still working to integrate it into everything I do.
Are you trying to say the US system, in which about 80% of the population is sacrificed so that upper management can receive their bonuses, is so much better?
Which "US system" is that? We haven't had laissez-faire capitalism, although we've come close in the past.
It is impossible to have any kind of society in which every single member believes that their rights are not somehow violated.
Bald assertion. What is this based on? If everyone understands the source of individual rights, and likewise understands what those rights are, people may claim their rights are violated (anyone can claim anything, of course), but they wouldn't be able to show it to be true in a court of law.
I actually have a question: do you support taxes or tariffs for the purpose of providing the military, police, and courts?
I support moving our current system towards that, however no, I do not support that as an end in itself. Taxes should be voluntary.
Assuming you have a society that regards things like health care and education as human rights, how can you justify the former and not the latter?
Those are not valid rights, for they require the violation of valid rights in order to be provided. There is a *need* for education and an *need* for healthcare, but not a *right* to either. The same goes for food, or any other material good.
If that's the case, then why does research show that people in those countries have a relative economic mobility equal to or greater than those in the United States? It would seem that the policies in the countries that the grandparent cited are affording their citizens more freedom to achieve their goals and values, if the data is any indication.
Have you read Watership Down? Your comment reminds me of the rabbit farm, in which all the rabbits live happily and are well-fed, but occasionally have to give up one of their own to be slaughtered. The situations are equivalent in that the rights of certain individuals are being sacrificed to benefit everyone else. That the majority somehow fares better as a result is no justification for the means of their affluence. This is the sacrifice of the minority to the majority. For people to be truly free means that everyone has that freedom, not simply that the majority do.
Ahh sure, the ever-objective folks at iSuppli certainly have no interest whatsoever in their work, and endeavor to choose it at random out of a hat.
First of all, stop reading Ayn Rand as it's obviously giving you very very strange ideas about socialism.
Ad hominem. Try again.
Various implementations of socialism (i.e. highly authoritarian ones), sure. But not socialism as an idea.
The only variation is in the degree to which that fundamental notion is evaded or accepted.
Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden are all very socialist countries. High taxes, high level of social security (free school, education, health care etc), and they're all very keen on getting people educated in college (i.e. making men of ideas). They see their future as one that has interlectual companies outperforming regular industry.
Pay lip service to intellectuals is not the same as giving them the freedoms they need to achieve their goals and values. Neither their good intentions (wanting successful nationalized companies) nor their ends (actually having successful nationalized companies) justify the means (nationalization through the violation of individual rights).
They do believe a man with ideas are important in only one sense - in the sense that they are able to leech off him.
This reminds me of a story from a WSJ article from 1974, about the nationalization of plants in Chile, quote in Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It:
Among them was Dow Chemical Company, which owned a plastics plant in Chile. Bob G. Caldwell, Dow's director of operations for South America, came with a technical team to inspect the remains of their plant. "'What we found was unbelievable to us,' he recalls, 'The plant was still operable, but in another six months we wouldn't have had a plant at all. They never checked anything.' ....Worse yet, the highly inflammable chemicals handled at the plant were in imminent danger of blowing up. 'Safety went to pot,' Mr. Caldwell says. 'The fire-sprinkler system was disconnected and the valves taken away for some other use outside. Then they were smoking in the most dangerous areas. They told us, "You didn't have any fires while you were here before, so it must not be as dangerous as you said."'"
Why is it that when I click on the Slashdot homepage link, I am presented with a blank page. Then I click on it again and it shows the newest entries. Click it again, and they all disappear. Is this new system supposed to be a belated April Fools Day joke?
First we hear that he's near death, now he's going to recover... it's almost as if he got trapped in a black hole, and was only able to escape by spawning an anti-Hawking to be left inside... yes, that's the only thing that makes sense.
Bill Winston Ministries?
Don't worry, I'm not being chased anywhere. :) I have enough positive karma from my previous ~1,000 comments to last me ten lifetimes. Plus, I am correct in my views, so I have that motivation as well.
Funny thing. In the U.S. at least, taking credit for someone else's work is not a copyright infringement.
Did I say it was? They are all violations of property rights - that is what unites them. Whether it's fraud or copyright infringement is irrelevant to the question of whether it violates rights and should be prosecuted.
Wow, I went from nil to +5 and back to nil in no time. Thanks! :)
(Next time bring an argument and leave the emotions at the door.)
how do you propose 'protecting intellectual property' at the same time you 'reject government intervention in the economy'?
You're equivocating. I'm not opposed to all government, just improper government. The proper role of government is reflected in the courts, police, and military, in the protection of those rights that are necessary for individuals to live and pursue their values and goals. So if you try to attack me, you are violating my rights, and the government - which has a monopoly on force - should intervene and go after you. If I plagiarize your book, steal your invention blueprints, take credit for it, or otherwise distribute your written thoughts without your consent or the consent of whomever you have sold your thoughts to, then I have violated your rights and the government should go after me.
What I mean by "government intervention of the economy" is precisely force-backed rights violations. The government has a monopoly on force, so only they could get away with forcing anyone to do anything - there's no higher power to which they must answer. A company or crony who buys a political vote that benefits them and violates the rights of others, or even if it benefits others and violates their rights, is force-backed rights violation.
I'm fine with showing companies how idiotic their rules are, how they're destroying their own business, driving away their customers and fans, etc, all out of some irrational fear of the internet. I'm also opposed to the kind of public-private partnership that has become all too common from the recording/film industry, from which we get excessive fines based on little or no evidence.
What I'd like to make clear, though, is that I fully oppose those people who would like to take it a step too far, and claim that there's no such thing as intellectual property, no property rights, that people don't have the right to the product of their own ideas, etc. It's one thing to identify and rage against politicians bought by the RIAA, and it's quite another thing to then influence politicians to pass laws that trample on everyone's rights. Take the high road and support individual rights across the board, and reject government intervention in the economy. It doesn't have to be dog-eat-dog.
Because of the supply control effects, sellers in an oligopoly often try strategies to switch from being (for example) the number 2 or 3 player to being the number 1 player. These tactics are largely a matter of game theory, but can and do include tactics like selling things at a loss in order to grab market share from a competitor.
This is all the more reason for more responsibility in the hands of the consumer. Through the education you provide, I as a consumer am better able to decide what companies to deal with, and I will not deal with a company if they are simply trying to grab market share. If they're selling at a loss, I can't count on them remaining viable in the future - no tech support 5 years down the road, no updates, etc. Yet you are arguing for less responsibility for the consumer. You would have responsibility handed over to the government, leading me - the consumer - to make worse decisions over time, and to expect the government to help me out whenever I made bad decisions from lack of education.
The study of oligopolies is one of the hot fields in microeconomics.
That is fine so long as it does not influence the government to write legislation violating individual rights... yet this is precisely why the study of oligopolies is so "hot".
This is not the manufacturer and retailer agreeing to a price between them. This is the manufacturer dictating to the retailer what price the RETAILER gets to charge its own customers.
Yes, that is contract law. You can require anything under a contract - so long as it doesn't violate individual rights - and if the other person agrees to those requirements, they are contractually obligated to abide by them. Where is the problem?
Once the manufacturer has sold a product they should no longer have any control of it.
If that is in the terms of the contract, then you would be right. If not, then you wouldn't be.
Should the car dealer you bought from be able to dictate the price you charge when you resell it later on?
I would be an idiot to sign such a contract, but if I did, then yes, they would and should be able to. Again, I wouldn't sign such a contract. I want the car to be my property, so I don't allow them any situations where they can control it after I have given then $X of my money.
Once the product is sold the prior owner should have no control over the new owners dealing with that product.
But the product is not sold at that point. It is not until they sign the contract that the product is sold. This is essentially a merger between manufacturer and retailer. If they want to merge, and no rights are violated by such a merger - obviously true - then they should be free to do so.
I'd suggest you learn your economic theory from something other than an Ayn Rand book
It is not a matter of "economic theory" but of individual rights. For it to be any other case would mean that the ends justify the means. No ethical system is possible if you are to be judged on the results of your actions rather than the actions themselves (given your knowledge at the time of the actions). It is not possible to answer the question, "What should I do in this situation?" if you must account for unknowable future events and unforeseen consequences.
In reality, monopolies form (not in and of itself illegal) and then abuse their position as a monopoly to manipulate the market in other ways
There is nothing inherently wrong with monopolies, just as there is nothing inherently good about competition. So long as people are free to decide whether to buy something or not, the seller is responsible for their actions. Only when people are able to lobby the government to pass laws in their favor, and the government willingly enforces those laws, do rights actually get violated.
It's when they leverage their position as a monopoly to do bad things.
You will have to provide more specific examples where a company apart from government legislation to their benefit was able to violate the rights of individuals. This would be quite an astonishing example, as it would mean the company openly broke the law and nothing was done about it. If you mean something else by "bad things", let me know.
Go read up on deadweight loss, predatory pricing, price discrimination, exclusive dealing, and price gouging and learn why anti-trust laws exist, for your own good, please.
I have read up on all of these, and found no examples violates individual rights without government intervention (either to stop those rights violations, or to enforce them). What you are doing is trading the illusion of lower prices now for the reality of higher prices (as opposed to artificially inflated prices) later - as a utilitarian you should be able to appreciate that, though you would do better to get more fundamental and understand individual rights.
But refusing means they can't sell the product at all.
Exactly. The person or company who made the product owns it until they sell it. That is called private property, and is a right required for a person to make rational decisions to benefit his life and his values.
And if the vendor uses the same "contract" with all the retailers, that means the vendor is now setting the prices, so there is no longer competition between retailers.
Of course there is still competition. Some stores are more convenient than others, and stores would compete to be as convenient to the customer as possible. At the same time, other vendors make other products that are sold in other stores. It's ridiculous how the so-called "pro-competition" camp is opposed to a single vendor's product being sold at the same price in all stores, but is in favor of all competing vendors' products being sold at the same prices in all stores - anything else is considered anti-competitive. You're in favor of a contrived competition, which violates the rights of people to set the terms of their contracts and the price of their property, and in the long run will mean products staying at higher prices than they would have otherwise.
No, that's illegal.
I'm not arguing whether or not it's illegal - that's a matter of fact. I'm arguing whether it should be illegal.
To do otherwise is price fixing - it destroys competition in the marketplace by forcing everyone to sell at the same (inflated) price.
You contradict yourself in the same sentence. You say that competition will be destroyed, but then say that everyone will have to sell at a higher price. What prevents a competitor from selling a similar product at a lower price? And how do you justify the violation of rights that comes with such regulations against setting the terms of one's contracts?
A law that forbids price fixing leads to lower prices for the consumer as it allows different vendors of a product to compete against each other.
This is quite a remarkable statement, and you will have to do both of the following for me to be convinced:
1. Back up your claim with evidence showing that a company would be able to maintain customers despite inflated prices.
2. Show that the ends justify the means - that it is alright to violate the individual rights of the members of a company to offer their property - their product - at a price they decide, and be held responsible for their actions in the success or failure of those prices.
However, this also means that the producer looses some of its control over his products.
In any other situation, losing the freedom of action over your property is grounds for police intervention against the perpetrator. What is different here?
In the United States, anti-trust law usually will look at harm to consumers.
Doesn't that imply that consumers have a right to any product for which they would be considered to be harmed were they not able to have access to it? With every other right - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness - for someone to be "harmed" would mean that another entity was preventing them access to their life, to their property, to their choice of actions in their attempt at happiness. Doesn't this implication of a "right" to a product thereby violate the pre-existing rights of individuals to do with their property - the product they make - as they please? This all seems like common sense to me.