You have a point. If there is no reasonable substitute for the product in demand, this forms a monopoly, albeit an artificial one.
Same thing exists in cable TV - where city and state governments grant one company a monopoly on offering cable service in a given geographical area.
As far as pharmaceuticals and patents go, I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, some patents that get granted are really stupid. On the other hand, I do realize that it sometimes take millions of dollars in research to come up with some of these drugs, and a company has to have some way to recoup their costs.
Lately I've been leaning toward doing away with IP law - I have great hope for new business models like the Street Performer Protocol.
With regards to industries that are absent of any legally-imposed monopolies, I stand by my assertion that consumers set market prices by their willingness or non-willingness to pay for a good or service at a certain price.
Unfortunately, consumers rarely act as a collective group to get prices lowered to a reasonable level.
They don't have to act collectively to achieve this. Each person can make up their own mind whether a product or service offers them enough in return for the price, and then buy or not buy accordingly. If most potential customers choose to not buy, the price is too high. The company must then find a way to lower it, or a competitor will come in and undercut them.
I do think boycotting is a good tactic for influencing corporate behavior and policies though, as evidenced by the banner ads on my site.
If the moneyhungry companies didn't take such enormous prices for their products the taxes wouldn't be so high either. The fun thing here is that Linux (considered socialist) is there to help the companies.
1) Companies don't set prices - markets do. High prices - and high profit margins - are signs of inefficiency in the marketplace due to over-regulation or lack of access to information.
2) I don't think of Linux as being socialist - i think it's the free-market's response to Microsoft's grip on the desktop. It certainly is very collectivist, but it all takes place within a context of free and voluntary association, which is very free-market/libertarian.
Indeed, corporations are double-taxed... at least in the U.S.
That's one of the disadvantages of incorporating. The corporation pays corporate income taxes, and the employees and shareholders pay individual income taxes. Then the consumers pay taxes on purchases from the corporation.
There are many advantages to incorporating though... making it foolish not to in many cases.
A large group of people who were disgruntled with the official Robot Wars(tm) organization split off and formed their own league/organization. I don't remember the name of it off the top of my head, but the sport is definitely still alive, and I think it's probably still growing in popularity.
I might add that some of these legal restrictions may give parents a false sense of security. They may feel that they don't need to pay as close attention to what their kids are up to if they think the law is going to take care of it.
Fourth, Gore has no experience "running" this country.
I think we might be better off if we had fewer 'experienced' politicians. Our government used to be made up of 'citizen legislators' - people who served a term and then went back to their life as a doctor, teacher, farmer, lawyer or whatever. Now we have second-generation career politicians - people who have never had another career and lack firsthand experience of the real world.
What about Trademail Client, the Outlook/Exchange compatible mail program that Bynari was developing? I've never tried it, but I remember they were making a big stir about it several months ago.
IIRC, you do have to add a small component to the Exchange Server, so if you don't have control over the server it doesn't do you much good.
Like, when was the last time anyone paid attention to the Constitution in this country? Many things the federal government does today are not authorized by the Constitution. Why start caring now?
Also, from http://www.freedomforum.org/news/2000/08/2000-08-1 0-01.htm :
In April 1998, the Virginia-based Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression gave him one of their Jefferson Muzzles, an award presented to those who show insensitivity to First Amendment principles.
Republicans are an increasingly Libertarian party nowadays. Ideologically pure Libertarians might sneer at them, but the main attractive element of the Republican party is that they are less statist than the Democrats.
Speaking as a typical libertarian... I am really turned off by the contemporary Republican approach to foreign relations, which seems to be basically 'peace through firepower' and lots of alliances and military occupations. IMHO, we are pissing off a lot of people when we bully other nations around, and we are becoming more and more a target for terrorism, which is almost impossible to defend against.
The libertarian position on national defense and foreign policy has always made a great deal of sense to me. It basically boils down to a strong defense for our shores, free trade with all nations, and no entangling alliances or deployments in other countries. In other words, focus on defending our shores and quit making the rest of the world angry.
The War on Drugs is another big issue with me, but as you've mentioned there are some Republicans that are coming around, albeit solely for practical instead of moral reasons.
I also have a lingering problem with the Republicans over censorship and the Moral Majority / Christian Right crowd. Those people tried to ban my music when I was growing up. I agree, that influence is dwindling, but I'm still pretty wary of it.
Finally, there are a whole host of other issues on which the Republicans talk the talk - privatizing Social Security, bringing competition to education, right to bear arms, lowering taxes, etc. - but don't deliver the goods. I'm simply beyond impatient with them on these things. I'd rather devote my time and energy to building a third party movement that will actually do something to reduce the bloat and intrusiveness of our government, than to sit around and wait on either of the two major parties to do anything.
So, I wish the Republicans were more libertarian, but it seems to me as if the Republicans and Democrats are just drifting closer together in a big centrist lovefest as each party makes concessions to the other.
Yes! I want to be available for those people who really want something, but sometimes I am way too busy for the constant 'Hey, what's going on?' people with too much time on their hands.
I just posted a story from the LA Times on Libertyboard which you may be interested in...
It describes how a free-market society has arisen in Somalia after the overthrow of their socialist dictator and a 10 year power vacuum. It's the closest thing to anarcho-capitalism I've read about in modern history.
I am always amazed at the number of laissez-faire, free-market libertarian yahoos who somehow claim that IP is nonetheless valid.
There is some disagreement among laissez-faire, free-market libertarian yahoos on this subject.
This guy makes a libertarian case against IP laws.
I'm still trying to form an opinion, personally. On one hand, it seems like the new street-performer-like business models are going to make the whole issue moot (there's that damned market at work again). On the other hand, copyright can be thought of as a form of binding contract. Sort of.
I'm really hoping the new business models do take off. There is way too much bland, homogenized BS in the entertainment world, which is priced exorbitantly and licensed restrictively. $15.99 for a stupid CD from a sucky artist? No thanks. I quit buying CD's 5 years ago, and have stuck mostly with DJ mixtapes and streaming MP3 radio.
Libertertian.org is here today because of definitively non-Liberterian principles
It's funny you should mention that. The same subject came up in discussion on free-market.net. Here is my post from that site:
"The emergence of the Internet was absolutely inevitable regardless of its origination. It would have happened many years earlier if the telecom industry hadn't been so heavily regulated."
"Like someone else just said, there were several hundred different, competing networks before the Internet absorbed or obsoleted them. I was on some of them, including FidoNet, RIME/RelayNet, Usenet via UUCP, and a bunch of X.25 networks. Additionally, many corporations had their own private MANs and WANs running various protocols, so the technology was not exactly unheard of, although it was still very expensive."
"These early global networks were very impressive feats of both software engineering and global cooperation, and almost all of them were privately founded and operated without public subsidy. My favorite was FidoNet. [I ran a FidoNet BBS for a few years]"
"The Internet won out over the others partially because the TCP/IP protocol ended up getting built into BSD Unix at the DOD's insistence (DOD bought a lot of Unix boxes). BSD Unix was very popular at universities, and when Comp Sci students started fooling around with the TCP/IP tools it included, they found they could do some really amazing and
important things, like trade porn, play multiuser games, etc. Word spread and it grew like wildfire. The rest is history."
"So, I don't know what would have happened had the DOD not commissioned the creation of TCP/IP, but I suspect that we'd have ended up with a similar decentralized network and similar protocols, given that there were many dozens of networks evolving and competing. [at the time]"
It seems to me that the largest group in existance would be the government, so the government would need the most restraint.
If this is true, should the government be trusted with the power to decide whom to regulate and how? If not, then who should?
Very insightful comment, Mr.or Mrs. Anonymous Coward!
Slashdot Mirror
I thought they were sued for bundling IE with Windows?
--
You have a point. If there is no reasonable substitute for the product in demand, this forms a monopoly, albeit an artificial one.
Same thing exists in cable TV - where city and state governments grant one company a monopoly on offering cable service in a given geographical area.
As far as pharmaceuticals and patents go, I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, some patents that get granted are really stupid. On the other hand, I do realize that it sometimes take millions of dollars in research to come up with some of these drugs, and a company has to have some way to recoup their costs.
Lately I've been leaning toward doing away with IP law - I have great hope for new business models like the Street Performer Protocol.
With regards to industries that are absent of any legally-imposed monopolies, I stand by my assertion that consumers set market prices by their willingness or non-willingness to pay for a good or service at a certain price.
--
Unfortunately, consumers rarely act as a collective group to get prices lowered to a reasonable level.
They don't have to act collectively to achieve this. Each person can make up their own mind whether a product or service offers them enough in return for the price, and then buy or not buy accordingly. If most potential customers choose to not buy, the price is too high. The company must then find a way to lower it, or a competitor will come in and undercut them.
I do think boycotting is a good tactic for influencing corporate behavior and policies though, as evidenced by the banner ads on my site.
--
Companies can set whatever prices they like, but it is the consumers who decide whether they are willing to pay them.
I'm not sure what you mean in the part about exclusionary contracts.
--
If the moneyhungry companies didn't take such enormous prices for their products the taxes wouldn't be so high either. The fun thing here is that Linux (considered socialist) is there to help the companies.
1) Companies don't set prices - markets do. High prices - and high profit margins - are signs of inefficiency in the marketplace due to over-regulation or lack of access to information.
2) I don't think of Linux as being socialist - i think it's the free-market's response to Microsoft's grip on the desktop. It certainly is very collectivist, but it all takes place within a context of free and voluntary association, which is very free-market/libertarian.
--
Indeed, corporations are double-taxed... at least in the U.S.
That's one of the disadvantages of incorporating. The corporation pays corporate income taxes, and the employees and shareholders pay individual income taxes. Then the consumers pay taxes on purchases from the corporation.
There are many advantages to incorporating though... making it foolish not to in many cases.
--
Solaris 8 is free (beer). It even runs on Intel hardware.
I thought it was free only for personal/hobbyist use?
And why would anyone want to run Solaris/i386 over Linux/i386?
--
A large group of people who were disgruntled with the official Robot Wars(tm) organization split off and formed their own league/organization. I don't remember the name of it off the top of my head, but the sport is definitely still alive, and I think it's probably still growing in popularity.
--
To hell with your fancy-schmancy VT100. Real men use DECWriter line printer consoles.
--
Reminds me of Robot Wars (the 'arena sport')
...and Robot Wars (the cheesy yet amusing B-movie from 1993)
--
Yuck. Most American beer is horrible. What did you expect of beer from a gas station anyway?
Some good American beers are made by Samuel Adams, Brooklyn Brewery, Wild Goose, and hundreds of regional microbreweries.
--
Most excellent points.
I might add that some of these legal restrictions may give parents a false sense of security. They may feel that they don't need to pay as close attention to what their kids are up to if they think the law is going to take care of it.
--
Fourth, Gore has no experience "running" this country.
I think we might be better off if we had fewer 'experienced' politicians. Our government used to be made up of 'citizen legislators' - people who served a term and then went back to their life as a doctor, teacher, farmer, lawyer or whatever. Now we have second-generation career politicians - people who have never had another career and lack firsthand experience of the real world.
I guess I'm just jaded and cynical...
--
What about Trademail Client, the Outlook/Exchange compatible mail program that Bynari was developing? I've never tried it, but I remember they were making a big stir about it several months ago.
IIRC, you do have to add a small component to the Exchange Server, so if you don't have control over the server it doesn't do you much good.
--
1.knacker FoxPro
What in the sweet name of our Lord and Father does 'knacker' mean? Is that some sort of British term, like 'blimey'?
--
I dunno about anyone else, but I have long ago written off those two parties. They may be the major parties right now, but they're irrelevant to me.
--
Like, when was the last time anyone paid attention to the Constitution in this country? Many things the federal government does today are not authorized by the Constitution. Why start caring now?
--
Vote Libertarian and win a free country!
--
Lieberman is big on censorship, the v-chip, and has put a lot of pressure on the movie, tv, music and video game industries:
8 055,00.html
1 0-01.htm :
http://www.wirednews.com/news/politics/0,1283,3
Also, from http://www.freedomforum.org/news/2000/08/2000-08-
In April 1998, the Virginia-based Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression gave him one of their Jefferson Muzzles, an award presented to those who show insensitivity to First Amendment principles.
--
Republicans are an increasingly Libertarian party nowadays. Ideologically pure Libertarians might sneer at them, but the main attractive element of the Republican party is that they are less statist than the Democrats.
Speaking as a typical libertarian... I am really turned off by the contemporary Republican approach to foreign relations, which seems to be basically 'peace through firepower' and lots of alliances and military occupations. IMHO, we are pissing off a lot of people when we bully other nations around, and we are becoming more and more a target for terrorism, which is almost impossible to defend against.
The libertarian position on national defense and foreign policy has always made a great deal of sense to me. It basically boils down to a strong defense for our shores, free trade with all nations, and no entangling alliances or deployments in other countries. In other words, focus on defending our shores and quit making the rest of the world angry.
The War on Drugs is another big issue with me, but as you've mentioned there are some Republicans that are coming around, albeit solely for practical instead of moral reasons.
I also have a lingering problem with the Republicans over censorship and the Moral Majority / Christian Right crowd. Those people tried to ban my music when I was growing up. I agree, that influence is dwindling, but I'm still pretty wary of it.
Finally, there are a whole host of other issues on which the Republicans talk the talk - privatizing Social Security, bringing competition to education, right to bear arms, lowering taxes, etc. - but don't deliver the goods. I'm simply beyond impatient with them on these things. I'd rather devote my time and energy to building a third party movement that will actually do something to reduce the bloat and intrusiveness of our government, than to sit around and wait on either of the two major parties to do anything.
So, I wish the Republicans were more libertarian, but it seems to me as if the Republicans and Democrats are just drifting closer together in a big centrist lovefest as each party makes concessions to the other.
--
Yes! I want to be available for those people who really want something, but sometimes I am way too busy for the constant 'Hey, what's going on?' people with too much time on their hands.
--
I just posted a story from the LA Times on Libertyboard which you may be interested in...
It describes how a free-market society has arisen in Somalia after the overthrow of their socialist dictator and a 10 year power vacuum. It's the closest thing to anarcho-capitalism I've read about in modern history.
LA Times story here
--
I am always amazed at the number of laissez-faire, free-market libertarian yahoos who somehow claim that IP is nonetheless valid.
There is some disagreement among laissez-faire, free-market libertarian yahoos on this subject.
This guy makes a libertarian case against IP laws.
I'm still trying to form an opinion, personally. On one hand, it seems like the new street-performer-like business models are going to make the whole issue moot (there's that damned market at work again). On the other hand, copyright can be thought of as a form of binding contract. Sort of.
I'm really hoping the new business models do take off. There is way too much bland, homogenized BS in the entertainment world, which is priced exorbitantly and licensed restrictively. $15.99 for a stupid CD from a sucky artist? No thanks. I quit buying CD's 5 years ago, and have stuck mostly with DJ mixtapes and streaming MP3 radio.
--
Libertertian.org is here today because of definitively non-Liberterian principles
It's funny you should mention that. The same subject came up in discussion on free-market.net. Here is my post from that site:
"The emergence of the Internet was absolutely inevitable regardless of its origination. It would have happened many years earlier if the telecom industry hadn't been so heavily regulated."
"Like someone else just said, there were several hundred different, competing networks before the Internet absorbed or obsoleted them. I was on some of them, including FidoNet, RIME/RelayNet, Usenet via UUCP, and a bunch of X.25 networks. Additionally, many corporations had their own private MANs and WANs running various protocols, so the technology was not exactly unheard of, although it was still very expensive."
"These early global networks were very impressive feats of both software engineering and global cooperation, and almost all of them were privately founded and operated without public subsidy. My favorite was FidoNet. [I ran a FidoNet BBS for a few years]"
"The Internet won out over the others partially because the TCP/IP protocol ended up getting built into BSD Unix at the DOD's insistence (DOD bought a lot of Unix boxes). BSD Unix was very popular at universities, and when Comp Sci students started fooling around with the TCP/IP tools it included, they found they could do some really amazing and
important things, like trade porn, play multiuser games, etc. Word spread and it grew like wildfire. The rest is history."
"So, I don't know what would have happened had the DOD not commissioned the creation of TCP/IP, but I suspect that we'd have ended up with a similar decentralized network and similar protocols, given that there were many dozens of networks evolving and competing. [at the time]"
--
It seems to me that the largest group in existance would be the government, so the government would need the most restraint. If this is true, should the government be trusted with the power to decide whom to regulate and how? If not, then who should?
Very insightful comment, Mr.or Mrs. Anonymous Coward!
--