No, some clever person would realize that there was a sizeable body of available cheap labor, build some sweat shops, and make some jeans.
I would recommend you read the writings of John Dewey, widly "credited" as being the creator of the modern public school system. He admited openly that he wanted to create a public, government-run school system, not to allow students to better themselves, and advance their mental faculties, but to teach them "their place" in the social order. In other words, it was designed not to help students achieve their full potentials, but to assign them the role that their leaders thought best. It was designed to create those legions of factory workers. This is not merely my opinion, as Dewey stated this explicitly and repeatedly in his writings.
I do believe there are degrees of evil, and naturally I don't equate my paying taxes with the suffering of slavery. My point is, both taxation and slavery share the same source, and use the many of the same justifications, one is simply a more extreme example of the same principle. I realize there is no society on Earth, now or past, that has fully respected property rights, but I do not believe such a system is beyond realization. As I have stated in the past, the best system is one where individuals always retain the right to exit: they can opt out of an economic system if they feel it is oppressive or inefficient to engage in free market capitalism, then they are free to exit that and set up a socialist society with like-minded individuals. I don't think this would be easy, and I don't think it would be problem-free, which is another reason I favor the unfettered right to keep and bear arms. It is, after all, much harder to rob or enslave a man if he can shoot you. I also don't believe such a system could peacefully evolve from our existing economic and government systems. Conveniently enough, though, I also expect the world economy to essentially collapse under its own weight in the coming decades (think social security debt, massive inflation, continued war, etc).
I would also like to address another common misconception, namely that capitalists and those who favor rational self-interrest are opposed to assisting those whose intial circumstances in life were less than favorable. I firmly beleive that one can achieve greatness regardless of the circumstances of their birth, but I also realize that it is easier to achieve greatness when one is given an easier start. However, I don't support mass forced wealth transfers to the poor simply because they are poor. First, they might be poor because they made repeated foolish decisions in life (i.e. kept having kids they couldn't afford to care for). Second, as I've stated, while I support charitable contributions, I am opposed to forced wealth transfers. If left in the hands of those who earned it, that money could have been spent on consumer goods, invested in the market, or saved for future needs/wants. These are the very things that produce jobs that the poor need. Investment in a capitalist market yields greater future returns for the entire economic system, while forced wealth transfer for a welfare system fulfills only immediate needs. Whenever you observe a government expenditure, the appropriate question to ask is "What could that money have accomplished if left in the private sector?" The answer is, almost invariably: more purchasing of consumer goods, more capital investment, both of which yield more jobs, which means better pay and lower welfare enrollment.
Also, there is a subtle double standard involved in forced wealth transfers intended to rectify nature's accident of unequal origins. If one believes that a person born into a poor family is not responsible for their starting condition (a reasonable conclusion), then to transfer the wealth of another to them to rectify this accident is to say that those other are responsible not only for their own better starting position, but also for the poor starting position of
That depends whether or not the company execs think they can sell more of their products/services than they currently do. If increasing output would flood the market and increase supply too much in relation to demand, thus lowering their bottom line, then there is no sense in increasing output, and it would make sense to cut man hours. If, on the other hand, there is sufficiently strong demand for their product/service, they could devote that extra productivity to putting out additional units in the same time, again increasing their bottom line.
And not to nitpick over terminology, but "Modern Capitalism" is an oxymoron. The modern world has no economic system approaching capitalism. In fact, many nations (such as the US) are tending to shy away from capitalism more and more, in favor of socialist-style government regulation. In fact, a truly free-market capitalist economy has never, to my knowledge, existed.
If this is anything like the preview they've shown to reviews in the past, this should be a real nightmare. Last time they showcased the Avalon desktop, it ran slow as hell, and started churning the swap file in minutes, and was so slow as to be completely unusable in under ten minutes.
That's a little unreasonable. Companies don't have unlimited funds for labor costs. The only way it would be economically feasible to pay the same for less work is if that work was more productive, i.e. you do the same work in 30 hours that was previously done in 40. If each employee did less work per week, the company would have to hire more workers to achieve the same level of productivity, and if they paid you the same as if you had done the full 40 hours worth of work, they would have to hire 25% more workers. However, that would also increase their labor costs by 25%. The only way it is feasible for your employer to cut your hours by 25%, pay you the same, and not have to dramatically increase their labor costs, is if you can increase your productivity by 25%.
The original post refers to the fact that private companies do not generally fund research into so-called "pure science", i.e. science with no apparent economic/technological benefit to the company. This is true in the US, where all such research tends to be government funded. Since he refers to the "culture of sponsorship that has been present in America", and research of no economic interrest is funded by the government, it is quite reasonable to suppose that he is refering, not to privately funded research, but to government funded research.
As to your affinity for funding research, I would suggest that you fund it yourself. I have other uses for my money. With my plan, plenty gets done. All of it economically viable. People like to make money, and to do that, they must provide a product/service that people need/want, and provide it at a better price than anyone else. To create new technologies or improve upon existing ones, you do research. If that research is yielding useful results, they continue to fund it. If they see no use for it, they cut the funding. They can do this morally, because it is their money. If they waste it on bad science, that's their problem. If the government wastes my money funding research of which I either do not approve or do not care, what is my recourse? In your ideal world, I apparently have none.
I gather that you are refering to how the US government misappropriates the earnings of its citizens to pay for research that many don't care about, fewer would support given the option they are rightfully due, and many find morally objectionable. No, I don't think it's a good idea to go down that road in Europe, too. Let the market determine the nature of research funding, and let individuals decide how to allocate their scarce resources themselves.
That's why we have these wonderful things called non-disclosure agreements. If he allows someone access to his code with no contractual stipulations, then that person is not bound to maintain secrecy regarding what they were shown. If I tell someone about my wonderful new algorithm, and I didn't have them sign a non-disclosure agreement, they can blab it all over town with no liability. If, however, they obtain access to my code by theft, or violate a non-disclosure agreement they had signed, or by violating terms of a licence agreement they had accepted, then they are liable for damages, which would include revenue lost to competing products that were created with their illicitly gained information. You don't need a police state to enforce that; you don't even need a patent system, just common law and the courts. I would prefer to see such a system, as it would make owners of IP responsible for maintaining their IP themselves, rather than, as you pointed out, forming a police state to do the same thing. It also prevents problems of two people independently developing the same process or idea. If it cannot be reasonably demonstrated that one party developed their product or service by illicitly obtaining IP from the other party, then no harm done. If, however, it can be shown that said IP was obtained through fraud, theft, or contract violation, then said party is liable for damages. If someone is stupid enough to blab their new invention to anyone who will listen, then they can have no expectation that it will remain IP. Problem solved, all through logic, contract law, and common law, without involving legislatures.
Access to source code is not a "right". The company that owns the code has a "right" to access it, they created it, so they own it, so it is their place to control it. If the owner of the code decides to licence it as OSS, then you have, by virtue of accepting that licence, thus forming a contractual bond, the right to access and use the source within the bounds of that licence agreement. If you disagree so strongly with not being granted access to the source, don't buy the product. That's the wonderful choice offered to you by capitalism.
Communism denies individuality. You are a member of Society, or the State, and the whole comes before any of the parts. The State essentially owns you, and owns the product of your labor, and will distribute it as it sees fit, as the State is the ultimate representative of Society, and Society is the collection of non-autonomous citizens. Kill individuality and you will always evolve a total state.
Actually, there's no conflict between the essential principles of communism and democracy. People seem to think democracy always yields an American-style socialist government. You can have a democratic communist state, a democratic theocracy, or, as we have instituted here in America, a democratic socialist welfare/warfare state. Regardless of its association with Stalin, communism is wrong because it ignores the essential right to one's own person and one's own property.
Actually, it is not always up to the artist to determine the distribution and use of their works. If they sign away rights to a company, that company then owns the song, and THEY are the ones who determine its use. If the artist is self-published, they are the ones to determine how their song will be distributed and used.
You're neglecting the issue of contract law. The artist collects royalties, but they have signed their works over to these companies via contracts, so the company owns the copyright whether the artist is dead or not. If the artist is self-published, and has copyrights on their works, then their estate owns the works when they die. This is especially important, since the artist has copyrighted their work for a certain timeframe, so, like all their other property, they should be able to plan for the future and determine via their will who should posses rights to their works until the copyright expires.
In a socialist system, the writers no more own the code than in a fascist system. "The People" own the code, and since "The State" is the representative of society's will, the State owns the code under socialism. If you want the coder to own his code, you need a capitalist system.
The government forces me to register my vehicle with them. However, the government has no right to force me to do that. The government forces me to obtain a licence from them to drive a vehicle I own. They have no right to do so. The government builds road, maintains (sort of) roads, and steals my money to pay for it. They have no constitutional authority to do so. That was the whole idea behind the constitution: it specified what the government was allowed to do, and prohibited anything else. The constitution is the founding charter for the government. It's rules form the bounds within which the American government can claim legitimacy. The constitution doesn't specifically say "People have the right to privacy", but you have to read what you typed: persons, houses, papers, and effects. Your effects are you posessions. You own your vehicle, so it is among your effects, so you have a reasonable expectation that your vehicle will remain private property without a court order.
So the government has unconstitutionally forced you to pay for their road and licence your vehicle with their DMVs. Does the fact that they have already violated their charter give them licence to continue to do so?
Well, it's nice to know you essentially have no scruples. The issue here is not one of accepting help, it's an issue of coercing help. If someone wanted to help me voluntarily, by all means, send donations. However, we are talking about using the government to force others to help me, regardless of what they would prefer to do with their money.
Not that it's relevant to an economic discussion, but I make $10.75 an hour, I pay my own way through school, I live in a one bedroom apartment, and I live paycheck to paycheck (although I could have some savings if ~%18 of my check wasn't stolen every time). And I don't demand anyone else support me. I don't collect government "benefits", despite the fact I probably could, and despite the fact that my money was stolen for that purpose, because I will not perpetuate a system that robs me. I lived on the street for two months because I was unemployed and couldn't afford rent. And I worked my own way back up, because no one owed me my liveliehood but myself. And think what you want, but I would rather die than rob someone at gunpoint (or have the IRS do it for me) to pay for my liveliehood. I own a rifle, and if I had to have food, I would go onto national forest land (unowned as far as I am concerned) and kill something, and cook it. If I couldn't do that, I would die. I wouldn't be happy about it, obviously, but I wouldn't force someone else to care for me if I was unable to.
Just because our dear enlightened friends at the UN decided something is a right, does not make it so. You were precisely correct when you said health care is a NEED. You have a RIGHT to pursue your NEEDS with your own resources. The fact that you or the UN feels you need something in no way allows you to lay claim to that which I, through my own abilities and effort, EARNED. There's no reason the most able should go hungy with the least, just so the least don't starve.
You are correct about one thing: free market capitalism is not a right, it is the system that results when rights are respected over entitlements.
Private schooling does not deny education to the populace. If the public education system were eliminated tomorrow, yes, there would be a shortage of schools and teachers in the immediate term. Tuition would be outrageous due to the fantastic demand and extreme shortage. However, thanks to the wonder that is the free market, some clever person would see what a huge market was available for lower cost, quality schooling, and would build their own school, and charge lower tuition. This is the miracle we call "competition", which does not occur under socialism, for the obvious reason that all business is controlled by the same (non)entity, namely "society". Said competition would continue, filling even lower tuition brackets. Yes, the quality of education would deteriorate to an extent in a lower tuition bracket, but it would be infinitely better than the quality of education the poor currently recieve. And aside from the purely utilitarian aspect, there is the fact that I do not owe someone an education merely because they live and breathe. There is no justification for the idea that they have first claim on my earnings, the product of my labor, simply because they are poor. Such reasoning cannot even be granted the title of "logic". All the poor people out there who can't afford an education, well, that's truly tragic. It doesn't, however, mean that I should have to have a lower quality education becaused I was taxed to provide them with any education.
Socialism IS inherently destructive, as we are now seeing in the US. Socialism only works on the misguided assumption that production will always exceed consumption. If consumption exceeds production, the whole system collapses, as there are shortages, rationing, and the other hallmarks of a depression. America will soon have more retirees collecting social security than workers paying into it (it's a pay-as-you go system, there is no real "trust fund" earning interest). It'll be nice to have a real world example of this to show you then.
Government IS the ultimate manifestation of coersion. Every single action made by the government relies on the idea that they can back it up with a gun and a prison. Why do you pay your taxes? Hardcore socialists might say they love the state, but the rest of us do it because the IRS would have us arrested at gunpoint and imprisoned for years if we didn't. Every action it takes is an effort to somehow limit human action. Proper use of government involves limiting acts that violate the natural rights of others. Improper use of government involves violating the rights of some to give entitlements to others. Natural rights are non-conflicting, entitlements are not. The idea behind the constitution was to specify exactly what the government was allowed to do, so that it did not stray from protecting rights to violating them. Obviously, that has failed, but that's another discussion.
Capitalism is the antithesis of force, because capitalism relies strictly on voluntary consent in any transaction. The use of coersion in a transaction is the hallmark of socialism and fascism, among others, which rely on strict central control of the economy, whether in the name of "society" or the absolute ruler. Under a capitalist system, each person owns their own life, their own property, and the fruits of their application of that property. As owners, they are free to dispose of it in any manner they choose (provided in doing so they don't infringe on another's right to direct the use of his own life and property). Usually this takes the form of trading, be it for other goods, or a currency of his choosing (as opposed to the forced fiat currency of the US). However, if two people want to trade, each the sole owner of his own property, then the only way for a trade to occur is if both consent to it. Anything else would involve the use of either fraud or force, and would be both immoral and illegal.
It would be a gross misstatement to attribute much of American pop culture, or anything about its current economic policy
First, the US is nothing like a capitalist society. Experts will politely refer to it as a "mixed economy", but that is simply another term for socialism with a venere of capitalism kept around for show. As to the fact that the US government restricts its citizens to participating in the economic system they have errected, that is a political issue, not an economic one. My ideal economic system is one in which people can select their own free of coercion. Like socialism? Good for you, go ahead and recruit as many people as you can, and set yourselves up a system. Just don't expect contribution from those of us opposed to it, and don't try to force it on anyone. Same with capitalism, or any other economic system you choose. If you did this, you would find socialism failing, not because you were forced to participate in capitalism, but because socialism is a pyramid scheme, and it fails INEVITABLY. Such a system would have to resolve your complaint, as it would leave each free to choose the nature of his own economic transactions. Unless of course, you would use forceful coersion to keep your system going. And then where would your argument stand?
How does cheaper labor lessen the ability of the consumer to purchase goods? In fact, it INCREASES it. Cheaper labor means cheaper goods. It also means MORE labor, so it means MORE goods, which also means cheaper goods. Unless you're sugesting that opting for cheaper labor ensures that more skilled labor will remain unemployed, which is only possible in a society already on an irreversible economic decline.
Rational self interest requires the recognition not only of one's own rights, but the rights of others. Unless you're a megalomaniac who believe themselves to be godlike compared to others, you must recognize all rights to apply universally, or not at all. Therefore, to violate the natural rights of others is to declare your own rights to be invalid and subject to violation.
Without getting into the nature of the charges against Ken Lay, I will say that committing fraud is not rational and self-interested. As stated, to commit such an act is to invalidate one's own right to avoid fruadulent dealings. It is not rational to subject oneself to fraudulent dealings. Also, as with all immoral acts, the victims have a right to seek retribution and damages, so violating the rights of others (the only type of action that can be considered "immoral") has negative reprecussions, and is therefore not self-interested (unless you're a masocist).
I absolutely consider it to be part of a socialist system, and have been advocating a removal of the public school system for years. Private education works better, solves issues such as whether or not to teach about evolution vs. creationsism, and ensures access to a quality education much better than a public school system.
I believe you are right on one point: a GOVERNMENT cannot function as either completely socialist or capitalist. That is because socialism is inherently self-destructive, so a socialist government dooms itself, and capitalism rests on voluntary participation, and, as government is the ultimate manifestation of coersion, a capitalist "government" is essentially an oxymoron. Government is force, capitalism is its antithesis. The more capitalist a government is, the more issues become civil, and fewer criminal. The primary concern of a capitalist oriented government is how best to limit its functioning.
Further, capitalists are not known for ignoring the long-term in favor of temporary gains. Such behavior is more characteristic of regulated economies, in which one cannot be certain that their carefully laid plans for the future will not be demolished by the whim of some politician. Conversely, in an economy in which one is responsible for, and always free to make, decisions regarding their future, only considering their own ability to achieve their goals, one is much more likely to plan for the distant future rather than the expediency of the moment.
I would disagree. Companies don't release a new console every year, it's more like every four or five. In that time, computer graphics card makers have made leaps and bounds, and PC users have had the option to upgrade their systems to play newer, better games. Sure, the next console launch may be on par with a high-end gaming PC at the time, but over the ensuing few years, that PC has the potential to be upgraded to play much better games, while the console remains the same. The more continuous process of innovation in the PC market ensures that consoles never really "catch up" to their PC brethren, or at least not for long.
Actually, I'd prefer to live in a society where success and even survival is determined on individual merit. And while it is a bit off-topic, I'd also point out that education and healthcare are not rights, as excercising "rights" does not require coerced participation by a third party. When you attempt to create a "right" to healthcare and education, you are in fact creating an "entitlement". Entitlements come at the expense of rights. So tell you what: you and everyone else who wants socialized healthcare and education, get together and for a nice pretty socialist society for yourselves. The rest of us will participate in a free-market capitalist society. See which crumbles first.
Step 1: Demand a policy of inflationary government fiscal programs and a welfare state. Step 2: Watch as your wages go up, but ability to compete in an international labor market plummets. Step 3: Complain when companies do the rational thing and opt for cheaper labor. Step 4: Mock someone for trying to better themselves because you're bitter and unable to compete for wage rates.
Slashdot Mirror
No, some clever person would realize that there was a sizeable body of available cheap labor, build some sweat shops, and make some jeans.
I would recommend you read the writings of John Dewey, widly "credited" as being the creator of the modern public school system. He admited openly that he wanted to create a public, government-run school system, not to allow students to better themselves, and advance their mental faculties, but to teach them "their place" in the social order. In other words, it was designed not to help students achieve their full potentials, but to assign them the role that their leaders thought best. It was designed to create those legions of factory workers. This is not merely my opinion, as Dewey stated this explicitly and repeatedly in his writings.
I do believe there are degrees of evil, and naturally I don't equate my paying taxes with the suffering of slavery. My point is, both taxation and slavery share the same source, and use the many of the same justifications, one is simply a more extreme example of the same principle. I realize there is no society on Earth, now or past, that has fully respected property rights, but I do not believe such a system is beyond realization. As I have stated in the past, the best system is one where individuals always retain the right to exit: they can opt out of an economic system if they feel it is oppressive or inefficient to engage in free market capitalism, then they are free to exit that and set up a socialist society with like-minded individuals. I don't think this would be easy, and I don't think it would be problem-free, which is another reason I favor the unfettered right to keep and bear arms. It is, after all, much harder to rob or enslave a man if he can shoot you. I also don't believe such a system could peacefully evolve from our existing economic and government systems. Conveniently enough, though, I also expect the world economy to essentially collapse under its own weight in the coming decades (think social security debt, massive inflation, continued war, etc).
I would also like to address another common misconception, namely that capitalists and those who favor rational self-interrest are opposed to assisting those whose intial circumstances in life were less than favorable. I firmly beleive that one can achieve greatness regardless of the circumstances of their birth, but I also realize that it is easier to achieve greatness when one is given an easier start. However, I don't support mass forced wealth transfers to the poor simply because they are poor. First, they might be poor because they made repeated foolish decisions in life (i.e. kept having kids they couldn't afford to care for). Second, as I've stated, while I support charitable contributions, I am opposed to forced wealth transfers. If left in the hands of those who earned it, that money could have been spent on consumer goods, invested in the market, or saved for future needs/wants. These are the very things that produce jobs that the poor need. Investment in a capitalist market yields greater future returns for the entire economic system, while forced wealth transfer for a welfare system fulfills only immediate needs. Whenever you observe a government expenditure, the appropriate question to ask is "What could that money have accomplished if left in the private sector?" The answer is, almost invariably: more purchasing of consumer goods, more capital investment, both of which yield more jobs, which means better pay and lower welfare enrollment.
Also, there is a subtle double standard involved in forced wealth transfers intended to rectify nature's accident of unequal origins. If one believes that a person born into a poor family is not responsible for their starting condition (a reasonable conclusion), then to transfer the wealth of another to them to rectify this accident is to say that those other are responsible not only for their own better starting position, but also for the poor starting position of
That depends whether or not the company execs think they can sell more of their products/services than they currently do. If increasing output would flood the market and increase supply too much in relation to demand, thus lowering their bottom line, then there is no sense in increasing output, and it would make sense to cut man hours. If, on the other hand, there is sufficiently strong demand for their product/service, they could devote that extra productivity to putting out additional units in the same time, again increasing their bottom line.
And not to nitpick over terminology, but "Modern Capitalism" is an oxymoron. The modern world has no economic system approaching capitalism. In fact, many nations (such as the US) are tending to shy away from capitalism more and more, in favor of socialist-style government regulation. In fact, a truly free-market capitalist economy has never, to my knowledge, existed.
If this is anything like the preview they've shown to reviews in the past, this should be a real nightmare. Last time they showcased the Avalon desktop, it ran slow as hell, and started churning the swap file in minutes, and was so slow as to be completely unusable in under ten minutes.
That's a little unreasonable. Companies don't have unlimited funds for labor costs. The only way it would be economically feasible to pay the same for less work is if that work was more productive, i.e. you do the same work in 30 hours that was previously done in 40. If each employee did less work per week, the company would have to hire more workers to achieve the same level of productivity, and if they paid you the same as if you had done the full 40 hours worth of work, they would have to hire 25% more workers. However, that would also increase their labor costs by 25%. The only way it is feasible for your employer to cut your hours by 25%, pay you the same, and not have to dramatically increase their labor costs, is if you can increase your productivity by 25%.
The original post refers to the fact that private companies do not generally fund research into so-called "pure science", i.e. science with no apparent economic/technological benefit to the company. This is true in the US, where all such research tends to be government funded. Since he refers to the "culture of sponsorship that has been present in America", and research of no economic interrest is funded by the government, it is quite reasonable to suppose that he is refering, not to privately funded research, but to government funded research.
As to your affinity for funding research, I would suggest that you fund it yourself. I have other uses for my money. With my plan, plenty gets done. All of it economically viable. People like to make money, and to do that, they must provide a product/service that people need/want, and provide it at a better price than anyone else. To create new technologies or improve upon existing ones, you do research. If that research is yielding useful results, they continue to fund it. If they see no use for it, they cut the funding. They can do this morally, because it is their money. If they waste it on bad science, that's their problem. If the government wastes my money funding research of which I either do not approve or do not care, what is my recourse? In your ideal world, I apparently have none.
I gather that you are refering to how the US government misappropriates the earnings of its citizens to pay for research that many don't care about, fewer would support given the option they are rightfully due, and many find morally objectionable. No, I don't think it's a good idea to go down that road in Europe, too. Let the market determine the nature of research funding, and let individuals decide how to allocate their scarce resources themselves.
That's why we have these wonderful things called non-disclosure agreements. If he allows someone access to his code with no contractual stipulations, then that person is not bound to maintain secrecy regarding what they were shown. If I tell someone about my wonderful new algorithm, and I didn't have them sign a non-disclosure agreement, they can blab it all over town with no liability. If, however, they obtain access to my code by theft, or violate a non-disclosure agreement they had signed, or by violating terms of a licence agreement they had accepted, then they are liable for damages, which would include revenue lost to competing products that were created with their illicitly gained information. You don't need a police state to enforce that; you don't even need a patent system, just common law and the courts. I would prefer to see such a system, as it would make owners of IP responsible for maintaining their IP themselves, rather than, as you pointed out, forming a police state to do the same thing. It also prevents problems of two people independently developing the same process or idea. If it cannot be reasonably demonstrated that one party developed their product or service by illicitly obtaining IP from the other party, then no harm done. If, however, it can be shown that said IP was obtained through fraud, theft, or contract violation, then said party is liable for damages. If someone is stupid enough to blab their new invention to anyone who will listen, then they can have no expectation that it will remain IP. Problem solved, all through logic, contract law, and common law, without involving legislatures.
Access to source code is not a "right". The company that owns the code has a "right" to access it, they created it, so they own it, so it is their place to control it. If the owner of the code decides to licence it as OSS, then you have, by virtue of accepting that licence, thus forming a contractual bond, the right to access and use the source within the bounds of that licence agreement. If you disagree so strongly with not being granted access to the source, don't buy the product. That's the wonderful choice offered to you by capitalism.
Communism denies individuality. You are a member of Society, or the State, and the whole comes before any of the parts. The State essentially owns you, and owns the product of your labor, and will distribute it as it sees fit, as the State is the ultimate representative of Society, and Society is the collection of non-autonomous citizens. Kill individuality and you will always evolve a total state.
Actually, there's no conflict between the essential principles of communism and democracy. People seem to think democracy always yields an American-style socialist government. You can have a democratic communist state, a democratic theocracy, or, as we have instituted here in America, a democratic socialist welfare/warfare state. Regardless of its association with Stalin, communism is wrong because it ignores the essential right to one's own person and one's own property.
Actually, it is not always up to the artist to determine the distribution and use of their works. If they sign away rights to a company, that company then owns the song, and THEY are the ones who determine its use. If the artist is self-published, they are the ones to determine how their song will be distributed and used.
You're neglecting the issue of contract law. The artist collects royalties, but they have signed their works over to these companies via contracts, so the company owns the copyright whether the artist is dead or not. If the artist is self-published, and has copyrights on their works, then their estate owns the works when they die. This is especially important, since the artist has copyrighted their work for a certain timeframe, so, like all their other property, they should be able to plan for the future and determine via their will who should posses rights to their works until the copyright expires.
In a socialist system, the writers no more own the code than in a fascist system. "The People" own the code, and since "The State" is the representative of society's will, the State owns the code under socialism. If you want the coder to own his code, you need a capitalist system.
The government forces me to register my vehicle with them. However, the government has no right to force me to do that. The government forces me to obtain a licence from them to drive a vehicle I own. They have no right to do so. The government builds road, maintains (sort of) roads, and steals my money to pay for it. They have no constitutional authority to do so. That was the whole idea behind the constitution: it specified what the government was allowed to do, and prohibited anything else. The constitution is the founding charter for the government. It's rules form the bounds within which the American government can claim legitimacy. The constitution doesn't specifically say "People have the right to privacy", but you have to read what you typed: persons, houses, papers, and effects. Your effects are you posessions. You own your vehicle, so it is among your effects, so you have a reasonable expectation that your vehicle will remain private property without a court order.
So the government has unconstitutionally forced you to pay for their road and licence your vehicle with their DMVs. Does the fact that they have already violated their charter give them licence to continue to do so?
Well, it's nice to know you essentially have no scruples. The issue here is not one of accepting help, it's an issue of coercing help. If someone wanted to help me voluntarily, by all means, send donations. However, we are talking about using the government to force others to help me, regardless of what they would prefer to do with their money.
Not that it's relevant to an economic discussion, but I make $10.75 an hour, I pay my own way through school, I live in a one bedroom apartment, and I live paycheck to paycheck (although I could have some savings if ~%18 of my check wasn't stolen every time). And I don't demand anyone else support me. I don't collect government "benefits", despite the fact I probably could, and despite the fact that my money was stolen for that purpose, because I will not perpetuate a system that robs me. I lived on the street for two months because I was unemployed and couldn't afford rent. And I worked my own way back up, because no one owed me my liveliehood but myself. And think what you want, but I would rather die than rob someone at gunpoint (or have the IRS do it for me) to pay for my liveliehood. I own a rifle, and if I had to have food, I would go onto national forest land (unowned as far as I am concerned) and kill something, and cook it. If I couldn't do that, I would die. I wouldn't be happy about it, obviously, but I wouldn't force someone else to care for me if I was unable to.
Just because our dear enlightened friends at the UN decided something is a right, does not make it so. You were precisely correct when you said health care is a NEED. You have a RIGHT to pursue your NEEDS with your own resources. The fact that you or the UN feels you need something in no way allows you to lay claim to that which I, through my own abilities and effort, EARNED. There's no reason the most able should go hungy with the least, just so the least don't starve.
You are correct about one thing: free market capitalism is not a right, it is the system that results when rights are respected over entitlements.
Private schooling does not deny education to the populace. If the public education system were eliminated tomorrow, yes, there would be a shortage of schools and teachers in the immediate term. Tuition would be outrageous due to the fantastic demand and extreme shortage. However, thanks to the wonder that is the free market, some clever person would see what a huge market was available for lower cost, quality schooling, and would build their own school, and charge lower tuition. This is the miracle we call "competition", which does not occur under socialism, for the obvious reason that all business is controlled by the same (non)entity, namely "society". Said competition would continue, filling even lower tuition brackets. Yes, the quality of education would deteriorate to an extent in a lower tuition bracket, but it would be infinitely better than the quality of education the poor currently recieve. And aside from the purely utilitarian aspect, there is the fact that I do not owe someone an education merely because they live and breathe. There is no justification for the idea that they have first claim on my earnings, the product of my labor, simply because they are poor. Such reasoning cannot even be granted the title of "logic". All the poor people out there who can't afford an education, well, that's truly tragic. It doesn't, however, mean that I should have to have a lower quality education becaused I was taxed to provide them with any education.
Socialism IS inherently destructive, as we are now seeing in the US. Socialism only works on the misguided assumption that production will always exceed consumption. If consumption exceeds production, the whole system collapses, as there are shortages, rationing, and the other hallmarks of a depression. America will soon have more retirees collecting social security than workers paying into it (it's a pay-as-you go system, there is no real "trust fund" earning interest). It'll be nice to have a real world example of this to show you then. Government IS the ultimate manifestation of coersion. Every single action made by the government relies on the idea that they can back it up with a gun and a prison. Why do you pay your taxes? Hardcore socialists might say they love the state, but the rest of us do it because the IRS would have us arrested at gunpoint and imprisoned for years if we didn't. Every action it takes is an effort to somehow limit human action. Proper use of government involves limiting acts that violate the natural rights of others. Improper use of government involves violating the rights of some to give entitlements to others. Natural rights are non-conflicting, entitlements are not. The idea behind the constitution was to specify exactly what the government was allowed to do, so that it did not stray from protecting rights to violating them. Obviously, that has failed, but that's another discussion. Capitalism is the antithesis of force, because capitalism relies strictly on voluntary consent in any transaction. The use of coersion in a transaction is the hallmark of socialism and fascism, among others, which rely on strict central control of the economy, whether in the name of "society" or the absolute ruler. Under a capitalist system, each person owns their own life, their own property, and the fruits of their application of that property. As owners, they are free to dispose of it in any manner they choose (provided in doing so they don't infringe on another's right to direct the use of his own life and property). Usually this takes the form of trading, be it for other goods, or a currency of his choosing (as opposed to the forced fiat currency of the US). However, if two people want to trade, each the sole owner of his own property, then the only way for a trade to occur is if both consent to it. Anything else would involve the use of either fraud or force, and would be both immoral and illegal. It would be a gross misstatement to attribute much of American pop culture, or anything about its current economic policy
First, the US is nothing like a capitalist society. Experts will politely refer to it as a "mixed economy", but that is simply another term for socialism with a venere of capitalism kept around for show. As to the fact that the US government restricts its citizens to participating in the economic system they have errected, that is a political issue, not an economic one. My ideal economic system is one in which people can select their own free of coercion. Like socialism? Good for you, go ahead and recruit as many people as you can, and set yourselves up a system. Just don't expect contribution from those of us opposed to it, and don't try to force it on anyone. Same with capitalism, or any other economic system you choose. If you did this, you would find socialism failing, not because you were forced to participate in capitalism, but because socialism is a pyramid scheme, and it fails INEVITABLY. Such a system would have to resolve your complaint, as it would leave each free to choose the nature of his own economic transactions. Unless of course, you would use forceful coersion to keep your system going. And then where would your argument stand?
How does cheaper labor lessen the ability of the consumer to purchase goods? In fact, it INCREASES it. Cheaper labor means cheaper goods. It also means MORE labor, so it means MORE goods, which also means cheaper goods. Unless you're sugesting that opting for cheaper labor ensures that more skilled labor will remain unemployed, which is only possible in a society already on an irreversible economic decline.
Rational self interest requires the recognition not only of one's own rights, but the rights of others. Unless you're a megalomaniac who believe themselves to be godlike compared to others, you must recognize all rights to apply universally, or not at all. Therefore, to violate the natural rights of others is to declare your own rights to be invalid and subject to violation.
Without getting into the nature of the charges against Ken Lay, I will say that committing fraud is not rational and self-interested. As stated, to commit such an act is to invalidate one's own right to avoid fruadulent dealings. It is not rational to subject oneself to fraudulent dealings. Also, as with all immoral acts, the victims have a right to seek retribution and damages, so violating the rights of others (the only type of action that can be considered "immoral") has negative reprecussions, and is therefore not self-interested (unless you're a masocist).
I absolutely consider it to be part of a socialist system, and have been advocating a removal of the public school system for years. Private education works better, solves issues such as whether or not to teach about evolution vs. creationsism, and ensures access to a quality education much better than a public school system.
I believe you are right on one point: a GOVERNMENT cannot function as either completely socialist or capitalist. That is because socialism is inherently self-destructive, so a socialist government dooms itself, and capitalism rests on voluntary participation, and, as government is the ultimate manifestation of coersion, a capitalist "government" is essentially an oxymoron. Government is force, capitalism is its antithesis. The more capitalist a government is, the more issues become civil, and fewer criminal. The primary concern of a capitalist oriented government is how best to limit its functioning.
Further, capitalists are not known for ignoring the long-term in favor of temporary gains. Such behavior is more characteristic of regulated economies, in which one cannot be certain that their carefully laid plans for the future will not be demolished by the whim of some politician. Conversely, in an economy in which one is responsible for, and always free to make, decisions regarding their future, only considering their own ability to achieve their goals, one is much more likely to plan for the distant future rather than the expediency of the moment.
I would disagree. Companies don't release a new console every year, it's more like every four or five. In that time, computer graphics card makers have made leaps and bounds, and PC users have had the option to upgrade their systems to play newer, better games. Sure, the next console launch may be on par with a high-end gaming PC at the time, but over the ensuing few years, that PC has the potential to be upgraded to play much better games, while the console remains the same. The more continuous process of innovation in the PC market ensures that consoles never really "catch up" to their PC brethren, or at least not for long.
Actually, I'd prefer to live in a society where success and even survival is determined on individual merit. And while it is a bit off-topic, I'd also point out that education and healthcare are not rights, as excercising "rights" does not require coerced participation by a third party. When you attempt to create a "right" to healthcare and education, you are in fact creating an "entitlement". Entitlements come at the expense of rights. So tell you what: you and everyone else who wants socialized healthcare and education, get together and for a nice pretty socialist society for yourselves. The rest of us will participate in a free-market capitalist society. See which crumbles first.
Step 1: Demand a policy of inflationary government fiscal programs and a welfare state. Step 2: Watch as your wages go up, but ability to compete in an international labor market plummets. Step 3: Complain when companies do the rational thing and opt for cheaper labor. Step 4: Mock someone for trying to better themselves because you're bitter and unable to compete for wage rates.