• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Right Wing Ideology Fails in Economics As Well

My Netflix is at thepiratebay.org ;)


(Intellectual property "rights" are an unnatural government construct, and I'm not under any contractual agreement not to download whatever the hell I want.)

I'm not sure they should be completely removed but certainly they should be a hell of a lot more limited than they currently are.
 
But the point is that this level of production and consumption is only facilitated by massive gov't intervention.

I don't think I'm ready to buy into this argument. Where's the massive government intervention that supports Google of Amazon? So DARPA and CERN developed the protocols and addressing systems that allow computers to communicate. How much did that cost versus how much do these companies and all the other companies that have sprung up from the Internet contribute to the world's economies? :confused:

You also keep mentioning distribution. The distribution system is a social benefit that provides value to everyone. A highway or airport means if I want to go to California I don't have to walk. Also, the same infrastructure that benefits Amazon benefits little mom-and-pop shops all over the country who peddle their wares over the Internet and use Fedex to deliver them. Some of these mom-and-pops find a benefit to using Amazon's website as a means to sell their goods. So, in that respect, I suppose it's the trickle-down theory of corporate welfare.
 
Having functional control over one's life counts. With the government it's like two guys trying to drive a car from the back seat, and they're always fighting over whose turn it is to hold the broomstick, and you're the third guy gagged in the trunk!

I like the metaphor, but I don't think it is particularly accurate. Those guys at the wheel legitimately care about the effect their driving is having, and they are each terrified of being kicked out of the car.

So - don't buy stuff from companies that conceal their behavior.

My whole point is that if you aren't a consumer of the product to begin with, your choice to not buy it has no effect.

99% of boycotts are miserable failures, and if we're talking about items only the top 2% of the wealthiest individuals can afford, most people have literally no voice in how the companies that make them are run.

Free market entities can't get a penny from you unless you agree to give it to them. The main reason people don't pay more attention to consumer activism is because they're brainwashed by the government and distracted with the democracy circus.

Now that is an absurd allegation. You really think that the millions spent each year on advertising, the brainwashing of the companies themselves have LESS of an effect on consumers than the government we're mostly too apathetic to bring ourselves to care about?

I guess those companies are just throwing their money down holes. Poor fools. We should reduce government to protect them.

They can advertise, but they can't silence voices to the contrary, or even control their article on Wikipedia! No company can abuse its customers and stay in the business for long!

Quite untrue. Dispreportionate protection of the corporate sector has allowed for numerous incidents of censorship and misinformation to protect their interests. I would be delighted to list them if you wish, but I want to limit the length of this thread somewhat.


Those countries are experiencing temporary economic benefits from European integration, low birthrates, low corporate taxes, American military spending saving their butts throughout the 20th century, momentum from being the first to industrialize, some trade being left over from the colonial era, etc. Europe's beach party is about to come to a screeching halt. It has no future.

Well we'll see what the future holds I suppose, but how long do they have to survive before you'll concede the sustainability of their systems? Is that mark within our lifetimes? Or will I have to watch my grandchildren from heaven having the same futile discussion because "old europe" is going to fizzle out in a few more decades?

I find this perspective particularly strange given the comparative longevity of those countries. Who are we to lecture them on what can and cannot last?
 
I don't think I'm ready to buy into this argument. Where's the massive government intervention that supports Google of Amazon? So DARPA and CERN developed the protocols and addressing systems that allow computers to communicate. How much did that cost versus how much do these companies and all the other companies that have sprung up from the Internet contribute to the world's economies? :confused:
This argument is no different to the French social democrats.

You also keep mentioning distribution. The distribution system is a social benefit that provides value to everyone. A highway or airport means if I want to go to California I don't have to walk. Also, the same infrastructure that benefits Amazon benefits little mom-and-pop shops all over the country who peddle their wares over the Internet and use Fedex to deliver them. Some of these mom-and-pops find a benefit to using Amazon's website as a means to sell their goods. So, in that respect, I suppose it's the trickle-down theory of corporate welfare.
The point about distribution is it proportionally benefits the larger companies who use it more for their economic entreprises. An airport system is far less financially useful for a local sole trader than a massive corporation. Also the large and medium sized companies rarely pull their weight for what they get. For instance in the US large trucks, which disproportionately benefit them, cause about 100% of roadbed damage but generally pay less than 50% of maintenance.
 
My Netflix is at thepiratebay.org ;)

(Intellectual property "rights" are an unnatural government construct, and I'm not under any contractual agreement not to download whatever the hell I want.)

If everyone felt as you do, why would anyone create something like a movie or a video game, since it costs real money to do that? When you get right down to it, the enforcement of any contract is an unnatural government construct. After my son got caught trying to download a pirated version of The Sims at the website you just mentioned, my internet service provider unnaturally cut off my service until he said he was sorry and wouldn't do it again. So if your internet service provider has a contract like they all do, then you might be mistaken, especially if you live in The Land of the DMCA.
 
Last edited:
If everyone felt as you do, why would anyone create something like a movie or a video game, since it costs real money to do that? When you get right down to it, the enforcement of any contract is an unnatural government construct. After my son got caught trying to download a pirated version of The Sims at the website you just mentioned, my internet service provider unnaturally cut off my service until he said he was sorry and wouldn't do it again. So if your internet service provider has a contract like many do, then you might be mistaken, especially if you live in The Land of the DMCA.
Yes, all these contracts are unnatural gov't devices. However there are those more and those less in tune with the idea of limited gov't intervention, owning the fruit's of one's labour and such. The kind of IP we see today are certainly less in tune with this. I don't object completely to them personally but I think they should be greatly restricted.
 
If everyone felt as you do, why would anyone create something like a movie or a video game, since it costs real money to do that?

One is entitled to the tangible fruits of one's labor, not ones that would require interfering with other people's natural abilities to benefit from copies of it. Big Content companies have benefited greatly from emerging technologies in the first half of the 20th century (cinema, TV, radio, etc), and now new technologies require adaptation to the new realities of the marketplace that may be less profitable for them, but c'est la vie. It's your computer and your Internet connection - no possible combination of 1's and 0's on it should ever be made illegal!

They can still make money through movie theater contracts, concerts, official fan-club memberships, fees for online games, product placement, training / certification for software products, providing value to businesses in exchange for contractual obligations, and other ideas, but government force is out of the question. Can you imagine what would have happened if the horse and carriage interests could use the power of government to hold back the automobile?


When you get right down to it, the enforcement of any contract is an unnatural government construct.

A contract is a meeting of minds, backed by evidence that verifies your identity, and, in a free society, an arbitration agency that is able to enforce it. Clicking a button on a screen (which only applies to some software, not other content) is not a binding contract.


After my son got caught trying to download a pirated version of The Sims at the website you just mentioned, my internet service provider unnaturally cut off my service until he said he was sorry and wouldn't do it again.

Get a new Internet provider.
 
Last edited:
Notice I said "Internet commerce." Somehow, I have a problem giving DARPA and CERN credit for creating companies like Amazon.com., Yahoo, and Google. It took entrepreneurs to see the potential of the Internet and create whole industries around it.
While I don't give them full credit, their contribution cannot be ignored, primarily without the protocols communication would be very difficult, potentially not profitable. Further, the trunk lines that carry internet traffic also were built with government subsidy. Further, if it weren't for ICANN (previously created by the congress) naming conventions and number assignments would overlap and cause horrendous traffic issues. I'm not worshipping at the alter of government, but I do believe they're contribution through spin-off technologies is nothing to be scoffed at, which you've also mentioned.
 
One is entitled to the tangible fruits of one's labor, not ones that would require interfering with other people's natural abilities to benefit from copies of it.

You say that one is entitled to the tangible fruits of his labor, "not ones that would require interfering with other people's natural abilities to benefit from copies of it." Well, people have a natural ability to steal. That doesn't make it right. Presumably, under your scenario once the cost of reproducing, say, a book falls to zero, then the creator isn't entitled to one red cent for selling a copy of it. If he's not entitled to any money for a copy, then, if the book in question provides pleasure or utility to the masses (thus possessing value), who would be willing to pay for the value to society for the first, original copy of the work? NO ONE but a rich idiot or philanthropist or both. Thus, it's a bit disingenuous for you to say that one is entitled to the tangible fruits of his labor when he won't receive any money for them except through the benevolence or stupidity of others. The Founding Fathers of the United States recognized the problem that failure to compensate the creators of intellectual property would reduce the incentive to produce works that advance the scientific progress of society. That's why they inserted the Copyright Clause into the Constitution.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the horse and carriage interests could use the power of government to hold back the automobile?

It's not a valid comparison. We've had copyright laws since the Republic was founded. They advance progress, not retard it. And call me old fashioned, but I kind of like holding a CD or a book.

A contract is a meeting of minds, backed by evidence that verifies your identity, and, in a free society, an arbitration agency that is able to enforce it.

Well, unless your arbitrator has the force of law, i.e. government, behind it, its ability to enforce its will is somewhat limited.
 
Last edited:
[...] Well, people have a natural ability to steal. That doesn't make it right. [...]

So duplicating information constitutes theft? Wow, how far-reaching is that... Can you sue me for lending a comic book you've published to a friend? Can you sue me for photographing you or your property (while I'm standing outside your property)? Etc. It leads to all sorts of irrational outcomes, including those that can be used to suppress leaked information into a memory hole to protect the powerful - a definite competitive disadvantage for a society.


Presumably, under your scenario once the cost of reproducing, say, a book falls to zero, then the creator isn't entitled to one red cent for selling a copy of it. If he's not entitled to any money for a copy, then, if the book in question provides pleasure or utility to the masses (thus possessing value), who would be willing to pay for the value to society for the first, original copy of the work?

No one can deny that this person wrote this book, and the author can still make money from the benefits to his reputation, speaking tours, fan clubs, etc - but selling 1's and 0's is like selling air (at sea level on earth). You don't have the right to use force to make your business plan work, when in reality it doesn't. C'est la vie.


The Founding Fathers of the United States recognized the problem that failure to compensate the creators of intellectual property would reduce the incentive to produce works that advance the scientific progress of society. That's why they inserted the Copyright Clause into the Constitution.

I like the "Founding Fathers", but I don't consider them infallible.

Suing someone for plagiarism or unjust enrichment are separate issues, but policing how individuals share copies of your work on their own property for free is ridiculous. (Sure, the ISP's could ban piracy, but the Internet is inherently decentralized, and you'll immediately see ISP's and meshes of local WiFi darknets that bypass this.)


It's not a valid comparison.

Both are scenarios where companies would use the force of government to hold back a newer technology because the old one is more profitable for them.


Well, unless your arbitrator has the force of law, i.e. government, behind it, its ability to enforce its will is somewhat limited.

We were talking about enforcement of contracts, and the contract is the law, complete with arbitration clauses, enforcement insurance fees paid by the signers, etc.
 
A viable market response in the absence of copyright/patent protections is to charge an insane price relative to the risk associated with 1 person copying and reproducing the said material. It is possible to deduce this in terms of elasticity, and therefore differentiate an income/quantity effect, but of course it is all subject to the specific demand.

You see this becoming the sort with companies such as Rhapsody and what not, where they pay a rather large licensing fee based on estimated subscribers, and then those subscribers are then allowed to dl as much as they want, while only paying a small fee per month.

The retail market for various "works" reminds me of 1979. You go to your local music store, see something you like, and then purchase it. The difference is present technology. In 1979, you would not be able to copy and reproduce something so easily, be it music, movies, etc.... Now days, i can go purchase the latest bestseller, scan all the pages, and procede to sell it at a better price.

What Rhapsody faces (and others like them) is the risk of users exporting content to non users. Without a doubt, there are businesses hard at work developing advanced digital watermark technology, where they will eventually be able to work with government officials to create a deterrence system.

One thing is for sure; that little show in the beginning of new movies that states: downloading or purchasing copyrighted content is stealing, and is against the law, works wonders:roll:
 
Or, with millions of people capable of putting out their own music, software, news, and even movies -- and in most cases being willing to do it for free -- perhaps the era of Big Content being able to make big money is simply coming to an end... :2razz:
 
Or, with millions of people capable of putting out their own music, software, news, and even movies -- and in most cases being willing to do it for free -- perhaps the era of Big Content being able to make big money is simply coming to an end... :2razz:

Well to a point. Albums were never intended to be a revenue generator in their own accord, but rather a means to fill stadiums for various concert tours. It is live events that fuel musicians pockets, not record sales, or heaven forbid music video sales.
 
So it has to be instant gratification if it doesn't count?

No, but it counts more if it's more responsive. Choice in politics is negligible compared t ochoice in the free market

And I've never bought entirely into the whole "voting with your dollars" concept. It sounds good on its face, but we know the reality of the world. Big businesses that do unconciounable things can conceal their behavior, stamp out bad reputation with advertising, and doesn't answer to all consumers equally, since not all consumers are in a place to purchase or not purchase each and every comodity the market has to offer.

Firstly, big business doesn't control the economy. Much of it is run by small and medium sized businesses. This doesn't remove the fact that big business can lose market share if it screws up. Also, just as there are bad consumers, there are at least as many bad voters. If consumers aren't able to regulate business with their dollars, voters are incapable of regulating politicians with their votes.

Ask the average Joe. These countries tend to do well in terms of people contentment or even outright happiness with their systems. They do not see massive emmigration or brain-drain. They are not places of squalor or suffering or oppression that American conservatives would have us believe they are.

They are places where unemployment and underemployment are usually far higher than ours. They have nanny states that regulate people's lives far more than here. They often have more natural resources for fewer people than we do, like Norway's oil. They are also places where more than half of what people earn is stolen from them and given to those who don't
 
Firstly, big business doesn't control the economy. Much of it is run by small and medium sized businesses. This doesn't remove the fact that big business can lose market share if it screws up. Also, just as there are bad consumers, there are at least as many bad voters. If consumers aren't able to regulate business with their dollars, voters are incapable of regulating politicians with their votes.

Of course a difference between the market and politics is that we make far less political decisions and there is a lot more information for the political decisions that we make. Even local level politicians will have many more articles written amount them than the most products that we consume. Also voting is at least in part an explicit apparatus to regulate politicians. When making a purchase, regulating the business is probably a very low to non-existent priority.
 
Of course a difference between the market and politics is that we make far less political decisions and there is a lot more information for the political decisions that we make. Even local level politicians will have many more articles written amount them than the most products that we consume. Also voting is at least in part an explicit apparatus to regulate politicians. When making a purchase, regulating the business is probably a very low to non-existent priority.

A product purchase is optional, but a politician is forced on you whether you want one or not.

A product can be selected from millions of choices, but with politicians it's usually down to 2 guys who have a chance and a handful more than don't.

A product can be replaced at any time, not every X years, and you can even get your money back if you return it within 30 days.

A product is there when you need it, for as long as you need it, but your politician will most likely just send you a form letter if you write him, and then add you to his fund-raising mailing list.

A product that is on the market can be scientifically tested by neutral consumer interest agencies and their results published on the Internet. All you get from politicians are 30 second soundbites, and they can change their mind at any time.

A product's price is known beforehand, but you never know when a politician will raise your taxes, legislate away your rights, or draft your children to war.

With a product purchase you get what you vote for - every single time.

And, unlike Barack Obama, most products come with a clear country-of-origin label. :mrgreen:
 
A product purchase is optional, but a politician is forced on you whether you want one or not.

A product can be selected from millions of choices, but with politicians it's usually down to 2 guys who have a chance and a handful more than don't.

A product can be replaced at any time, not every X years, and you can even get your money back if you return it within 30 days.

A product is there when you need it, for as long as you need it, but your politician will most likely just send you a form letter if you write him, and then add you to his fund-raising mailing list.

A product that is on the market can be scientifically tested by neutral consumer interest agencies and their results published on the Internet. All you get from politicians are 30 second soundbites, and they can change their mind at any time.

A product's price is known beforehand, but you never know when a politician will raise your taxes, legislate away your rights, or draft your children to war.

With a product purchase you get what you vote for - every single time.

And, unlike Barack Obama, most products come with a clear country-of-origin label. :mrgreen:

Yet given the number of consumption decisions a person has to make, they cannot very well read the consumer reports on every product they buy, much less, investigate the negative externalities of the product. Even with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, consumers still end up buying toxic toys and poisoned pet food. With less regulation businesses were able to smuggle all sorts of toxins into products that were consumed by the masses. Even though the Consumer Product Safety Commission is even less accountable to voters than a politician, it has managed to make consumption decisions safer, while still allowing for the most diverse market of products in history.
 
A product purchase is optional, but a politician is forced on you whether you want one or not.

A product can be selected from millions of choices, but with politicians it's usually down to 2 guys who have a chance and a handful more than don't.

A product can be replaced at any time, not every X years, and you can even get your money back if you return it within 30 days.

A product is there when you need it, for as long as you need it, but your politician will most likely just send you a form letter if you write him, and then add you to his fund-raising mailing list.

A product that is on the market can be scientifically tested by neutral consumer interest agencies and their results published on the Internet. All you get from politicians are 30 second soundbites, and they can change their mind at any time.

A product's price is known beforehand, but you never know when a politician will raise your taxes, legislate away your rights, or draft your children to war.

With a product purchase you get what you vote for - every single time.

And, unlike Barack Obama, most products come with a clear country-of-origin label. :mrgreen:

Double Thank You
 
Double Thank You

Thanks for your engaging commentary as well. However, I am still not seeing how "voting with your dollar" is really an effective means of regulation or resolving market failures. Break it down for me!!
 
Yet given the number of consumption decisions a person has to make, they cannot very well read the consumer reports on every product they buy, much less, investigate the negative externalities of the product. Even with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, consumers still end up buying toxic toys and poisoned pet food. With less regulation businesses were able to smuggle all sorts of toxins into products that were consumed by the masses. Even though the Consumer Product Safety Commission is even less accountable to voters than a politician, it has managed to make consumption decisions safer, while still allowing for the most diverse market of products in history.

So some government beuarocrats and busybody politicians should take away our freedom from us to decide for ourselves? Bad consumers will never surpass the ineptitude or externalities of the vast number of government regulations. In an effort to "protect" us they ejust treat us like children
 
Thanks for your engaging commentary as well. However, I am still not seeing how "voting with your dollar" is really an effective means of regulation or resolving market failures. Break it down for me!!

A company can't take your money against your will. They have to offer you something that you want more than the money. They are constantly competeing against more than one company, not even always in the same sector, for your money. They have to please you to get your money. If you don't want to do business with them, fine. They don't force anything on you. Politics are differant. You can vote with your dollars at any time that you have them. You can only vote between two political candidates that stand a chance every few years. Even then, there's not much of a choice between the two. Even if you don't want to do business with the guy who gets the most votes, too bad. He can still boss you around
 
So some government beuarocrats and busybody politicians should take away our freedom from us to decide for ourselves? Bad consumers will never surpass the ineptitude or externalities of the vast number of government regulations. In an effort to "protect" us they ejust treat us like children

So would you like to abolish the Consumer Product Safety Commission and perhaps even the FDA?
 
So would you like to abolish the Consumer Product Safety Commission and perhaps even the FDA?

While firstly I said the vast majority. It helps if things are transparent. I believe that this is one of government's few duties, but they're bad at even this. I'd say that one should be allowed to sell heroin despite it's dangers
 
While firstly I said the vast majority. It helps if things are transparent. I believe that this is one of government's few duties, but they're bad at even this. I'd say that one should be allowed to sell heroin despite it's dangers

So you would not like to abolish the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the FDA?
 
Yet given the number of consumption decisions a person has to make, they cannot very well read the consumer reports on every product they buy, much less, investigate the negative externalities of the product.

Technology solves many of those problems, with ever-cheaper devices for analyzing nutritional / chemical contents, and ever-greater use of the Internet, including from portable devices. You don't need to "investigate" anything, just hold a product next to your smartphone and look at the summary screen: this many stars for quality, safety, expert advice, consumer satisfaction, ethical "karma" of companies involved, any warning flags, etc - it only takes 5 seconds!

And many other "negative externalities" like pollution are issues that are dealt with through property rights, like between the owner of a factory and any adjacent property owners that can detect their air / water / soil quality being affected, in which case the factory owes them restitution (unless they have a prior agreement, like a factory might agree to a specific cap and sponsor a local park to compensate for it).


Even with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, consumers still end up buying toxic toys and poisoned pet food. With less regulation businesses were able to smuggle all sorts of toxins into products that were consumed by the masses. Even though the Consumer Product Safety Commission is even less accountable to voters than a politician, it has managed to make consumption decisions safer, while still allowing for the most diverse market of products in history.

What do you mean by "even"? CPSC is a government monopoly, and is thus naturally inferior to a competing mesh of consumer safety organizations that actually have to compete for public donations, subscriptions, or service fees (most likely paid by manufacturers looking for a reputable way to prove their product's quality) on the basis of their reputation.

When the CPSC monopoly screws up (i.e. corruption, incompetence, forcefully delaying / keeping a useful product out of the marketplace, raising product prices too much, etc) - what're you gonna do, move to a different country? Even if you do, they'll still be getting your tax dollars for many years to come!


So you would not like to abolish the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the FDA?

On the issue of medical regulation, I specifically recommend a book by Mary Ruwart called Healing Our World (older edition free online). FDA kills!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom