Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2160688 - 12/05/03 06:38 AM (20 years, 1 month ago)

pinky: In the absence of government interference, monopolies can't arise.

how do you figure this? please support your assertion.



Edited by infidelGOD (12/05/03 06:39 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2161469 - 12/05/03 12:40 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
pinky: In the absence of government interference, monopolies can't arise.

how do you figure this? please support your assertion.





Unlike Pinky I think monopolies might arise, but in a TRULY free market they would not last. Why don't you provide us with ONE example of a true MONOpoly that has lasted more than the length of time a patent is in effect that was NOT aided or abetted or created by a government?


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Autonomous]
    #2161629 - 12/05/03 01:21 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

Unlike Pinky I think monopolies might arise,

I concur

but in a TRULY free market they would not last

I never said they would... I only said that monopolies would stifle competition, at least for the time that they're in existence.

Why don't you provide us with ONE example of a true MONOpoly that has lasted more than the length of time a patent is in effect that was NOT aided or abetted or created by a government?

there are no such examples in real life because we DO have anti-trust laws that prevent such things. but some examples of the government breaking up virtual monopolies include the microsoft case, which you already know about and more recently the VISA/Mastercard antitrust suit, which was settled for $3billion a few months ago (I'm one of the plaintiffs).

it should be noted that in this case, and in many other cases of anti-trust litigation, the government isn't so much breaking up a monopoly, but they're preventing firms from using their large market share to stifle competition. examples include microsoft bundling IE with windows, effectively killing off Netscape (their only viable competitor at the time) and VISA/Mastercard barring merchants who accept their cards from accepting other credit cards like amex and discover. this is unfair competition pure and simple, and under a true free market, there wouldn't be any laws to deal with this.








Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2161649 - 12/05/03 01:28 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

Then I'll rephrase my question...

Why don't you provide us with ONE example of a true MONOpoly existing BEFORE anti-trust laws, that lasted longer than the length of time a patent and that was NOT aided or abetted or created by a government (this includes government 'looking the other way' while criminal acts were engaged in).


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2161670 - 12/05/03 01:33 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

furthermore, there would be no laws to prevent price fixing and profiteering during emergencies. the issue isn't just about monopolies. an industry with many companies can decide to fix prices and consumers would have to pay through the nose. "in principle", government intevention is always a bad thing, "in reality", government intervention is a necessity.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Autonomous]
    #2161745 - 12/05/03 01:52 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

Why don't you provide us with ONE example of a true MONOpoly existing BEFORE anti-trust laws

hhhmmmm. I can't think of any off the top of my head. the economy wasn't nearly as integrated back then, so I guess monopolies would have been regional. I wonder how many nationwide companies the size of Microsoft existed back then?

in any case, this is a not a relevent question because we're talking about the current economy. it would be a stretch to say that no monopoly would arise now in the absence of antitrust laws because no monopolies existed in the economy of the 1800's. and besides, what can be considered monopolies (by the standards of the time) DID exist back then. Theodore Roosevelt was famous for breaking up some of them.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Autonomous]
    #2161792 - 12/05/03 02:07 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

here's something:

http://lego70.tripod.com/us/roosevelt_th.htm

"In 1901, Americans were alarmed about the spread of so-called trusts, or industrial combinations, which they thought were responsible for the steady price since 1897. Ever alert to the winds of public opinion, Roosevelt responded by activating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. Beginning in 1902 with a suit to dissolve a northwestern railroad monopoly, Roosevelt moved next against the so-called Beef Trust, then against the oil, tobacco, and other monopolies. In every case the Supreme Court supported the administration, going so far in the oil and tobacco decisions of 1911 as to reverse its 1895 decision. In addition, in 1903 Roosevelt persuaded a reluctant Congress to establish a Bureau of Corporations with sweeping power to investigate business practices; the bureau's thoroughgoing reports were of immense assistance in antitrust cases"

no doubt some of those monopolies had some "help" from the government but the point is made...

it's also interesting to note that Theodore Roosevelt was a proud Republican and an unapologetic Imperialist. kinda a 19th century "neocon". and he hated monopolies with a passion.


here are some interesting quotes:

http://awog.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$95

"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
- Abraham Lincoln

"Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with those institutions."
- Theodore Roosevelt

"If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of government. I do not expect monopoly to restrain itself. If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it."
- Woodrow Wilson

"The real fight today is against inhuman, relentless exercise of capitalistic power... The present struggle in which we are engaged is for social and industrial justice."
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

"The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ?dens of crime? that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails, and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like... the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
- C.S. Lewis





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2161922 - 12/05/03 02:40 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
no doubt some of those monopolies had some "help" from the government but the point is made...



The point is not made. Have you listed a single MONOPOLY that came into being and maintained it's position without the help of a government (or illegal activity)?

Now if monopolies are bad, why do so many quietly accept state run monopolies? Keeping in mind that those in the private sector must rely on non-violent means to maintain a monopoly (if permitted), what makes some people assume that the hearts and designs of those who are engaged in government run monopolies are somehow more beneficent merely because they are backed up by the monopoly of legal violence which is the essence of the state?


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Autonomous]
    #2162019 - 12/05/03 03:05 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

Have you listed a single MONOPOLY

if by monopoly you mean one company owning 100% of an industry, then no I haven't (this is impossible anyway). I have listed regional monopolies and virtual monopolies.

Now if monopolies are bad, why do so many quietly accept state run monopolies?

I don't like monopolies of any kind, state owned or not. and it's true that most monopolies are artificially created by government, however I recognize the necessity of certain state owned non-profit enterprises in industries that provide basic services and infrastructure. it would be pretty chaotic to have 300 companies trying to sell me gas and electricity and it wouldn't necessarily result in lower prices for the consumer (just look at energy deregulation in California).

and besides, as already I mentioned, anti-trust laws don't always deal with monopolies. they are often used to prevent companies from using market share to engage in unfair competition.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: silversoul7]
    #2162273 - 12/05/03 04:23 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

silversoul7 writes:

Tariffs help create more blue-collar jobs domestically rather than shipping them overseas, so the poor can be put to work at a steady job, rather than working multiple minimum-wage jobs or living off of welfare. Tariffs help the poor.

Absolutely incorrect.

There have been multiple articles from multiple sources regarding Bush's steel tariff fiasco, for example. Steel workers kept their jobs, true. But many of those working in industries who used steel as a raw material lost their jobs. The ratio was approximately three to one. So the steel tariffs hurt three times as many blue collar workers as they helped.

And poor folks buy things made out of steel. Since the enactment of the tariffs, they (and all Americans) have been paying substantially more for such products than they had to.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #2162322 - 12/05/03 04:41 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

RandalFlagg writes:

Imagine if a certain U.S. city was home to 95% of the factories of a
certain industry. This city and its citizens are heavily dependent
upon this industry. Now imagine if the Chinese government all of
a sudden decides to move into this industry. Chinese factories
are opened up and they pump out the product in question for a
much cheaper rate. All of the plants in the American city
proceed to go out of business. Is it worth having people save five
cents on something if an entire region in my country is economically
destroyed?


See my comments to silversoul7 re Bush's steel tariff fiasco. Why should we value one region over the entire country? Bush's idiotic tariffs cost the country as a whole more than three times as much as it "saved".

The argument for tariffs is precisely identical to the argument for restricting new technology. As new technology arises, old jobs are lost, and entire regions dependent on the old technology suffer. With the advent of personal computers, the demand for typewriters declined enormously. With the advent of e-mail, the demand for fax machines declined enormously. What does it matter to a worker in a typewriter factory if he loses his job to cheap Japanese typewriters or to American made PCs?

If one entity is so supremely powerful, it can limit the ability of
other entities to compete in the marketplace.


Incorrect. HOW can it limit their entry into the marketplace? Only government can do that.

If only one entity in an industry exists, it limits choices for the
consumer.


In a Capitalist free market, if there ever arises a situation where there is a sole source for a particular product (and such a situation cannot last past the life of a patent, but let's pretend it can), it is because that source produces the product better and sells it cheaper than anyone else. How does this hurt the consumer?

There are none because the U.S. has anti-monopoly laws in place
which restrict such a thing from happening.


No, it has none because it is impossible (absent government interference) for one to arise and be maintained. Those laws are unnecessary.

When public funds are pooled to accomplish a certain goal, often
it does violate our rights. The question is, how much are you
willing to put up with to ensure a basic educational standard
amongst the population?


I am not willing to put up with people initiating force against me in order to educate other people's kids. If you feel that some "public good" justifies the initiation of force against peaceful individuals, that makes you in principle no different from any number of despots throughout history. The only nominal variation is what is subsumed by the nebulous phrase "public good".

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2162474 - 12/05/03 05:32 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

infidelGOD writes:

I'm going by your definition of a free market as the complete seperation of state and economy - a definition I happen to agree with.

Ah. But you claim that government protecting people from theft and fraud is equivalent to them interfering in the market. It isn't.

you didn't even make up the term "anarchic market" until a contradiction was pointed out to you (or perhaps because you realized how untenable your original position was).

I didn't invent the term "anarchic market". And there was no contradiction -- we just defined "free market" differently. To you, a free market can only exist in the absence of police and courts -- in an anarchic society. Once we got that sorted out, I agreed to use the term "Capitalist free market" from now on.

I'm just saying that a complete seperation of state and economy (whatever you want to call it) is unrealistic.

I know you say that. I am waiting for you to support that assertion.

well for one thing, as I explained, intellectual property laws would not exist in a completely free market.

Incorrect. In a Capitalist free market, the owners of property must have their property recognized as belonging to them. For whatever reason, you have convinced yourself that there is no such thing as intellectual property.

If, by "completely free market" you are referring to an anarchic market, then of course there is no such thing as the recognition of intellectual property. There is no such thing as the recognition of ANY property -- the strong may take whatever they wish from the weak with zero risk of retaliation from police and courts, since there are no police or courts. Everything is handled through vigilanteism.

and even if they did, the lack of anti-trust laws would stifle competition and the lack of reasonable import tarriffs would destroy many critical industries.

How does the lack of anti-trust laws prevent someone who wishes to make shoes from making shoes? Or starting a fast food restaurant? Or making furniture?

Which industries are "critical"? If I can buy all the shoes, furniture, and burgers I need, what does it matter to me where they were manufactured?

also in a true free market, every economy would be specialized to produce what it can most efficiently (read: cheaply) produce, this is seen as a positive by many advocates of globalization and free trade, but as you probably already know, a specialized economy is much more vulnerable than a diversified one.

So you advocate the initiation of force against peaceful individuals in order to protect a "vulnerable" economy?

and also, there would be reduced career options for people and a reduced selection of consumer goods, as all goods of a particular type would be produced in the same place (where it can be produced most efficiently) - in other words, less freedom of choice.

So you advocate the initiation of force against peaceful individuals in order to provide consumers a choice of a hundred and fifty different brands of soda pop rather than thirty?

Besides, your assertion that each country would produce just one type of good is erroneous. There are currently over a dozen countries producing shoes (for example) of basically identical price and quality.

also millions of north american auto workers, steel workers, textile makers, furniture makers, etc. etc. would be out of work as all those can be produced more cheaply elsewhere.

How is this different from the millions of buggy makers, typewriter repairmen, telephone switchboard operators, etc. who were put out of work with the advent of automobiles, computers, and automated telephone switching systems? Should we outlaw the introduction of new technologies in order to preserve their jobs?

devoloped countries with higher wages would be especially vulnerable to such job losses in a truly free market, and again, you might have no problem with this.. but I think most people would agree that this is undesirable.

Most people in the West... perhaps. Most people in the world? Not a chance. I concede that you personally may not subscribe to the viewpoint of so many here who never tire of pointing out how large a share of the world's wealth and resources are held by the Western world. Their argument is that the West has no inherent right to that wealth and those resources... that a goatherd in Somalia has just as much right to the goodies as an American or an Italian. If in fact the scenario you describe ends up occurring, this stratification of wealth becomes less extreme. Is this not a good thing for mankind in general?

heck, if you reduce everything as you've done here, you could say almost everything is the same in principle - you could say that slavery is the same "in principle" as owning land as it applies to the concept of "ownership".

Not even close. Try a less hysterical example if you wish to be taken seriously.

the government does not recognize intellectual property in the same way it recognizes physical property. this is obvious. for one thing, ownership of intellectual property is limited to a certain amount of time and then it becomes public domain. does the government take away your house 20 years after you buy it?

Actually, the government can take away your house whenever it pleases. Investigate the concept of "eminent domain".

In the case of some intellectual property (books and songs), the lifespan of the copyright is longer than the life of the author. Patents are different, true. The idea is that the creator has his property protected. There are arguments going on to this day about how long patents and copyrights should exist, and occasionally adjustments are made (in almost every case, the trend has been to LONGER periods) but that doesn't alter the principle involved.

by it's very nature, can't really be "owned" (at least, not for long) because it is just information, nothing more than zeros and ones.

There's no need to get into a debate over whether there should be such a concept as intellectual property recognized by law. Brighter minds than either you or I have decided that already, hundreds of years ago. Are there differences between a chair and a manuscript? Sure. But both are property.

There are in essence four kinds of property -- land, resources contained on land, manufactured goods, intellectual property. Depending on the political orientation of the person involved in the discussion, arguments arise over whether every one of the four should be treated identically, and in some cases (syndico-anarchists, for example), even if there is any such thing as property at all.

To say that a Capitalist free market has no protection of intellectual property is false. To say that an anarchist free market has no protection of ANY property is correct. As I have made plain many posts ago, I refer in this thread to a Capitalist free market.

I mentioned a non-transaction as an example of government influence - "without this transaction with the government, many transactions between individuals involving the sale of said intellectual property would not and could not take place"

You are conflating two different terms, either out of ignorance or out of sophistry. The government does no "transaction" to protect property. If you can prove you own something, and someone attempts to steal it, the government steps in. In the case of your car, it's your registration papers. In the case of your house and plot of land, it's your deed. In the case of your television, it's your sales receipt. In the case of your manuscript or musical score, it's your copyright.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
    #2162652 - 12/05/03 06:56 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)


See my comments to silversoul7 re Bush's steel tariff fiasco. Why
should we value one region over the entire country? Bush's idiotic
tariffs cost the country as a whole more than three times as much as
it "saved".

If that region will be economically destroyed overnight, then I
believe it is not out of line for the government to intervene
and make things easier on that region. I don't believe that
we should have excessive or long-lasting tariffs.

Bush's tariffs might have been stupid, but I am sure that they are
not indicative of the merit of all tariffs.


What does it matter to a worker in a typewriter factory if he loses
his job to cheap Japanese typewriters or to American made PCs?


If one or a few workers lose their jobs, I don't personally care.
If hundreds of thousands of Americans lose their jobs very
quickly, the fallout(increased crime rates, disappearance of
tax revenue, etc..) from that is not healthy for a society.


If one entity is so supremely powerful, it can limit the ability of
other entities to compete in the marketplace.


Incorrect. HOW can it limit their entry into the marketplace? Only
government can do that.

I never said a powerful entity could limit the entry of another
entity into the marketplace. I said it could limit the ability of
the smaller entity to compete. If a powerful entity has so saturated
a market, it is a good possibility that the consumer will not be
exposed to products from competitors.

For example, Ben from the "Ben and Jerry's" ice cream company spoke
at my college once. When they were first getting started, they were
a tiny company. The big "speciality" ice cream company at the time
was Hagen-Das(spelling?). Hagen-Das told retailers that they would
not sell their ice cream to stores that sold "Ben and Jerry's".
Now, thankfully "Ben and Jerry's" was able to overcome this
strongarm tactic by Hagen-Das, but not all companies could do this.
Imagine being crushed by a behemoth before you even had a
fighting chance.

Homogenization of a particular market causes limited choice
for consumers.


There are none because the U.S. has anti-monopoly laws in place
which restrict such a thing from happening.


No, it has none because it is impossible (absent government
interference) for one to arise and be maintained. Those laws are
unnecessary.

If they were unnecessary, why were they passed in the first place?
For just no reason at all?


If you feel that some "public good" justifies the initiation of force
against peaceful individuals, that makes you in principle no
different from any number of despots throughout history.

I never said that education is an inalienable right. Neither is
food or shelter. However, it is within the rights of the
citizens of a democratic country to determine how much they are
taxed and what the tax money is used for. I have no problem
with some of my money going to maintain a strong military, a
national park service, and education. If you do have a problem
with this, then feel free to engage in the political process to
change it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Autonomous]
    #2162655 - 12/05/03 06:58 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)


Why don't you provide us with ONE example of a true MONOpoly existing
BEFORE anti-trust laws


Standard Oil


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #2162701 - 12/05/03 07:16 PM (20 years, 1 month ago)

Research that statement. It will surprise you to find that Standard Oil was never in fact a monopoly. And by the time the anti-trust laws were put into place, it had been losing its market share steadily for over a decade.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
    #2168601 - 12/08/03 09:17 AM (20 years, 1 month ago)

I see that you have some serious misconceptions about intellectual property.

I'm going by your definition of a free market as the complete seperation of state and economy - a definition I happen to agree with.

Ah. But you claim that government protecting people from theft and fraud is equivalent to them interfering in the market. It isn't.


don't be ridiculous. I never claimed such a thing. please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't invent the term "anarchic market". And there was no contradiction

actually there was. see post #2149392 and #2149428. to your credit, you admitted and corrected yourself.

To you, a free market can only exist in the absence of police and courts

again, I never said such a thing. do you just make this crap up or what?

For whatever reason, you have convinced yourself that there is no such thing as intellectual property.

seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? do you actually read what I write or are you debating your own preconceptions here? I clearly DO recognize the concept of intellectual property. I'm just trying to explain to you why and how it exists. you have this mistaken notion that intellectual property works in the same way as physical property.

If, by "completely free market" you are referring to an anarchic market

no. that's not what I mean :rolleyes:, you should try reading my posts. if I didn't make it clear already, I'm referring to a complete seperation of state and economy, where the government has no influence on transactions. I made this pretty clear already, so I wonder how you could get this one wrong at this point... if you get the little things so blatantly wrong, how did you do with the real important stuff? we'll see...

and even if they did, the lack of anti-trust laws would stifle competition and the lack of reasonable import tarriffs would destroy many critical industries.

How does the lack of anti-trust laws prevent someone who wishes to make shoes from making shoes? Or starting a fast food restaurant? Or making furniture?


huh? do you really need this explained to you? I said "the lack of anti-trust laws would stifle competition" and I already gave several examples.

So you advocate the initiation of force against peaceful individuals in order to protect a "vulnerable" economy?

no, I do not advocate the initiation of force.

So you advocate the initiation of force against peaceful individuals in order to provide consumers a choice of a hundred and fifty different brands of soda pop rather than thirty?

no, I do not advocate the initiation of force.

also millions of north american auto workers, steel workers, textile makers, furniture makers, etc. etc. would be out of work as all those can be produced more cheaply elsewhere.

How is this different from the millions of buggy makers, typewriter repairmen, telephone switchboard operators, etc. who were put out of work with the advent of automobiles, computers, and automated telephone switching systems?


sigh. you honestly don't see how that's different?

Should we outlaw the introduction of new technologies in order to preserve their jobs?

oh yeah. that's exactly what I'm proposing :rolleyes:

If in fact the scenario you describe ends up occurring, this stratification of wealth becomes less extreme

not at all. it actually becomes more extreme because the money saved by moving jobs overseas do not stay there. remember that job losses are spurred by lower wages, which means the companies that employ those workers are increasing profits. you don't have to look at a hypothetical scenario because this is exactly what has been happening to our economy, see the Wal-Mart phenomenon.

the government does not recognize intellectual property in the same way it recognizes physical property. this is obvious. for one thing, ownership of intellectual property is limited to a certain amount of time and then it becomes public domain. does the government take away your house 20 years after you buy it?

Actually, the government can take away your house whenever it pleases. Investigate the concept of "eminent domain".


nice dodge, but maybe you should investigate the concept of answering the question that was asked because I didn't ask if the government can take away your property, I asked: "does the government take away your house 20 years after you buy it?". if the "ownership" of intellectual property is identical in principle to the ownership of physical property, why does the government routinely take away people's property? please answer this direct question, because there is an important point here. hint: it has nothing to do with eminent domain.

maybe you can't answer the question, maybe by now, you've realized your mistake. you have said that information can be owned and that it is the same in principle to owning an object..

well, to say that owning a thing and owning an idea is identical in principle is just PLAIN SILLY. and it shows a complete lack of understanding about the real issues surrounding intellectual property.

and yes you HAVE reduced everything. you have reduced everything to a point where you make no distinction between a thing and an idea. once again you are unable or unwilling to see fundamental differences. information, by it's very nature, cannot be owned because it is immaterial. it can only be controlled and held for periods of time, tenuously at best. this is why patents expire, this is why you don't ever own the information, what you actually own is a government issued patent or copyright or trademark - a contract that recognizes your right to exclusive use or exclusive control of that information for a limited time, NOT your ownership of it. THERE CAN BE NO OWNERSHIP OF THE IMMATERIAL. intellectual property laws only give you this artificial government sanctioned control for a time and after that, it becomes public domain. eventually ALL information becomes public domain. it is not "identical in principle" to ownership of physical property, in fact, it is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT.

I asked you earlier about the mechanism by which intellectual property is recognized. you should have investigated the question because then you would already know the following:

form the constitution article I, section 8:
Congress shall have power ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

from the US patent and trademark office:
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States or "importing" the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.

some more resources for those interested:
http://www.wipo.int
http://www.intelproplaw.com/
http://www.patents.com/patents.htm
http://www.timestream.com/stuff/neatstuff/mmlaw.html

notice there is no mention of "ownership"... that's because even the government acknowledges that information cannot be owned - it can only be controlled for a time, and ONLY by the explicit recognition of government.

so you are blatantly wrong when you say that the government has no influence on transactions involving intellectual property. in fact, the opposite is true - it is government that enables such transactions because government is the overriding authority that grants you this psuedo-ownership of information. without this artificial government influence, there can be no ownership or control of intellectual property.

here are some words from a famous inventor:


"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

- Thomas Jefferson.


"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property"

"in nature" there can be no ownership of ideas. it is ONLY through artificial legal constructs like "patent", "trademark" and "copyright" that individuals are given exclusive property rights to information. these rights are granted by government, therefore, intellectual property rights REQUIRE government influence and intervention. so your next assertion is completely false:

To say that a Capitalist free market has no protection of intellectual property is false

all you're doing here is repeating an assertion with no facts and no logic to back it up. I have shown that a capitalist free market, as YOU defined it (the complete seperation of state and ecoonomy), CAN NOT recognize intellectual property. YOU are the one advocating such a system. all I'm doing, and all I've done so far in this thread is explain to you that such a system is unworkable, one reason (of many) would be the lack of intellectual property rights.

I also couldn't help but notice that you completely ignored the point I made about independent discoveries. this idea alone completely destroys your claim that ownership of intellectual property is the same as ownership of objects. imagine if you had worked your ass off for five years spending millions of dollars in research to develop a new fuel cell technology. you go to market with it only to find out that your design is similar to a product released a week earlier, and you are prevented under threat of force from competing in the open market. first, this demolishes your ridiulous claim that government has no influence on transactions and secondly, it calls into question the whole concept of exclusive ownership of IDEAS. if information is mere property, WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE PROPERTY HERE?

why did you not address this point in your last post?

You are conflating two different terms, either out of ignorance or out of sophistry. The government does no "transaction" to protect property

:lol: ha, I'm not conflating anything.. and you accuse ME of ignorance and sophistry? there is no transaction with the goverment you say?!? try this: http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/comm106/106patent.html. look at the process of filing a patent... money is exchanged, documents are signed, certain rights are granted. it IS a transaction with the government, regardless of what you think.

If you can prove you own something, and someone attempts to steal it, the government steps in. In the case of your car, it's your registration papers. In the case of your house and plot of land, it's your deed. In the case of your television, it's your sales receipt. In the case of your manuscript or musical score, it's your copyright.

this is more of your totally meaningless BS. sure there are superficial similarities there, but a copyright is NOTHING like a receipt or deed. a copyright does NOT grant ownership of anything. a copyright gives you the exclusive right to copy and control your information. you need to get some basic facts straight man.

it's been amusing, but your ignorant statements and your mistaken notions about intellectual property are of absolutely no interest to me. I prefer to deal with facts and logic, not your overly verbose rhetoric. so I would kindly suggest that you educate yourself on this subject before we continue this discussion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: silversoul7]
    #4836227 - 10/21/05 09:10 PM (18 years, 3 months ago)

Well, I was digging through some old threads I made under my previous account, and came across this. My ideas have changed quite a bit since then, but I thought this might still be an interesting item for discussion.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUnagipie
Pilgrim -DBK鰻

Registered: 08/11/05
Posts: 6,300
Loc: The Trenches of France
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Silversoul]
    #4836382 - 10/21/05 09:48 PM (18 years, 3 months ago)

Of course


--------------------

Don't fight it. Just let the illuminados take over your mind. You be at bliss soon.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pure Capitalism
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Lallafa 10,763 76 12/25/01 11:30 PM
by Phred
* monopolies...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 2,642 61 08/11/03 02:45 PM
by Cornholio
* Communist Anarchism DigitalDuality 987 6 05/05/04 03:55 AM
by BleaK
* God is an Anarchist.
( 1 2 all )
Baby_Hitler 4,823 33 07/21/05 01:12 PM
by rogue_pixie
* The Reluctant Anarchist Evolving 2,014 17 06/12/04 09:27 PM
by RandalFlagg
* America. the threat to its self...
( 1 2 all )
GabbaDjS 3,955 29 02/21/02 08:50 AM
by Phred
* You May Already Be An Anarchist.
( 1 2 3 all )
FutureExPatriot 5,001 45 10/16/02 01:16 AM
by zeronio
* An Anarchistic Socialistic Democratic Society
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Teotzlcoatl 6,961 63 07/27/07 03:57 PM
by Teotzlcoatl

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,832 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 12 queries.