Free Is Not Socialism
from the this-again dept
I've had a browser open with a two part series from the site "e-consultancy" for the better part of a month, debating whether or not it's even worth going through this battle again -- but it seems worth it to clear up some serious misconceptions. The first article decries "digital socialism" and the second part goes after the "tyranny of the consumer." This, by itself, seems contradictory. The capitalist free market works thanks to the tyranny of the consumer. That is, the entire reason why the free market works is because consumers have power to move to a competitor -- and that keeps producers in-line. Complaining about consumers getting their way is a rejection of capitalism and the free market, not support for it.The complaint about "socialism" is even more confusing. The writer confuses the fact that anyone can own a copy of a non-rivalrous, non-excludable good with "collective ownership." That's quite wrong. Socialism is, indeed, about collective ownership of a single good -- with multiple folks sharing ownership of a single scarce good. What people are talking about when they discuss digital content going free is not collective ownership, but how supply is infinite such that everyone can own their own copy. It's the opposite of socialism or collective ownership. It's very much about allowing personal property to thrive. The article also makes the odd (and incorrect) claim that those supporting such freeing up of digital content are, like "socialists" asking for government interference in the market. Amusingly, just a few paragraphs after making this claim, the writer goes through the history of intellectual property in the US, detailing exactly how intellectual property is government interference in the market.
It never ceases to amaze me that people claim that the free market economics we describe is somehow "socialist," when the system they support is a system of government-granted monopolies managed through a centralized government body. How is that possibly more capitalist than actually letting the free market come up with reasonable business models that don't rely on governments defining the winning business model?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: capitalism, digital content, economics, free markets, socialism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
These people from Bizarro world?
It'd be good for a laugh if it weren't so pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These people from Bizarro world?
socialism is closer to what you described they want, not communism. While it may seem like I'm grasping at straws here, there is a fundamental difference between socialism and communism. To put it simply: all communists like socialism, but not all socialists like communism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These people from Bizarro world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These people from Bizarro world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: These people from Bizarro world?
That's a hold over from the Cold War Era, jonnyq. Strictly speaking they are all different. Real world governments rarely if ever fit into one of these economic theories perfectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: These people from Bizarro world?
Also, there's a difference between REVOLUTIONARY and MODERATE (or democratic) socialism, which needs to be addressed if we're going to debate these things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: These people from Bizarro world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These people from Bizarro world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: These people from Bizarro world?
In socialism, which is injected into... well just about every industrialized country in the world, a more moderate, gradual approach to the workers manifesto is given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These people from Bizarro world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dont think so.
I am not a big CEO making bazillion bongo bucks off the little people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The author is not complaining about consumers being tyrannical. He is making the point that instead of moving along to a competitor with a different "product", many are using P2P as a means to simply get a freebie. In this regard you misrepresent his point.
"How is that possibly more capitalist than actually letting the free market come up with reasonable business models that don't rely on governments defining the winning business model?"
Copyright law does not define "the winning business model". It represents, just like every other law, rules of societal conduct. The fact some may choose to take it into account in formulating what they believe is an appropriate business model is no different than taking into account every other legislative pronouncement comprising our system of law. Techdirt has a business model that to some degree relies upon ad revenue. If advertisers decide not to pay, techdirt certainly has the option to use one of our laws to enforce its legal rights, i.e., contract law and, if need be, our courts.
In a general sense, as long ago recognized by Mr. Freidman, all property is nothing more than a government recognized "monopoly". Scarce and infinite may make sense when one is focused solely on economics, but I submit that our society is defined by far more than simply economic theory. As much as I know you hate the words and deem them irrelevant in the context of your economic arguments/discussion, ""ethics" and "morality" are an important part of the social compact we as a society have made and embodied in our law.
Perhaps someday you may begin to grudgingly accept that our Constitution's use of the word "progress" is not as you would like to define it, i.e., "economic progress". It is broader in meaning and scope, and our laws since 1790 have reflected this broader meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ehn, "winning business models," same difference. Sure, there are many business models that depend on copyright, but the problem is that most recording industry execs can't imagine a business model without copyright. You can see it in the way they struggle with the idea of giving away music for free. They fundamentally believe that something needs to be protected, that if they aren't enforcing copyright, they won't have a way to make money, even though the copyright crutch is failing them.
Copyright law defines the winning type of model in so many people's minds. It takes a real leap of faith for many in the music industry to disabuse themselves of the notion.
In a general sense, as long ago recognized by Mr. Freidman, all property is nothing more than a government recognized "monopoly". Scarce and infinite may make sense when one is focused solely on economics, but I submit that our society is defined by far more than simply economic theory.
I'm curious. What non-economic moral or ethical rationale would you suggest for artificially limiting the ownership of infinite goods? I mean, by nature, no one possesses an idea the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. There are those making moral and ethical arguments against limiting the ownership of infinite goods.
The distinction between scarce and infinite goods is not merely economic, it's just... well, obvious, I think. Philsophical? (Even that sounds too involved...) If you and I are standing together and we have one apple between the two of us, either you can eat it or I can eat it. Or maybe we can split it. But we can't both eat the same parts. Yet, if you and I are standing together and I sing a melody, I don't lose the parts of it that you learn and sing.
So... do you really think the distinction between scarce and infinite goods doesn't matter? And what's your moral argument for not letting people share stuff that they own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It should be obvious there is a huge difference between using knowledge learned from an original work of authorship versus making "Chinese copies" of a either the entirety of such a work or a significant portion thereof. The former requires creative thinking. The latter does not.
"And what's your moral argument for not letting people share stuff that they own?"
By asking the question I believe it fair to say that this is an issue that you should ponder for more time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is there's a lot in between. Where's the line between acceptable influence/use?
By asking the question I believe it fair to say that this is an issue that you should ponder for more time.
Please, humour me. What's your moral argument for copyright law?
The most common argument I hear is the 'end of music/software/creation' type argument, that people wouldn't be able to make a living without copyright protecting their works so they'd stop doing what they're doing. The economic arguments make that moral argument irrelevant by demonstrating ways that people do make money and continue to create without depending on copyright. The argument is that it's immoral because you're taking people's ability to make a living away, but that's clearly not dependent on copyright.
The other common argument is a sort of natural conception of intellectual property, that it's your idea/song/product so you should have ownership of it. That's a profoundly ignorant and arrogant position, and I don't think that's what you were trying to get at by talking about the word progress.
What's your ethical argument for copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is within the province of the Fair Use Doctrine. Unfortunately, it is not a concept that can be stated as a "bright line" test.
"What's your moral argument for copyright law?"
You, or perhaps it was another commenter, posited that the law is immoral. My rejoinder was simply to ask why this is believed to be the case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonetheless one can make a moral comment and justification of a given body of civil law just as one can of criminal law.
Criminal law is, quite obviously, both moral and amoral in that what it chooses to make criminal and not criminal.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You accused Mike of focusing only on economics and ignoring morality and ethics. I guess I just assumed you had a relevant moral or ethical concern to raise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ocietal Conduct"??
No it doesn't. Laws against stealing property and trespass and assault and so on are "rules of societal conduct". But copyright law was created for business reasons, no more and no less. There is no moral basis for it. Since it was created to promote business, if business conditions change, and we find that new innovations are being held back by old copyright laws, then those laws should change. They've done so before, they can and will do so again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ocietal Conduct"??
That is one possible result of the law, but it is not the reason its genesis was crafted into the constitution on a unanimous vote by the delegates. It purpose was to promote the progress of "science", i.e., the creation and dissemination of knowledge/ideas. Mr. Masnick's selective quotation of Thomas Jefferson notwithstanding, even Mr. Jefferson embraced it because of what he viewed as it salutory effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"""
copyright law does not define "the winning business model". It represents, just like every other law, rules of societal conduct. The fact some may choose to take it into account in formulating what they believe is an appropriate business model is no different than taking into account every other legislative pronouncement comprising our system of law.
...
As much as I know you hate the words and deem them irrelevant in the context of your economic arguments/discussion, ""ethics" and "morality" are an important part of the social compact we as a society have made and embodied in our law.
"""
How exactly do intellectual property laws enforce a moral requirement? Yes, breaking the law is wrong; it is manifestly ethical to follow the law, so long as the law is itself ethical. That does not make anything and everything mandated by law a moral issue; especially when, as pointed out in another post, you can argue (as with intellectual property laws) that the given law is immoral.
"""
Perhaps someday you may begin to grudgingly accept that our Constitution's use of the word "progress" is not as you would like to define it, i.e., "economic progress". It is broader in meaning and scope, and our laws since 1790 have reflected this broader meaning.
"""
Problem is, there are good arguments that copyright and patent law actually hinders any kind of progress, scientific, technological, or artistic.
For science and technology, it often tends to restrict development by arbitrarily forbidding researchers to leverage past work. For a concrete example, research the LZ77 and LZ78 software compression algorithms, a clear case where the better method of accomplishing a particular problem was not used due to intellectual property concerns.
For artistic progress I would make the same argument, although I don't have any good specific examples. I would point out that a lot of modern music styles (hip-hop, electronica) actually rely on 'remixing' music and sounds from several sources into a new coherent whole. Obviously, material with onerous restrictions on how and if it can be reused is less likely to be remixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for the law hindering progress, there are equally good arguments that it actually promotes progress by encouraging the dissemination of ideas to the public at large.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, in that case, he's just simply wrong. If you are to treat the digital good shared over P2P as a "product" then its more appropriate to state that the folks "grabbing a freebie" are in actuality just selecting a different product.
Why? Could be price, inasmuch as price is traditionally the primary discriminator for goods. Other things like features, perceived value, opportunity costs, compatibility with existing equipment, and convenience would all also have to be figured in when we're talking about a product that is essentially infinitely consumable.
The simple truth is, from where I'm sitting, most times the existing "legal" product simply can't compete with what's available over P2P in numerous areas other than price. I do think people would pay a fair price if they could, but in many cases, they simply don't have that option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
You can read about socialism and communism all day long even from wikipedia what a great source, you joking right?
What usa history is about 200years and now all of the sudden you know everything? Guys u gotta live through stuff to talk about, same with war ....
So plz stop being smart a$$es about everything and anything, when the day is over you still pray for better no matter what they call it. Socialism is good and bad that's all I got to say, oh and some1 is cashing at the end.
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Idiots
Socialism implies central planning. We all know that central planning doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Idiots
Regardless of your opinion, I'd like to just say that the mere usage of the words "we all know" makes anything you say almost irrelevant.
You should assume I know nothing you know, agree to nothing you agree, and proceed from there.
"We all know" is what politicians hide behind. I not only know central planning works, I believe that only central planning works.
Both in business and government. Production and development. Research and War.
You are welcome to disagree with me, but use your own language and arguments, not "ours".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US Idiots
All I have to do is find one instance.
Distributed (vs central) planning has worked in at least one instance. Certainly even you can think of at least one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Idiots
It just can't lead to anything great.
Manhattan project is the perfect example for what can be done via central planning. Science has been stagnant for 50+ years now, and if it wasn't for that great effort, we probably wouldn't have had nuclear power until now.
Same goes for every major project on Earth. And before you even go there - especially Linux. Trovalds is a psychopath with two iron fists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Idiots
Central planning is at the heart of almost every successful country and corporation...though even in these days it can be argued that most of those "successes" are failing one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Idiots
Shohat wrote:
Do you have some argument to back that up, or is that just something "we all know"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Idiots
What you are confusing is socialism with authoritarian "communism" as modelled by Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
Additionally, as is pointed out later, all governments do central planning to one extent or another and to one intrusion level or another. Large enterprises do something similar internally.
Again, if what you are referring to is a command economy on the model of Lenin, Stalin or Mao those no longer exist for good reason.
Though I suppose you need imaginary windmills to tilt at.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Idiots
quick trivia:
how does public schooling work?
ok, now look up the definition for socialist programs
...
ok, good.
now sew your mouth shut or at least read a book or two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Socialism always works, has always in history whenever it's been tried.
Isn't that what the 'doublethink' engine has sheep believing now?
/sarcasm off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@shohat
For instance, look at the American revolutionary war. The campaign for the Americans that had more success was guerilla attacks in the south.
Again, not saying socialism or central distribution is bad, rather, it's good in many situations, simply not ALL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in summary
Free is not socialism.
And socialism is not free.
In addition, it could be said that all systems have had failures and therefore are not perfect. What usually works is a mixture of things that happen to be relevant at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And in summary
so you recognize that there is no perfect way to govern and conduct business? you claim that complex political, social, and philosophical issues cannot be summed up into soundbites?
well, that sounds pretty socialist to me. this is america hippie, we don't do that kind of thing here, so pick a side and wave your flag or go back to canada where you can hold hands and sing give peace a chance on the golden gate bridge.
business is about making big bucks by taking advantage of suckers. if you don't want to steal from suckers you are a socialist nazi terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And in summary
Bad business is about making big bucks by taking advantage of suckers.
There, fixed that for you.
Good businesses do not treat their customers as suckers. Businesses that want a long-term viability and dedicated customer bases recognize that the way to stay in business is to provide good service and products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And in summary
people who can't recognize sarcasm are socialist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's indeed less than ideal for the company, but that's in the same vein than the advent of motor cars was less than ideal for buggy whip makers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact is this - if I buy a CD (or DVD/video game/etc) and give it to 30 friends, then the company that produced that IP is going to lose money on sales to at least some of those friends.
No it's not fact you just made it up and stated it as fact. That's the problem with pro IP comments. They rarely take into account any fact at all.
You're also assuming that at least some of your friends you gave the CD to were going to buy the CD, but will not do so now. Again, this is a completely unfounded and unsupported claim made by you as fact.
You then go on to claim that free advertising is a red herring, again without providing a single scrap of evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some may dispute the above by saying that sharing of pirated material is a benefit to retail sales since it can be viewed as free adverting, encouraging some to buy products that they otherwise would never have bought. Of course, this is likewise incapable of being accurately determined.
Just my view, but experience informs me that it is more likely retailers are sustaining a loss in the number of sales that would otherwise occur but for piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it were legally possible for anybody to do this as much as they like, surely Red Hat will go bankrupt?
No?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's not losing money. It's a marketing issue. If that's "losing money" then any time I buy a sandwich at the deli down the street, the pizza shop next door is "losing money." It's not. It's money they failed to capture -- which is different than a "loss."
If it were legally possible for anybody to do this as much as they like, surely Red Hat will go bankrupt?
Um. Actually, you can give away Red Hat Linux if you want, and, no, it doesn't mean that Red Hat would go bankrupt. The company makes its money by convincing people that the entire package it offers, including services/upgrades and the like is well worth paying for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would be a possibility but I cannot say it is true. Who knows if any of your 30 friends would have purchased the Insane Clown Posse CD that you gave them.
Would DRM prevent you from copying the CD in the first place? And, if so, how many of your 30 friends would purchase the CD because it had DRM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Religion=Socialism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Religion=Socialism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Religion=Socialism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some edication for techdirt lemming-punks
Let me fill in some gaps in Mikey's education:
Socialism : "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contributed labour"
Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
From what I regularly see on this shitty Mikey's blog Mikey is a f****** communist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Socialism would probably help the USA at this moment in time.
But eventually the have-not's out number the have's and they take what they need by force...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Socialist Streak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Socialist Streak
Along with the most authoritative government in current western society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Socialist Streak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the only faultpoint of capitalism, unfortunately, its one of the cornerstones of the Capitalism concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for taking the time to repeat yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just had to respond to this
Um, what? Linus Torvalds? The guy who poured all his free time into the seemingly-pointless work of making a decent Unix clone?
The guy who went on to license that kernel under terms (the GPL) that ensured anyone could use it for any purpose, that anyone could obtain and modify its code, and that all modified releases would have to have source provided, to ensure that this spirit of openness and freedom would be guaranteed by the very laws (copyright) that have historically been used for the exact opposite purpose?
That guy rules with "two iron fists?" I don't think so.
The Linux kernel has been included in an enormous number of systems, forked into a myriad variants, rolled into tons of commercial endeavors, and, together with the GNU project, used to spawn a seemingly endless procession of GNU/Linux operating systems, such as the currently-noteworthy Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, and Fedora.
Amidst all of this, I think the most controversial thing Linus has said has been "I like KDE better."
Horus fucking Christ, people. Stop getting your panties in a twist over things you don't even begin to understand.
Rant over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just had to respond to this
But why does America do so much business with India and China when they rank so soooo *ahem* low in the Corruption index?
Perhaps it's time to listen to Fins?
Now, personally, I hate Danes. They always think they have everything figured out and don't want to budge on anything. They are the most disagreeable idiots you'll ever meet. If you ever find one, just know that their disagreement with you is a result of them not knowing how to have any fun during childhood. They tend to be interesting on the surface, but they quickly turn into some evil menace you never thought could exist within a human being. They think they are right at everything and don't want to budge-- not even for a moment. Fucking Danes. DONT DATE A DANE.
Denmark should now proceed single file back to their Legos, wind turbines, and Sex films.
Sorry for Ranting. RANT OVER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I just had to respond to this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Site problems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Site problems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Error
Error, error, error, error...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Political theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction to the tagline
So I shall simply point out the eloquent and obvious (at least to folks with common sense) that the tagline for this article, instead of, "Free Is Not Socialism," should have been worded, "The Expectation Of Free Is Socialism."
Do any of my Common Sense crowd have any improvements? I expect the dolts/flamers/idiots will have comments, but I really only expect intelligent, non-puerile answers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Barrenwaste
Everything you've said is completely absurd. First of all, you have no idea what the founding fathers intended nor do I nor anyone else but the founding fathers. Legislation, courts and debates like this can argue all day long about it but no matter how seemingly obvious it may seem it is still open to discussion.
I would even be inclined to agree with your comments about taxes being used for anything but what you have intended if the concept wasn't so blatantly flawed. This line of thinking simply does not work in the real world. I also submit to you that what the founding fathers intended was the exact opposite of what you appear to believe.
The Constitution states that all men are created equal, each having undeniable right to certain freedoms. Let's take this into context of economics. A rich family is only rich because of circumstance, whereas a poor family is equally only poor because of circumstance. Both still have an equal right to basic freedoms and yet the poor family does not have equal opportunity in a capitalistic society without the help of others. Therefore it is up to the poor family's rich neighbor (that's you) to provide them the means to fulfill that equality of freedoms. Are you still following? If you only the paid taxes that you intended you may be able to directly help this family in need but would you? Now expand this to a large geographical area. If you live on one side of the city and the family in need is on the other how would you even know the family is in need if you don't know they exist? You probably would not care because they are not within your immediate similarly rich community. Here's where your logic completely fails.
Government uses taxes to fund things like education, health care and provide support to poor families because of the very fact that you as a more privileged member of society would probably never provide help to them in the first place. Regardless of how you value one family over another is irrelevant because everyone in the country has the undeniable right to the same freedoms and opportunities that you have. You've simply bettered out of pure luck.
So I argue that to use and require more taxes for purposes of which you have not intended is to ensure that you are fulfilling your civic duty to your fellow neighbors regardless of where they may live so that all can have equal opportunity. This is the land of the free afterall, it is not the land of the fortunate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Barrenwaste
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Barrenwaste
Created equal does not mean you are entitled to an equal share of the benefits brought about by my efforts or the efforts of my family. It doesn't mean you are entitled a third or a quarter. What it means is you are given equal consideration under the law and equal opportunity to obtain what I have. It doesn't mean you are gauranteed what I have. People in the united states don't know what poor is. Poor is deciding on whether to use the can of green beans in the soup, or save them for the soup tomorrow since you are using the corn today. Poor isn't wearing the same clothes for a week cause you couldn't afford the laundramat, it's wondering if you can find a coat or blanket so you don't freeze tonight. Don't have a car? Big deal. Walk, we been doing it for the entirety of our existance. When I stop seeing people buy pop and chips with bridge cards and SUV's pulling into the wellfare office, then I might start to worry that people are doing without. For the love of Mary, you can't be poor if you are a hundred pounds over weight.
Privileged member of society? I've lost everything twice, ended up on the street flat broke with nothing but what I wore. Now I run a store, a small family business we all worked to open. I'm not privileged, I'm just above the much touted poverty line. But even I can recognise the simple truths of economics and moral responsibility.
In closing, equality doesn't mean you are entitled to what I have, it means you are entitled to the chance of earning it yourself. As I said, having the government take from me because you haven't earned it isn't equallity, it's simple robbery. Times tight for you? Stop buying things you want, rather than need, and start budgeting and working. There are very few instances of people not being able to work, and from my experience, many of people just refusing to work. After all, why work when you can just take my stuff. Keep your socialism, I am not morally, ethically, or financially responsible for your mistakes, responsibilities, or misfortunes. This is the land of the free afterall, it's not the land of the peon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Barrenwaste
The problem some of us have with a shift toward total socialism is that this country is built not only on the spirit freedom, but with the knowledge that no matter who you are or where you come from, IF YOU WORK HARD you can accomplish anything. The doctors who go through 10 years of extremely expensive medical school have the right to make a living which reflects that dedication, not whatever the government decides to pay them. I started off from a low income single parent family, I am a minority, and no one handed me the first red cent, but I am now in a very financially successful place, and I have no one to thank but myself and this great country. Regardless of where you start, anyone can get themselves a well paying career, the people who claim they cant are the ones who expect it to be handed to them, and have no concept that no matter where a good or service comes from, somebody pays for it.
That last of course directly applies to this article-- wherever the song or game or misc. software came from, someone paid for it--be it through their time and effort in creating it, or the work they put into marketing it, or the money they fronted for producing it. Argue what you will, that's a fact, and how you apply that to what should be done with the end product I leave to you.
Unfortunately some companies, like E.A. have decided to pass the burden on to their customers in the form of DRM. As a result almost everyone I know now either boycotts everything the company makes, or pirates the software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Barrenwaste
Why exactly doesn't the poor family have equal opportunity? Just because they didn't take advantage of the same opportunities that made the rich family rich doesn't magically erase the opportunity. There are more "rags to riches" stories in the US than any other country in the world because there are so many opportunities in the US.
Why do you think the US still has such a high influx of immigrants?
One word: OPPORTUNITY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Barrenwaste
Generally your arguement is made by those that feel guilty for success, great give from yourself, do not mandate that others give outside of basic, fair, and reasonable taxes, for items that are for all of society (Roads, Bridges, Police, Fire, Military, I'll even give you schools). I do not have a civic duty other than to abide by the laws of where i live. If i Choose to do otherwise (positive or Negative)then it is my choice and I have to live with the rewards (positive) or punishements (negative). Now, I do get to the choose of who is elected to govern, so that rules of where we live are in a reflection of who we elect, but they can not go outside of the orginial rules that where laid down... i.e. the Constitution (USA).
The fact you missed is we all start the same, not end. (Hence CREATED the same).
Its call Personal Responsiblity and it is not up to you nor the government to impose it.
Thanks for playing though,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
socialism
The USA did not get to be the world ONLY super power by having a centralized government, that scratches their asses over whether they should give the poor people one or two loafs of bread and a fifth of Vodka or two bottles of Vodka and one loaf of bread.
There is a reason the USA separated from Europe! Geeee I wonder what that was???? Does taxation without representation ring a bell??
It will take another world war for some of you to hear that popping sound of your head coming out of your asses.
What idiots.
I can hardly wait when the world starts coming unraveled because there are sooo many dumb asses like you!!! Trust me you will be looking for me to help you...
I suggest you all count your blessings. For now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: socialism
next time you choose to argue against something...
actually argue.
calling people stupid solves nothing. And the fact that the much much more socialist european union has a higher GDP and that there are about 32 socialized healthcare countries ranked above the US on the WHO rankings speaks a lot more than "omg ur stupid".
Your public education, your social security, your medicare and medicaid, are all examples of socialism. And while the republicans in office love to outrageous amounts of money on themselves first, oil and defense second, and at the same time complain that there's not enough money for social security (when ironically there was more than enough before bush decided to take it out of the SS fund) doesn't mean that socialism doesn't work. It means your government is too corrupt to fulfill a single desire of the people as opposed to the desires of CEOs.
Guess what? Socialism works, and there's reason they wanted to arrest you for even LEARNING about it during a good period of the last half of the century. There are many unenforced laws still in the books banning the teaching of such things...
freedom of speech?
Please, brainwashed masses, return to your 50 hour workweeks with no vacation and sick leave, while the rest of the world accomplishes the same work with much more luxury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it were legally possible for anybody to do this as much as they like, surely Red Hat will go bankrupt?
No?
Ubuntu is currently the largest desktop Linux distribution, and they are practically begging you to use it for free.
Lots of Linux distros are completely free. If Red Hat wants to charge, they better bring something extra to the table.
That's actually a decent example of a company competing with free. I'm using Ubuntu right now because it costs zero dollars.
Red Hat (or Windows) needs to offer me more to part with a dollar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't believe the ignorance and out right lies that are stated as statistics in comparing the -Uh- "European Union"GDP to the USA. "European Union" LOL!!!!!!-hahahhaah LOL the laughing stock of the world.
First lets make this clear the "European Union" is not a country! (got it) it is many counties that were formed to be able to even be in the same league as the US. That's the first problem with your discussion. But there are many other problems with your premise that are truly not worth mentioning. Just pure ignorance.
Markets come and go ladies and gentleman. If you think for one minute the USA would even entertain the idea of having OUR rights limited (yes limited) by a centralized/socialist government you are truly idiots. And (yes socialism limits your rights) Hence the USA! and separation Duh!!! and yes I know the difference between communism/socialism geeezzz for gods sakes who doesn't!
I can guarantee.
You would first see another civil war in the USA before that would happen. It WONT!-- You know why?? Your wrong about everything-- and when you come whining for help again to bail Europe out we will most likely help again because that is what America does. Just remember we are NOT Europe and don't plan on being like Europe! If I wanted that I would just move to Europe and so would others--But no they are moving to USA why because there is opportunity here. Opportunity is not some government bureaucracy it is born in minds. NOT the Government!
USA has been through tough times before and will be again but we will never be Europe...Just your big brother !!!! LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry!
Its NOT going anywhere :-( --bad for you--
I think as a Sociologist with an advanced degree. I'm well aware of the differences between communism and socialism --- and you?
Socialism is dead--and has been for many decades. Get over it. Try to think outside the box I know its scary. But truly it will be ok!
If the Europeans had such good judgment and such a wonderful socialist system.
How did Hitler become so powerful?? Hummm--I wonder--Could it be because people rights were walked all over?? hummm--I wonder what allowed that? Could it beeee--Oh NO! It was that very "perfect" socialist system that allowed that. Ohhh no tell me its not so!!
--- Heil Hitler ----Dude! The crown jewel of socialism and returning power to the people huh! What a wonderful world.
Europeans are sheep!
They can be lead right to their own death just by somebody printing something in a paper or them watching it on TV. They believe everything.
Europeans have No critical thinking skills left. They are a dead society....They don't even reproduce because they have to run that through there wonderful socialist bureaucracy and get approval----- LOL--hahahahah Or they may be seen as terrible people by others --Ohh My!! We wouldn't want that now huh? We must fit in!
By the way quit trying to insert the stupid talking points of the American left.. Try and think for yourself and not be one of the sheep going to slaughter try and think about cause and effect!!
Is that too much to ask?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bam's Comments on Capitalism versus Socialism
Don't hold up capitalism as a "success story" for anyone but the billionaires, when tens of millions of hard working citizens are going hungry and without medicine because some capitalistic factory executive earns $20 million plus a $120 million bonus for his annual labor, while the workers who actually produce his products earn minimum wage, and cannot qualify for food stamps because they make too much, and cannot buy medicine because they make too little.
There is something wrong with the textbooks you studied in college that deluded you into thinking your ideal capitalistic system actually works for anyone other than the "ruling" class. (Didn't you read somewhere in your text about the Golden Rule?)
This is not a defense of communism or socialism. Jesus most definitely, were he alive today, NOT be a capitalist. He'd probably be, were he a politician, a benevolent dictator in a communistic system of government.
Actually, the fairest system of government is likely a combination of the various polar opposites. Take a look at how well New Zealand's government works. It is a balance of socialism and capitalism, with hardly any poverty, and hardly any "wealthy" class. Nearly everyone is middle class / working class, and their taxes are fair, their school system is good, their crime rates are low, their medical system is great and offers universal coverage, their industries and economy are self-sufficient, their international trade is even keeled, they contribute their fair share to NATO and the UN and UNICEF and such other responsibilities of modern nationhood, they have peace between their minority indigenous peoples and the recent immigrant majority, their government is modern and well administered, and their people are healthy, happy, and wise.
So please do not regurgitate all that crap you were brainwashed with in college. If America's colleges are so great and crank out so many competent graduates, then why is our elementary and secondary schools turning out so many kids who "think" they can read and write and think independently and not know that they are wrong?
Why do our medical schools turn out quacks motivated by money instead of healing? Why are our law schools turning out ambulance chasers instead of visionary problem resolution specialists?
How can we fly tons of rice into third world countries with more efficiency than we can do so in New Orleans. Why do our "professional" disaster responders allow 100,000 brand new unused mobile homes and trailers rot in staging areas when we have hundreds of thousands of homeless FAMILIES being evicted -- is that not disaster enough for these capatalistic bureaucrats in FEMA?
I respectfully submit that it is wrong for you to have called Irrepressible a SHEEP when you were looking at your own reflection in your mirror. You are just like George Bush, that great bastion of conservatism -- you are so far to the right you have gone all around the world and are now LEFTIST in your thinking.
I take it you supported the Bush Administration in their conscious effort to increase our national debt by trillions, invade innocent countries without adequate provocation, throw millions of homeowners and workers out into the street because of your idiotic capitalistic philosophies in the name of "compassionate conservatism", besmirch our former international good name, character and reputation, crash the world economy, "forgive" your criminally corrupt friends and associates for their felonious violations of the constitution he was sworn to uphold, and then burden our grandchildren with the obligation to pay off the enormous debt, while enriching his dozen or so billionaire buddies who use their money to BUY those stocks our retired citizens are selling just so they can eat and buy medicine.
You got me riled up when you called Europeans sheep. Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are American role models made popular by you capitalists soaking the American public as they baaa their CDs at the store and purchase tabloids at the supermarket. Americans like you are the sheep following the industrial piper, while the Europeans have PEACE, culture, stable economies, fair taxes for the middle class, low poverty rates, little pollution, wholesome stars worthy of emulation, quality schools, high literacy rates, medical care for the masses, etc.
Baaa to you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bam's Comments on Capitalism versus Socialism
You don't even have a single once of economic literacy and
you proceed to lecture everyone about how unfair for billionaire to earn tons of money why wage-earner like me earn so little. Guess you haven't been around to see the explosion in technological advancement that been made in the last 20 years that were brought forward to you by your good friend, the capitalists who risk THEIR money. Not all rich people earn their money from thievery and plunder.
You even have the audacity to confuse government intervention with capitalistic move. When Bush and their corporate cornies print money and use the state to loan to their friendly bankers, as well bailing out megacorporations, that's not capitalism. That's pure thievery and plunder.
Meanwhile you also have an audacity to support plunder and thievery known as taxation and their robin hood style redistribution programs.
You, my friend, has been brainwashed in college just like your peers you criticized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bam's Comments on Capitalism versus Socialism
Your completely insane!
"attempted to challenge Hitler by mimicking his invasions of innocent independent countries by military force, killing their civilian population because they were "in the way", kidnapping innocent folks "suspected" of being our "targets" and smuggling them secretly out of their homeland to a third world country, refusing to charge them with a crime or provide them attorneys or visits from their family members or even the Red Cross as required by international law, then torturing them for seven years and finally refusing to put them on trial or release them as ordered by the judicial authorities." ---You apparently are just as dumb as I thought.
Apparently you did not pay attention to what happened around 9-11-2001 which by the way!! was one of MANY!!!!! terrorist attacks on the USA and its allies: Which lead to (as you put it) --your insane rant of no knowledge!
George Bush attempting to act as "Hitler by mimicking his invasions of innocent independent countries by military force, killing their civilian population because they were "in the way"
That is exactly what I'm talking about when I say STOP with the leftest Propaganda!!! It is not true now and it has never been true... George Bush, Tony Blair and frankly the rest of the world intelligence agencies thought that Iraq was working on MORE weapons of mass destruction.
They had already proven they had them in the past by killing hundreds of thousands of people and burying them in mass graves. I know details,details George Bush should have known right? I just have one question did you? NOPE! so you err on the side of caution. That's what is called a leader.
A leader does not hide under the desk like the cowards in Europe! and hope they will go away (or) I Know lets talk to them that will help---geeeezzzz In case you don't realize we have been talking to them for 30 fucking years --has it helped --NOPE! It has made it worse. Because they began to make the mistake that USA is as cowardly as Europe ---NOPE --wrong again!
September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.
Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.
Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.
In response, on August 20 the United States attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan with over 75 cruise missiles fired from Navy ships in the Arabian and Red seas. About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from warships in the Arabian Sea. Most struck six separate targets in a camp near Khost, Afghanistan. Simultaneously, about 20 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships in the Red Sea striking a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, which was suspected of producing components for making chemical weapons.
June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.
June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.
Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.
April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.
February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.
Dec. 21, 1988 - A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.
April 1986 - An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.
April 5, 1986 - A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans
In response, on April 15 the United States retaliated in an operation dubbed ‘El Dorado Canyon.’ Approximately 100 aircraft were launched in direct support of the raid. It was an attack against military targets involving land-based bombers from Great Britain together with carrier-based air strikes from ships in the Gulf of Sidra.
December 1985 - Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.
November 1985 - Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.
October 1985 - Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.
August 1985 - A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.
June 1985 - A TWA airliner is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The last 39 passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.
June 1985 - In San Salvador, El Salvador, 13 people are killed in a machine gun attack at an outdoor café, including four U.S. Marines and two American businessmen.
April 1985 - A bomb explodes in a restaurant near a U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18, all Spaniards, and wounding 82, including 15 Americans.
November 1984 - A bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Bogota, Colombia kills a passer-by. The attack was preceded by death threats against U.S. officials by drug traffickers.
October 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.
April 1983 - A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.
When they come for you let me know!!! Ill let ya talk to them LOL --hahahahahahahahhahahahahhah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bam's Comments on Capitalism versus Socialism
Or did i miss the part where the Iraqi military lobbed a scud missle at the WTC? Where are these WOMD?
This isn't two armies fighting, just criminals taking pot shots...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalism is the world’s dominant economic system. Within it, the means of production and distribution are owned by individuals: private ownership and free enterprise are believed to lead to more efficiency, lower prices, better products and rising prosperity. Socialism advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and industry by the community as a whole: the community is believed to be both more just and more efficient through central planning. In Marxist theory Socialism represents the stage following capitalism in a state transforming to communism; for many, however, it is a goal in itself.
This binary view of potential political and economic systems may be thought simplistic, but it is a debate that is extremely common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thought of one person making .50 more than someone else because he is doing a good job or because he has been a loyal employee just makes communists and socialists just go insane.
The thought that someone has more than you frankly is none of your business!---Go to work get a job and produce something for society and I can assure you. You will be rewarded.
Sitting on your ass and waiting for others to pay your bills or do your work-----NOT!! your gonna have to move for that man! sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free is not Socialism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except for one premise--that is that a federally backed loan, welfare, or grants are some sort of socialist hybrid--
No, they are American!
They do have a socialist flavor, only because we are using tax dollars to help others in need. But because we have those things that does not equal a central government making decisions on my behalf or regarding my state of being. That is NOT socialistic.
We have not lived in a "PURE Capitalistic" society for over a 100 years. Even then it would be debatable.
You are absolutely right that IF YOU WORK HARD you can accomplish anything--That is also American!--and it requires incentives (a reason) like more money and a better life for you, your family and the people you love.
Socialism kills that!!! Dead as a door nail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will Techdirt ever learn...
I believe the author only skimmed a few points, rather than realize his overall topic was a waste. His perception of IP and distribution in a socialistic environment lacked real information, as he would rather point fingers than address the real issue at hand.
I will have to agree in his assessment that someone needs to pay for free. I've argued this point many times on this website, each time being ignored. I especially loved the 5 course meal example. Classic.
I believe in copyright as a protective measure to ensure works aren't passed off as another, but I absolutely disagree when cost is applied to distribute the copyright.
There is absolutely no reason why people shouldn't share music, poetry, art, etc. for free.
The notion the author/artist/designer deserves compensation for these works is inexcusable. Anyone can take a picture, paint a picture, write a book, or sing a song. It doesn't matter if it's good or bad.
These items should be offered for free to everyone in the world as it's what the author/artist/designer intends. Compensation is given to create future works if the public demands it, reality or virtual worlds making no difference.
Companies that DISTRIBUTE the works have a hard time understanding this concept, but what do you expect when the overall purpose of the business model is to reap as much revenue as possible, while paying only a portion to the author/writer/designer who created it.
It makes no difference if the environment is socialism, capitalism, or communism.
To sum it all up: "Free" economics is the true definition of contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re Joe
Iraq was given 16 separate opportunities/Resolutions to change their behavior. Over a period of many years! and a great deal of TALKING without any success. Saddam Hussein was ordering his ground troops to fire upon American/European fighter planes patrolling the no fly zones DAILY (this in its self is an act of WAR!!!!) Apparently you missed these events.
In addition many countries pleaded with Iraq to stop firing upon the planes and open up their country for inspection by The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) so they could put to rest the fact that Iraq and others were conspiring to make weapons of mass destruction. Which they HAD DONE IN THE PAST!!!!
The fact that they did not find any Atomic weapons does not prove anything. There have been multiple cashes of gases and poisons found and are still being found. Iraq was also engaging in ethnic cleansing and other criminal activities including colluding with North Korea. Which indeed has Atomic weapons and it was just a matter of time before the two were able to sneak these matierials into Iraq.
If that is the kind of world you want to live in and you just want to look the other way. That's wonderful until those weapons are pointed at you I suspect---right? or there are millions of people dead.
One thing about these two wars that are going on right now that is conveniently forgotten is that they were BOTH VOTED ON in the USA!!!!!!!! They were passed unanimously!!!! BY BOTH PARTIES!!!
I don't see people blaming ANY of the Democrats who had the same info as the president and choose to vote FOR THE WAR. This war was overdue and a long time coming. The original problems began during President Carters Administration. The USA attempted to look the other way for 35 years!!! IT DIDN'T WORK WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT???
The fact that we invaded Iraq after the 9/11 attacks was not related (in that way) and never has been directly related, to the attack on the world trade center.
In fact you can go back and listen to Bush's speech to the UN you don't have to believe me! Listen to what he said... It was about the risks and the fact that the world had changed and so the USA and her allies had to change.
It became too high of a RISK to look the other way at Iraq's illegal actions and their collusion with North Korea. It is that simple. Nobody knew what they had and it was very clear they were not going to share that info.
The only people saying that the two are connected are the idiots on the left that don't understand whats going on around them in the world and the media that has capitalized on that ignorance and pushed that agenda. AND IT HAS WORKED because there are so many people that don't do their homework!
You don't really think that if we just leave them alone and go away they will just leave us alone do you??? If you do that's where we were prior to 3000 people died on 9/11 we were ignoring them..... NOW what????
The thing that changed was preemptive action on our part.
That's it...
Rather than passively sitting back and watching people die all around us while criminal organizations gain strength equaling thousands of more deaths in the future. We will seek them out and destroy them. Period!
I see Obama has changed his whole stance on the war and hes not even in the office yet---its wonderful to sit back and criticize until YOU are the one that has to make the hard decissions huh?
Whats cowards!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's research you want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's research you want?
He's in office now and we've pulled out of cities but not country. Let alone the region. In fact there's talk about moving more in to Afghanistan territory.
Pre-emptive action based on what? Have you answered that one?
3 Million a minute to fund an >invasion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry cut off
How many Czars is it going to take to wake up that the white house has the power to go around us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]