@ChaosEngine

I will venture that "socialization" of the means of production can remain separate from their "nationalization," and also their only possible compliance with non-aggression while contributing to free-market prosperity, comes -- if by "means of production" we mean, not the built factories, railroads, whatever, but the allowance of such building. That is, if we socialize "intellectual property."

As such, patents plain and simple legally restrict "the means of production" to those who own them. Socialism, when it comes to IP, does make sense. It makes no sense, however, when it comes to scarce goods.

In this regard, Wilhelm Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism" (PDF) is a good book to read on this subject as it goes a long way towards explaining the mass appeal of the state. He may focus too much on irrational drives, and remains stuck in untenable syndicalist ideas, but here we must distinguish thymological irrationality from praxeological "irrationality." Praxeologically, humans are always rational, never irrational.

For this, I think it'd be interesting to put Reich's theory next to "public choice" theory for a more complete picture, but then, we'd need to have an intelligent discourse rather than the name-calling and epithets I've come to expect.

While this may all seem rather academic, this discourse has many practical uses, like understanding the chances of reversing social trends towards statism, etc. since it seems to me that a Manichean system, with a mix of chaos and order dominating, and periodic tilts towards one end (chaos, nazism, communism) or the other (order, rationalism, anarchy), can serve social orders like a yin-yang with neither pole ever dominating totally or for long.

Hello Dag, I'm not sure how to privately message you from mobile so ill just leave this here. Apparently my home IP was just blacklisted from Videosift. Any time I visit I just get the Classic Rick Roll. This is what I get for trying to join the community I guess. I've been a lurker to this site for, eh, I'd say about 6 years when it was first shown to me. Always like to read the comments and the top 10 list. Anyway, I figured if make an account to post, Vygorous is the username. I just viewed that pixel stick video and wanted to know how much some shitty LED stick would set us back so I looked it up, saw that is was $350.00 and posted it as a comment with the specs they provided on their site, hit submit and bam, Instantly blacklisted. Any logic or reason to this? Sucks leaving this site behind but non sense like this would keep anyone away.
See you around.

You have completely misunderstood the point and have mistaken the method for interpreting data with the data itself. Yes, of course context matters, but none of your examples presents an exception to rationalism (PDF) in any way. Using reason does not pre-determine the conclusion prior to the interpretation of the data. Just the opposite, rational deductive reasoning enables one to interpret the data from an unbiased position, in contrast to the hermeneutics which you seem to be employing. Without a consistent position based on unchanging principles, the data is either consciously or unconsciously filtered through your a prior "preference" or bias in arbitrary and/or indefensible (rationally-speaking) ways.

And IP is no exception (PDF).

That position doesn't make any sense. Context matters and there are always exceptions to every rule. It seems to be a common ideal of the right that complex systems can have simple solutions. Sometimes they can, but mostly they don't.

Rationalism may allow me to "take a consistent position based on unchanging principles", but it doesn't mean I have to blindly apply those principles regardless of the circumstances.

For a really simple example, let's take homicide. Killing, I'm sure we're agreed is wrong. So everyone who takes a human life should be sanctioned, yes?
Except in self-defence.
Except in a war.
What about other mitigating factors too. Accidental death. Killing by someone mentally incapable of knowing what they're doing.
We could debate the merits of each individual case all day long, but the end point is that yes, at some point we make a judgement, and ultimately that leads to a law.

So it goes for IP law. Yes, current IP in the US is not only broken, but badly broken and broken in many different ways from patent trolling to DMCA lunacy.

That doesn't mean we just throw out the whole damn thing.

We don't have to make an empirical claim about all law. We make judgements based on what a "reasonable person" considers fair. Yeah, that shifts back and forth and sometimes (like now) it's hideously broken, but that's why we have the ability to change laws.

It's not like that everywhere. NZ, for example, has some quite reasonable provisions in it's IP law (or had, they may have changed recently). I can't sell copies of a song I bought, but I can format shift it, time shift it, etc. That seems reasonable to me (and I suspect, to most people).


I must confess I had to look up "hermeneutics" (good word).

More than reading this article, I point you towards the commentary on this article which reads:

"This is good, but the problem with reformers who do not want to totally abolish patent and copyright is that their arguments basically amount to "the law has gone too far" (people like Khanna, Tom Bell, Alex Tabarrok, Jerry Brito, Cory Doctorow, Public Knowledge, the EFF, Lawrence Lessig, and so on). That requires an empirical claim as dubious as those of advocates of the current IP regime. The only principled case for IP reform is one that also makes the case for IP abolition."

This, although not specifically stated, this comment demonstrates a preference for rigor when it comes to justifications for any position on any issue. Rationalism allows you take a consistent position based on unchanging principles. Hermeneutics as well as other modes that deal with all issues as a matter of "preference" or bias can seem rather arbitrary and harder to defend through rational argumentation.

WD-40 wasn't patented because they didn't want to disclose the formula to the competition. In theory, no-one outside the company knows how to make it, so they do guard their IP zealously.

That said, there are certainly ways for content creators to get paid without copyright. I'm not arguing that.

For example, I've participated in a small amount of open-source development. I was paid by the company I work for to do it, because they needed features added to an existing open source product.

Then there's the whole SAAS model and open-source support model etc.

I think all of those are great and if that's the way someone wants to run their business model and it works for them, then more power to them.

The key point here is that it's their choice. They created the IP, put in the hours of work, etc. I believe that if you create something, it's up to you how you monetise it, and one of those options is copyright. It's kinda hilarious that certain so-called "libertarians" are arguing against a content creators right to decide how they make money with their creation.

sidenote: for someone called arugumentativeasshole, you've been neither.

To the best of my knowledge, and it's been a few years since I looked at IP* in any depth, QoS only really works where you can control the entire network, end to end. I don't believe there is any support for QoS in the underlying IP.

But yeah, as I said before, I'll be snowboarding in hell before I trust the ISPs with that kinda power.


* IP as in TCP/IP (internet protocol) not Intellectual Property

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Oh, and Silicon Valley will probably be closer to a meritocracy once it does away with IP laws.

Shes a narc and a kidnapper, she copped a plea and narced on everyone to get out of the kidnappings charge. She also recently narced giving feds IP addresses/usernames/emails of contacts regarding the drug/incense "Spice" which was legal. Her videos are a dea honeypot to lure people in to contacting her she then narcs and you get busted.

She deserves a snitches necklace

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

and this is why IP laws are bs.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.