Supporting the RIAA - Page 3

gaekwad2 · 11th July 2004, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Phyltre
At some point I would say that I am considering "capitalism" and "freedom," because capitalism entails financial decisions (and the freedom to make them based on supply/demand principles.) I cannot see how one would easily exist without the other, and therefore consider them as and refer to them as an inclusive pair.

umm...

xzxzzx · 12th July 2004, 00:10

Capitalism does not equal "all freedom", but equals economic freedom. Kinda like republicans, I suppose.

horse-fly · 12th July 2004, 04:56

Pinochet and I were drinking buddies.

Speakerhead · 13th July 2004, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by whiteflip No one can sue the RIAA for monopolisitic practices because they aren't a monopoly. They are a group representing several companies. I don't know of any laws against oligopolys or political intrest groups that can be effectively used to put the RIAA in check.

Just like the Beef Trust wasn't a monopoly...

The fact that Microsoft is a monopoly I kind of blame on Apple (oh, the irony...) When the big M was starting out, they were willing to license their software. Apple didn't. I'm sure that's not the only reason, but it's got to be a factor. (Price can't be ruled out entire either)

I just don't care anymore. I will continue to download music (and movies) until I am provided a better alternative, or the federal government tears my cold dead hand from my mouse. However, one complaint I have with the obtainment of music through p2p systems is the quality. Often, it's horrible. Same with movies. To counter this, I volutarily buy crappy hardware. So, it doesn't sound that bad

zootm · 13th July 2004, 03:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Speakerhead
Just like the Beef Trust wasn't a monopoly...

I knew I wasn't making that up!

Phyltre · 13th July 2004, 04:37

This is interesting, I'd always considered economic freedoms to pretty much BE freedom. Obviously this isn't entirely true, but here's my reasoning:

If you (anyperson) can be an entrepreneur, earn an unlimited amount of money, work for whomever will hire you, make market decisions about what you will buy and from whom, etc., aren't you basically free?

Or does the current definition of freedom include democratic principles? Sounds likes a mild brainwash to me.

horse-fly · 13th July 2004, 04:39

BE?

Phyltre · 13th July 2004, 05:01

yep.

horse-fly · 13th July 2004, 05:11

Oh, stupid horse-fly. I thought BE was short for something, like one of those acronyms. I'll go banish myself now.

xzxzzx · 13th July 2004, 05:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Phyltre
This is interesting, I'd always considered economic freedoms to pretty much BE freedom. Obviously this isn't entirely true, but here's my reasoning:

If you (anyperson) can be an entrepreneur, earn an unlimited amount of money, work for whomever will hire you, make market decisions about what you will buy and from whom, etc., aren't you basically free?

Or does the current definition of freedom include democratic principles? Sounds likes a mild brainwash to me.

What if you can't tell someone that you did that? etc...

gaekwad2 · 13th July 2004, 09:52

What if your competitor knows some people who can let you disappear?

You don't even have economic freedom without democracy.

zootm · 13th July 2004, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Phyltre
This is interesting, I'd always considered economic freedoms to pretty much BE freedom. Obviously this isn't entirely true, but here's my reasoning:

If you (anyperson) can be an entrepreneur, earn an unlimited amount of money, work for whomever will hire you, make market decisions about what you will buy and from whom, etc., aren't you basically free?

Or does the current definition of freedom include democratic principles? Sounds likes a mild brainwash to me.

I don't believe economic freedom is all there is to freedom. Of course, if all you care about is making money, it could be, but that's a pretty small piece of what I'd consider life.

Phyltre · 13th July 2004, 14:47

So you agree that capitalism is economic freedom (which includes the principle of perfect competition, which means that the buyer must know everything he needs to know about the product and its market [an imperfect but broad free speech]), and that for some this could be considered freedom, but is imperfect in its own implementation without democracy as a necessary component?

I would say that's true if you believe that freedom must involve voting democratically, or otherwise electing representatives; though systems of minimal government based on simple principles would require only a volunteer system or similar random selection to operate and could in theory offer much higher levels of freedom to the average person, while doing away with the artifact of the politician.

I would counter that capitalism runs contrary to democracy in practice if not in principle. Democracy is based on right and wrong, not financial influence and decisions; a person in the capitalistic system must be wholly selfless to not be influenced by offers of capital gain or by those with great assets to motivate organized groups. You see how often that happens. It is the duty of the public to consider if new methods of government might be more agreeable, (I am in no way saying that they would be) because those who are able to gain enough clout in the current system to affect policy will not want to change it--because they stand the risk of losing their life's work.

Remember that human life is here to do what is right, not what is dictated or what is taken for granted or what is shoved down our throats or what we are taught.

gaekwad2 · 13th July 2004, 15:27

Quote:

So you agree that capitalism is economic freedom (which includes the principle of perfect competition, which means that the buyer must know everything he needs to know about the product and its market [an imperfect but broad free speech]),

In a capitalist economy the supplier often has no interest in giving the consumer full information. That's why there are laws about eg. 'truth in advertising'. Another example would be the fact that industries involved in gene-tech are strongly opposed to labelling genetically manipulated products.

Quote:

and that for some this could be considered freedom, but is imperfect in its own implementation without democracy as a necessary component?

I would say that's true if you believe that freedom must involve voting democratically, or otherwise electing representatives; though systems of minimal government based on simple principles would require only a volunteer system or similar random selection to operate and could in theory offer much higher levels of freedom to the average person, while doing away with the artifact of the politician.

What simple principles? Just removing state rule would lead to a pure rule of (monetary) force.

Quote:

I would counter that capitalism runs contrary to democracy in practice if not in principle. Democracy is based on right and wrong, not financial influence and decisions; a person in the capitalistic system must be wholly selfless to not be influenced by offers of capital gain or by those with great assets to motivate organized groups. You see how often that happens. It is the duty of the public to consider if new methods of government might be more agreeable, (I am in no way saying that they would be) because those who are able to gain enough clout in the current system to affect policy will not want to change it--because they stand the risk of losing their life's work.

Or maybe a different economy? If I had to choose, I'd rather keep democracy than the opportunity to, maybe, become a millionaire.
Uninhibited capitalism has a tendency to become just as totalitarian, bureaucratic and corrupt as any authoritarian state.

Phyltre · 13th July 2004, 15:32

A system of capitalism in a government other than democracy is not necessarily unrestricted capitalism, or capitalism without states and laws. Therefore you can't say that democracy must coexist with any instance of capitalism merely because it offers structure. Democracy is not the only structure system, and could even be inferior (once again, don't think I'm saying it is. I'm saying THINK ABOUT IT.)

gaekwad2 · 13th July 2004, 16:17

Of course capitalism can exist in a structure that doesn't offer any personal freedom whatsoever.

Fortunately authoritarian systems are very inefficient (contrary to their proponents' belief), so as long as there's competition they will fail in the long run.

And I'm also very sceptical about communitarist (!=communist) approaches.

So what else is there?

Phyltre · 13th July 2004, 19:20

In this case, you'd be talking about a hybrid government, highly divided without any true central power (or a very specialized one.) Laws would be vastly simplified, and would only be pertinent to the furthering of free trade, perfect competition, and protection of the equality and physical well-being of all individuals. Lawmaking decisions could be made by any number of types of councils, electorates, senates, etc. However, there would have to be a strong division between the lawmaking and the capitalism itself. In other words, the responsibility of being one of those in power would exclude one's self from normal citizenship--hence, a static financial position in life, and no coercion from the wealthy.

This probably sounds a bit like some kind of utopia-dream, hard to enact and unlikely. But then again, so was democracy before it happened.

xzxzzx · 13th July 2004, 19:51

I want my god damn libertarian society!

Phyltre · 13th July 2004, 19:57

You would.

I think I'm gonna live on some mountain someday, if I can get good internet access there. (Guess that means satellite!)

12th July 2004, 00:10	#2
xzxzzx Forum King Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 7,254	Capitalism does not equal "all freedom", but equals economic freedom. Kinda like republicans, I suppose. Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything. 1\/\/4y 34\|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? \| Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.

13th July 2004, 19:51	#18
xzxzzx Forum King Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 7,254	I want my god damn libertarian society! Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything. 1\/\/4y 34\|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? \| Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12th July 2004, 04:56	#3
horse-fly Account Closed Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 2,360	Pinochet and I were drinking buddies.

13th July 2004, 04:37	#6
Phyltre Forum King Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,751	This is interesting, I'd always considered economic freedoms to pretty much BE freedom. Obviously this isn't entirely true, but here's my reasoning: If you (anyperson) can be an entrepreneur, earn an unlimited amount of money, work for whomever will hire you, make market decisions about what you will buy and from whom, etc., aren't you basically free? Or does the current definition of freedom include democratic principles? Sounds likes a mild brainwash to me.

13th July 2004, 04:39	#7
horse-fly Account Closed Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 2,360	BE?

13th July 2004, 05:01	#8
Phyltre Forum King Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,751	yep.

13th July 2004, 05:11	#9
horse-fly Account Closed Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 2,360	Oh, stupid horse-fly. I thought BE was short for something, like one of those acronyms. I'll go banish myself now.

13th July 2004, 09:52	#11
gaekwad2 Foorum King Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: bar2000 Posts: 11,457	What if your competitor knows some people who can let you disappear? You don't even have economic freedom without democracy.

13th July 2004, 14:47	#13
Phyltre Forum King Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,751	So you agree that capitalism is economic freedom (which includes the principle of perfect competition, which means that the buyer must know everything he needs to know about the product and its market [an imperfect but broad free speech]), and that for some this could be considered freedom, but is imperfect in its own implementation without democracy as a necessary component? I would say that's true if you believe that freedom must involve voting democratically, or otherwise electing representatives; though systems of minimal government based on simple principles would require only a volunteer system or similar random selection to operate and could in theory offer much higher levels of freedom to the average person, while doing away with the artifact of the politician. I would counter that capitalism runs contrary to democracy in practice if not in principle. Democracy is based on right and wrong, not financial influence and decisions; a person in the capitalistic system must be wholly selfless to not be influenced by offers of capital gain or by those with great assets to motivate organized groups. You see how often that happens. It is the duty of the public to consider if new methods of government might be more agreeable, (I am in no way saying that they would be) because those who are able to gain enough clout in the current system to affect policy will not want to change it--because they stand the risk of losing their life's work. Remember that human life is here to do what is right, not what is dictated or what is taken for granted or what is shoved down our throats or what we are taught.

13th July 2004, 15:32	#15
Phyltre Forum King Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,751	A system of capitalism in a government other than democracy is not necessarily unrestricted capitalism, or capitalism without states and laws. Therefore you can't say that democracy must coexist with any instance of capitalism merely because it offers structure. Democracy is not the only structure system, and could even be inferior (once again, don't think I'm saying it is. I'm saying THINK ABOUT IT.)

13th July 2004, 16:17	#16
gaekwad2 Foorum King Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: bar2000 Posts: 11,457	Of course capitalism can exist in a structure that doesn't offer any personal freedom whatsoever. Fortunately authoritarian systems are very inefficient (contrary to their proponents' belief), so as long as there's competition they will fail in the long run. And I'm also very sceptical about communitarist (!=communist) approaches. So what else is there?

13th July 2004, 19:20	#17
Phyltre Forum King Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,751	In this case, you'd be talking about a hybrid government, highly divided without any true central power (or a very specialized one.) Laws would be vastly simplified, and would only be pertinent to the furthering of free trade, perfect competition, and protection of the equality and physical well-being of all individuals. Lawmaking decisions could be made by any number of types of councils, electorates, senates, etc. However, there would have to be a strong division between the lawmaking and the capitalism itself. In other words, the responsibility of being one of those in power would exclude one's self from normal citizenship--hence, a static financial position in life, and no coercion from the wealthy. This probably sounds a bit like some kind of utopia-dream, hard to enact and unlikely. But then again, so was democracy before it happened.

13th July 2004, 19:57	#19
Phyltre Forum King Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,751	You *would.* I think I'm gonna live on some mountain someday, if I can get good internet access there. (Guess that means satellite!)