I've read this a few times on Slashdot now. It's usually followed by some comment about a special case (or special interest?) where legislation is a Good Thing. This bugs me, because it's hypocritical.
As an example, the entire concept of laissez-faire (free-market) economics (thank you, Adam Smith!) is based upon assumptions that do not hold in the real world. If we want an economy that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.
Look at Microsoft, or AT&T. Were it not for legislation, there's be no check to their anti-competitive practices. In my opinion (FWIW) the natural end-consequence of a totally free market (in the absence of any control) are cartels - massive companies bribing (what remains of) the government, and helping their cronies and friends.
If we want an economy that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.
You're spot on. Without regulations, a market is impossible. Particularly in matters concerning infrastructure, information flow, etc. But I agree the majority of Congressfolks are pretty clueless about technology, so I always cringe when I see bills relating to technology, fearing the worst.
One reason to be hopeful, though: Rick Boucher, one of this bill's sponsors, strikes me as a person who "gets" tech and the "
In most countries, states, cities, etc, there is not regulation on "black/grey market" goods. I'm talking about "taboo" things like good drugs, sex, you know, the things people want, and there is a market, no regulation and better than average quality control.
Cocaine in the US has not gone up in price in about 20 years. Marijuana has gone up in price, but so has the quality. Sex is always at market value.
In most countries, states, cities, etc, there is not regulation on "black/grey market" goods. I'm talking about "taboo" things like good drugs, sex, you know, the things people want, and there is a market, no regulation and better than average quality control.
One definition of regulation is: To bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage
So if the rule or principle is "this good is illegal to seek or posses" then regulating it is fairly straight forward.
> As an example, the entire concept of laissez-faire (free-market) economics (thank you, Adam > Smith!) is based upon assumptions that do not hold in the real world. If we want an economy > that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation. No we don't. We need a government to do the job it was tasked with. That means a Federal Givernment about 10-20% of it's present size.
> Look at Microsoft, or AT&T.
Yes, look at them. Both are monopolies which were mostly CREATED by the gover
"As for your example of Microsoft, notice that the Government couldn't fix that problem. And no it wasn't Bush's fault. The case had pretty much collapsed by election day 2000. David Bois (of SCO fame) had already managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory months before Bush & Ashcroft were in office. "
I'm not sure whether you're engaging in revisionist history or whether you just have no idea what you're talking about. Boies and the other attorneys beat Microsoft like a drum, up one side and down the other. Two factors combined to kill any chance at a governmental remedy (this time):
1) Judge Jackson couldn't keep his damn mouth shut during the trial, so the Appellate Court threw out his order to break up the company. In their ruling they stated that there was absolutely no evidence he'd been anything but impartial, but someone might complain so out went the order and the case was sent (with the finding of Sherman violations intact) to a new judge for a new disposition order. Unfortunately, that turned out to be Judge Kollar-Kotelly, who has less antitrust experience in her whole body than Judge Jackson had in his lovesack. Her over-the-head-ness led to a desperate, frantic plea for a settlement. Here's Factor 2.
2) While Factor 1 was going down, we had a change of Administration and the DOJ's antitrust bunch were replaced by Republican douches whose entire antitrust experience was based on the assertion that antitrust was nonsense and probably an affront to God Almighty. When presented with Judge K-K's desperate, frantic plea for a settlement, they all sprouted wood and absolutely, utterly, shamefully threw in the towel and offered up a settlement that wasn't so much a slap on the wrist as it was a long, slow, deep, wet tongue-kiss.
Unfortunately, that turned out to be Judge Kollar-Kotelly, who has less antitrust experience in her whole body than Judge Jackson had in his lovesack. Her over-the-head-ness led to a desperate, frantic plea for a settlement. Here's Factor 2.
2) While Factor 1 was going down, we had a change of Administration and the DOJ's antitrust bunch were replaced by Republican douches whose entire antitrust experience was based on the assertion that antitrust was nonsense and probably an affront to God Almighty. When
If you don't believe in regulation of 'free-trade', then do you think it would be ok for someone (like Microsoft) to bribe/coerce/blackmail the people with whom they trade in order to lock out competitors? Would it be ok for them to do a similar thing to force some DRM scheme to lock out open source? What if they bribed/blackmailed Intel into charging more for Apple to buy their chips? What about sending spies into rival organisations to poach employees? what about sending spies to steal trade secrets? what
If you don't believe in regulation of 'free-trade', then do you think it would be ok for someone (like Microsoft) to bribe/coerce/blackmail the people with whom they trade in order to lock out competitors? Would it be ok for them to do a similar thing to force some DRM scheme to lock out open source? What if they bribed/blackmailed Intel into charging more for Apple to buy their chips? What about sending spies into rival organisations to poach employees? what about sending spies to steal trade secrets? wha
Were it not for legislation, there's be no check to their anti-competitive practices
Right, because consumers stopping buying their products because they don't agree with their business pracitices isn't a check.
What you "the market requires legislation to be free!" don't seem to get is that coercion of any sort abridges freedom. If consumers want to support a monopoly that is their right. I am of the opinion that competition is good, and hence do not give my dollars to Microsoft. If you disagree with
Not abriding the rights of coporations means abriding the rights of citizens and consumers.
Unfounded assertion.
A monopoly is a monopoly becuase consumers have no choice but to support it.
Of course. You can't abstain from buying it, you can't produce it yourself, and you can't start your own company to try to compete. No choice at all there.
The sad irony of Libertarianism is that if it achieved it's goal, people would have less freedom and money than with government taxes and regulation.
No, it's blindingly obvious. How can I be free to have non-poisoned water to drink and children without massive birth defects if the new chemical plant up the river is free to dump all their waste in it?
Of course. You can't abstain from buying it, you can't produce it yourself, and you can't start your own company to try to compete. No choice at all there.
Not without massive compromizes to your own freedom, you can't. If you had a factory in the 1800's, you could either pay exorborant
Actually, its not hypocritical at all. Believing in small government, for example, is not the same as believing in no government. Believing in minimal necessary legislation is not the same as believing in legislating everything.
I believe very strongly that some legislation is needed for some things. I do not however believe that minor social interactions should be legislated (thou shalt smile at thine neighbour). Laugh if you must, but some laws get pretty close.
governmental interference (Score:5, Insightful)
I've read this a few times on Slashdot now. It's usually followed by some comment about a special case (or special interest?) where legislation is a Good Thing. This bugs me, because it's hypocritical.
As an example, the entire concept of laissez-faire (free-market) economics (thank you, Adam Smith!) is based upon assumptions that do not hold in the real world. If we want an economy that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.
Look at Microsoft, or AT&T. Were it not for legislation, there's be no check to their anti-competitive practices. In my opinion (FWIW) the natural end-consequence of a totally free market (in the absence of any control) are cartels - massive companies bribing (what remains of) the government, and helping their cronies and friends.
Indeed. BTW Boucher's got some integrity (Score:3, Informative)
You're spot on. Without regulations, a market is impossible. Particularly in matters concerning infrastructure, information flow, etc. But I agree the majority of Congressfolks are pretty clueless about technology, so I always cringe when I see bills relating to technology, fearing the worst.
One reason to be hopeful, though: Rick Boucher, one of this bill's sponsors, strikes me as a person who "gets" tech and the "
Re:Indeed. BTW Boucher's got some integrity (Score:2)
Bullshit.
In most countries, states, cities, etc, there is not regulation on "black/grey market" goods. I'm talking about "taboo" things like good drugs, sex, you know, the things people want, and there is a market, no regulation and better than average quality control.
Cocaine in the US has not gone up in price in about 20 years. Marijuana has gone up in price, but so has the quality. Sex is always at market value.
What is the difference between a $1,000 hooker a
Re:Indeed. BTW Boucher's got some integrity (Score:2)
One definition of regulation is: To bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage
So if the rule or principle is "this good is illegal to seek or posses" then regulating it is fairly straight forward.
A lot of states regulate marijuana sales. I
Re:governmental interference (Score:3, Interesting)
> Smith!) is based upon assumptions that do not hold in the real world. If we want an economy
> that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.
No we don't. We need a government to do the job it was tasked with. That means a Federal Givernment about 10-20% of it's present size.
> Look at Microsoft, or AT&T.
Yes, look at them. Both are monopolies which were mostly CREATED by the gover
Re:governmental interference (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure whether you're engaging in revisionist history or whether you just have no idea what you're talking about. Boies and the other attorneys beat Microsoft like a drum, up one side and down the other. Two factors combined to kill any chance at a governmental remedy (this time):
1) Judge Jackson couldn't keep his damn mouth shut during the trial, so the Appellate Court threw out his order to break up the company. In their ruling they stated that there was absolutely no evidence he'd been anything but impartial, but someone might complain so out went the order and the case was sent (with the finding of Sherman violations intact) to a new judge for a new disposition order. Unfortunately, that turned out to be Judge Kollar-Kotelly, who has less antitrust experience in her whole body than Judge Jackson had in his lovesack. Her over-the-head-ness led to a desperate, frantic plea for a settlement. Here's Factor 2.
2) While Factor 1 was going down, we had a change of Administration and the DOJ's antitrust bunch were replaced by Republican douches whose entire antitrust experience was based on the assertion that antitrust was nonsense and probably an affront to God Almighty. When presented with Judge K-K's desperate, frantic plea for a settlement, they all sprouted wood and absolutely, utterly, shamefully threw in the towel and offered up a settlement that wasn't so much a slap on the wrist as it was a long, slow, deep, wet tongue-kiss.
History isn't always written by the victors.
Re:governmental interference (Score:2)
2) While Factor 1 was going down, we had a change of Administration and the DOJ's antitrust bunch were replaced by Republican douches whose entire antitrust experience was based on the assertion that antitrust was nonsense and probably an affront to God Almighty. When
Re:governmental interference (Score:2)
Re:governmental interference (Score:2)
Re:governmental interference (Score:1)
Right, because consumers stopping buying their products because they don't agree with their business pracitices isn't a check.
What you "the market requires legislation to be free!" don't seem to get is that coercion of any sort abridges freedom. If consumers want to support a monopoly that is their right. I am of the opinion that competition is good, and hence do not give my dollars to Microsoft. If you disagree with
Re:governmental interference (Score:1)
Not abriding the rights of coporations means abriding the rights of citizens and consumers.
If consumers want to support a monopoly that is their right.
A monopoly is a monopoly becuase consumers have no choice but to support it.
The sad irony of Libertarianism is that if it achieved it's goal, people would have less freedom and money than with government taxes and regulation.
Re:governmental interference (Score:1)
Unfounded assertion.
A monopoly is a monopoly becuase consumers have no choice but to support it.
Of course. You can't abstain from buying it, you can't produce it yourself, and you can't start your own company to try to compete. No choice at all there.
The sad irony of Libertarianism is that if it achieved it's goal, people would have less freedom and money than with government taxes and regulation.
If you de
Re:governmental interference (Score:1)
No, it's blindingly obvious. How can I be free to have non-poisoned water to drink and children without massive birth defects if the new chemical plant up the river is free to dump all their waste in it?
Of course. You can't abstain from buying it, you can't produce it yourself, and you can't start your own company to try to compete. No choice at all there.
Not without massive compromizes to your own freedom, you can't. If you had a factory in the 1800's, you could either pay exorborant
Re:governmental interference (Score:2)
Bad examples. The US government gave Microsoft a slap on the wrist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_antitrust_ c ase#Settlement [wikipedia.org].
Meanwhile AT&T is merging it's way back together while the SEC does nothing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_antitrust_c ase#Settlement [wikipedia.org]
Re:governmental interference (Score:2)
Believing in small government, for example, is not the same as believing in no government. Believing in minimal necessary legislation is not the same as believing in legislating everything.
I believe very strongly that some legislation is needed for some things. I do not however believe that minor social interactions should be legislated (thou shalt smile at thine neighbour). Laugh if you must, but some laws get pretty close.
In BC (canadian province), for example, a b
Re:governmental interference (Score:1)
Centralized planning or not. You can't half ass it either way