Killing off the little guy (this time it's internet radio)

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RIAA relies on the government to enforce whatever royalty/penalties they decide to implement. Without government externalizing the costs of enforcement on the taxpayers RIAA couldn't afford it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Government exercises its enforcement powers on behalf of the people. Why shouldn't the people pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Corporations aren't voters and not people.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RIAA relies on the government to enforce whatever royalty/penalties they decide to implement. Without government externalizing the costs of enforcement on the taxpayers RIAA couldn't afford it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Government exercises its enforcement powers on behalf of the people. Why shouldn't the people pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It exercises its powers at the behest of the companies that make the most generous contributions to the campaign funds of various politicians. The people shouldn't have to pay for that kind of "representation."

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil, this is precisely what I'm talking about. RIAA relies on the government to enforce whatever royalty/penalties they decide to implement. Without government externalizing the costs of enforcement on the taxpayers RIAA couldn't afford it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, I consider this obvious. In your AC world it seems there are many costly laws and enforcements that governments provide that wouldn't exist in AC due to cost and the problem of funding. i.e. prisons, drug safety enforcement and review (perhaps partially provided by certifying bodies, but easily overcome with money, marketing and/or intimidation), covert operations, child protection agencies; laws to protect software, music, writing, inventions, motion pictures, and artwork; tariffs and subsidies.

I always assumed that ACers on this board recognized the natural right of an author/creator/inventor to protect his works, and the good it does for the economy. But I'm impressed that you recognize these things cannot be protected under AC.

[ QUOTE ]
It exercises its powers at the behest of the companies that make the most generous contributions to the campaign funds of various politicians. The people shouldn't have to pay for that kind of "representation."

[/ QUOTE ]
The US has an amazingly corrupt political system due to a very greedy and backward population and the way it concentrates power. If you guys want to claim that Somalia is a poor example of AC, you have to recognize that the US is a poor example of government and democracy.

[WillMagic]

Phil,

I'd add a few key things to your list of things that wouldn't probably wouldn't get provided by the free market - aggressive invasions of foreign countries and drug prohibition. HOLLA!

In regard the specific items on your list, prisons probably wouldn't be provided, but that doesn't mean other disincentives to violent crime couldn't be thought up. Dogs are good. Neal Stephenson had some great ideas in Snow Crash, like tattooing the bad thigns people have done on their forehead. That's a pretty quick, clean, and effective punishment. "DOESN'T PAY DEBTS" "RACIST, UNSTABLE." etc.

Drug safety enforcement already is provided by the free market - the kosher food certification is one example, and consumer reports can be said to be a broader example of organizations ensuring consumer safety. The market can provide that.

Covert operations would decrease a lot, yeah, and that's a good thing.

Child protection agencies...I really think that in the absence of government people would set up private agencies. People value children more than anything. I had some interesting ideas for a free market child protection service in a different thread, I'll see if I can go find it.

Laws to protect software, music, writing, inventions, etc...yeah, they just wouldn't work. Ideas aren't scarce.

tariffs and subsides, yeah, those would go away, but those suck and that's a good thing.

The US is a poor example of government and democracy? Then what's a good example? I mean, there are hundreds of democratic governments in the world, and I'd say that the US is probably one of the best ones. That's more a comment of how bad democracy is rather than how good the US is.

I say that Somalia flat-out isn't an example of AC because there is no capitalism in Somalia, because there is no culture of respect for property rights. Without such a culture of respect people will be poor - and they will be poor whether or not there is a state. AC isn't just about anarchy.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RIAA relies on the government to enforce whatever royalty/penalties they decide to implement. Without government externalizing the costs of enforcement on the taxpayers RIAA couldn't afford it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Government exercises its enforcement powers on behalf of the people. Why shouldn't the people pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "people" on whose behalf the enforcement is exercised is different than the "people" who pay for it, of course. Your question should be, "why shouldn't the RIAA pay for it?"

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In your AC world it seems there are many costly laws and enforcements that governments provide that wouldn't exist in AC due to cost and the problem of funding. i.e. prisons, drug safety enforcement and review (perhaps partially provided by certifying bodies, but easily overcome with money, marketing and/or intimidation), covert operations, child protection agencies; laws to protect software, music, writing, inventions, motion pictures, and artwork; tariffs and subsidies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think these are too expensive to be funded in a free market? Because people don't value them? If so, why *should* they be funded? Tarriffs and subsidies, for example, are flat-out corporate welfare. If *you* want to pay for that, go right ahead, I'll pass. On the other hand, I am in favor of funding private testing and review facilities (and I do, right now, in the status quo, voluntarily).

[ QUOTE ]
I always assumed that ACers on this board recognized the natural right of an author/creator/inventor to protect his works,

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Who said they didn't? But there's a difference between protecting your work and using coercive force; copyright, for example, is a voluntary contract - it only covers works that are developed based on the copyrighted work; patents, on the other hand, are involuntary, and if you independently invent something that someone else has patented, even if you have zero knowlege even of the existence of that patented item, you are infringing. That's a lot more than protecting your work, that's actively obstructing others' work.

[ QUOTE ]
and the good it does for the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the least of my concerns. I can't speak for others, though.

[ QUOTE ]
If you guys want to claim that Somalia is a poor example of AC, you have to recognize that the US is a poor example of government and democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somalia isn't *at all* an example of AC.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent post.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

pvn,

you're responding to the wrong person. I'm not the one saying these things won't exist in AC land, Will is. Please direct your comments to him. In fact, I assumed that those things *would* exist in AC land. It was the basis for my argument, and Will corrected me. Did you read the thread??

[ QUOTE ]
Somalia isn't *at all* an example of AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's more of an example than a place with a functioning government, no? It's certainly an interesting case study of what the market can and can't do. You guys claim the market can solve anything and overcome any problem by supply and demand. Somalia is a partial case study in that. You think there isn't a large part of the population desiring security and order, and having the means to buy it? And yet the market has failed to supply it, despite obvious demand. But ultimately, you guys are going to claim that any country where lack of government causes civil war, a loss of property protection or a breakdown of order is not an AC country.

But I don't care if Somalia is AC or not. I'm simply pointing out the double standard here. You're taking a country where anti-corruption measures have broken down, and then call that a standard feature of government. And yet, when I mention a government-less, free market country where property rights have broken down, it's suddenly entirely not an example?

Nielsio, I apologize for the hijack. Interested in where you stand on the IP issue as it relates directly to the position in your OP.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

you're responding to the wrong person. I'm not the one saying these things won't exist in AC land, Will is. Please direct your comments to him. In fact, I assumed that those things *would* exist in AC land. It was the basis for my argument, and Will corrected me. Did you read the thread??

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful, because you are miscontruing my position. I'm of the opinion that copyright won't exist...and in that I differ from PVN/Boro et al. But other than that, on child protective services, and consumer protections, I do think that they would exist in the free market, for sure.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio, I apologize for the hijack. Interested in where you stand on the IP issue as it relates directly to the position in your OP.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll get back to it.