Actually, at the local church level many congregations would not accept Palin or any other woman even as associate pastor, or deacon, or youth minister or Sunday school teacher in a gender-mixed classroom. The most conservative would not consider it appropriate for her to stand behind a pulpit and preach a sermon, or teach from the Bible, or lead a praise chorus, or offer a prayer, unless her audience consisted entirely of women or children.

 

These same conservative Christians who agree with Palin's political views and are thrilled by the idea of her serving just one heartbeat away from the presidency would argue that it would be inappropriate for her to exercise leadership in her marital relationship at home. Instead, as the CBMW says, she should "grow in willing, joyful submission to (her husband's) leadership." Many of the conservative Christian leaders who have so warmly endorsed the nomination of Palin, mother of five with a grandchild on the way, have spent most of their careers arguing that the primary responsibility of women is to tend to their homes and families.

Comments

Search

Entity  - Answering the questions   |2008-09-24 13:13:59 The article posed the following questions, which I figured I would answer even though I am not an evangelical. * Is it now your view that God can call a woman to serve as president of the United States? Are you prepared to renounce publicly any further claim that God's plan is for men rather than women to exercise leadership in society, the workplace and public life? Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least? Deborah was a judge of the people of Israel.  God does call some men and some women to be public leaders. I don't know of any Bible passage that prevents this. * Would Palin be acceptable as vice president because she would still be under the ultimate authority of McCain as president, like the structure of authority that occurs in some of your churches? Have you fully come to grips with the fact that if after his election McCain were to die, Palin would be in authority over every male in the USA as president? Civil hierarchy and church hierarchy have nothing to do with each other and since I don't accept the premise of the first part, where a woman could be an associate pastor under a male pastor, the question is moot. Additionally, the president, male or female, does not have authority over every person in the U.S.. * If you agree that God can call a woman to serve as president, does this have any implications for your views on women's leadership in church life? Would you be willing to vote for a qualified woman to serve as pastor of your church? If not, why not? Nope. Deborah was a judge, not a priest. Civil authority is fine, but a woman cannot be a priest.  (I don't care if a woman pastors a Protestant church as there is no Holy Orders bestowed.) * Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president? When it comes to the family, it does say "Wives, be submissive to your husbands."  However, we cannot forget "Husbands, love your wives like Christ loved the Church." For Todd Palin to interfere with her duties as VP would not be loving. * Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family? I do believe that Palin's primary responsibility should be to her kids, but that the dad also has the same responsibility, if not greater, as head of the household. I have yet to hear a male candidate questioned about his wife working outside the home. I also have yet to find a candidate where some aspect was not troubling. I find Obama's support for the killing of millions of unborn much more troublesome than possible neglect of five born children.

emperorbma   |2008-09-24 15:02:54 By and large your position is reflective of mine on the matter, although I'm clearly not a Roman Catholic. Even though I'm intent on voting 3rd party for other reasons, I know many in my church actually do intend to vote Republican for the same concerns with the Democratic party's position on abortion. As far as civil governance is concerned, there's nothing preventing women from taking it on the basis of God's Word. Likewise, we don't ordain women in my (Protestant) denomination based on the sound teaching of Scripture. I think the idea of male headship has been abused among some of the "evangelicals" and the position that women cannot be political leaders is one example of its abuse. It is, after all, a mutual submission with the male acting as the spiritual head.

PinocchiosFurniture  - No Problem With Women In Leadership from This Cath   |2008-09-24 23:56:45 You won't find any argument from me for the role of women in leadershhip from this Catholic. After all, it was the Catholic Church that gave us Mary, Martha, St Joan D'Arc, and Mother Theresa. That said, however, Palin remains inexperienced as both a civil servant and fellow Christian....and being exploited by a powerful man does does not qualify any woman to be President... "Hi, I'm Sarah Palin. I'm just a soccer mom but now I have my finger on the nuclear trigger!" Just doesn't work for me. I'd have rathered Hillary. But since that is not now a choice and John McCain has thrown in the towel to go back to do business as the Washington Insider he has always been... Obama remians the only sensible and only Christian choice....

laika   |2008-09-25 01:04:14 PinocchiosFurniture wrote: But since that is not now a choice and John McCain has thrown in the towel to go back to do business as the Washington Insider he has always been... oh, i don't know, maybe it would be instructive to follow McSame through four more Bush-style years. might be just the wake-up we need.

emperorbma   |2008-09-25 02:28:13 Put shortly, the current 2-party layout is actually a choice between "two evils" in which one presumably votes for the lesser. Of course, I don't buy the 2-party meme that you throw away a vote by choosing 3rd party.

patronpeter   |2008-09-25 12:58:15 i think i'm going to vote once for Obama-rama, and twice under my pet's names for a third party member, that way my vote will actually count twice. ;-)

emperorbma   |2008-09-25 15:22:51 Heh, I couldn't vote for Obama if I wanted to... he's a supporter of the "big Robin Hood government" ideal... that is, playing Robin Hood with other peoples' money. Not to say the Republicans are any better, though. The Republicans are trampling on freedom for promises of security and pandering to the "fear state." (I also see the moral panic as an aspect of that fear state... playing on Christians' fears... by the way) As I did last election, I'm voting libertarian. I want the government to be minimized to doing just what is necessary to do its job: protecting the people from military invaders and local criminals so that we can live a peaceable and Godly life. Choosing anything more is simply asking for corruption.

patronpeter   |2008-09-26 14:36:53 im still registered as a libertarian, though, i don't honestly think they'll ever have enough money and pull to get into the whitehouse, not through the front door at least. :-)

emperorbma   |2008-09-26 15:16:40 My "magic 8 ball" tells me that the chances are "snowball in hell." Even so, I vote on principles not on "winning."

patronpeter   |2008-09-26 21:58:53 yeah? well i jay walk for the thrill, not to get ticketed, but i can't help that either, can i? lol... nevermind. :-)btw; global warming become catastrophic, your snowball in hell could happen.

emperorbma   |2008-09-26 22:30:18 lol... at least Cody won't stop going meow. Or will he?

exile  - re: No Problem With Women In Leadership from This   |2008-09-26 16:57:53 PinocchiosFurniture wrote: Obama remians the only sensible and only Christian choice.... Obama is not the sensible Christian choice. A Christian is subject to one, and only one master. That is Jesus Christ who ransomed us for eternity. Obama promotes the idea that you and all your possessions are the property of everybody else for a common good. This is why I would vote Libertarian. Libertarians promote the idea that your life and your possessions is yours to do with it what you will. Will you use it for God's glory or for your glory? People have to stop voting for who they they think can win and start voting for who they think *should* win. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil and I can't understand why people don't treat this as a big moral dilemma.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-09-26 23:40:43 Obama has never said your possessions are the property of everyone else. Not sure where you're getting that. (He has however said that we have a responsibility to care for one another, which doesn't strike me as so troubling.) I have some degree of curiosity how the ownership of property is the key determinant of Christian politics (particularly when a few verses pop to mind refuting the idea that we own what we have) I don't mean to oversimplify, It just seems like we could all do to be a bit more introspective to see where our own biases/personal outlooks are being co-opted into our conception of what is Christian, in a way that might cloud our reasoning.

emperorbma   |2008-09-27 00:09:42 Quote: Obama has never said your possessions are the property of everyone else. I think the basic problem is not that he said this, but the fact that his votes as Senator of Illinois demonstrate this sort of Robin Hood mentality with other peoples' money. I do not agree with doing charity from other peoples' pocket books. If you are going to be charitable, do so with your own salary. As it is written, "God loves a cheerful giver."  Use tax dollars for the good of the state, but do not use them to turn the state into a charity. He can advocate sharing as much as he likes, and I would find nothing wrong with this... but don't make people share because that isn't what the Spirit calls for. Indeed, what kind of Christian would I be if I didn't advocate charity? But I don't believe in forced charity... that would be just like forcing people to become Christians. It doesn't work that way. Let there be charity, but let it be charity and not state imposed over-taxation.

metallurge   |2008-09-27 00:50:24 But... In a democracy, isn't the state supposed to, in some sense, be the people? Isn't the idea of government that it is doing something beneficial for the people, the body politic? Otherwise, why have government at all?

emperorbma   |2008-09-27 02:07:31 Aye, but the government is not supposed to be a nanny! Their basic job is to protect people from threats to their physical security such as marauding armies or people who break in during the night and take your paycheck or stab you in the back... you know, stuff that prevents people from being able to actually live a life at all. Basic, imperfect, human justice... They aren't supposed to be the Peoples' (N.B. usage intentional, socialism and Communism are bedfellows) foodbank or anything. Let the economy do what it is supposed to do, trade goods fairly without undue interference from the government. Notice I say fairly, not abusively. Those who abuse their positions in the economy to extort the poor should be ashamed of themselves and we should boycott anything they sell thereby fulfilling our duty by reproving their reprehensible acts. Also, we should let the Church do what she is supposed to do, care for God's children. If we, as a Church, should not break into the government's affairs, the government should likewise not break into the affairs of the Spirit.  (As an aside: the Book of Concord also says something about the government not meddling wrongly in the affairs of the Spirit or the freedom of the conscience... which makes a great argument against Hitler* as well as socialists...)  Charitable giving must be charitable, not forced or coerced through taxation. *-Godwin's law. Specific quote: AC 16:10-11 "Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to "obey God rather than men.""

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-09-27 08:17:47 a few morsels for thought: Is the only form of protection from danger/threat police/physical force? It seems to me that providing (or at least assuring access to) at least basic access to education, healthcare, food and housing is one of the best ways to prevent crime and "chaos" and protect citizens. If you recognize a biblical permission of war/capital punishment to governments (which I don't as we've discussed), don't you recognize biblical permission of government taxation. (which in the Roman world included more than simple security, i.e. "Bread and Circuses" and plenty o' public building projects. Actually come to think of it such projects were also government financed during the reigns of the Biblical kings for that matter.) I don't see how welfare programs (i.e. government being charitable) interfere with citizens moral freedom. The argument seems, although common, quite out of left field. (Especially if we're to say that war and conscription are somehow not a moral interference with its citizens.) I think your final citation is intriguing in some capacity, because it's really no indication toward either economic theory, only a command that you obey the prevailing economic laws of the ruling government.

emperorbma   |2008-09-27 15:02:57 Quote: It seems to me that providing (or at least assuring access to) at least basic access to education, healthcare, food and housing is one of the best ways to prevent crime and "chaos" and protect citizens. To be honest, I debate this with myself. I am left to the conclusion that the government can provide the basic ticket (aka vouchers) but not the service. The free market will, by necessity of competition, produce them at a more fair and reasonable price to the consumer. If the government provides the vouchers, it should do so without a mandate on how the service is conducted. Quote: If you recognize a biblical permission of war/capital punishment to governments (which I don't as we've discussed), don't you recognize biblical permission of government taxation. Absolutely, the government may tax with the full authority of Scriptural testimony. I don't have to agree with how it uses my taxes, however... I'm firmly against the wasteful practices that characterize our current socialized economy. and will use any legal power afforded me as a citizen to advocate against wasteful socialism. Quote: I don't see how welfare programs (i.e. government being charitable) interfere with citizens moral freedom. The argument seems, although common, quite out of left field. Is it charitable if someone forcibly takes my goods to give to the poor? Did I choose to give the goods to the poor or was it decided for me?  God does not work with compulsion... you don't give to a Church because you are forced to. I think compulsion is, quite frankly, contrary to God's plan. Robin Hood is, frankly, a villain.  He is not charitable with his own money. He is charitable with other peoples' money. If there is one argument Ayn Rand got right (which is rare), it is this one... forced charity is not charity. Quote: I think your final citation is intriguing in some capacity, because it's really no indication toward either economic theory, only a command that you obey the prevailing economic laws of the ruling government. That's actually why I noted it as a parenthetical. This is one point where there's some freedom afforded in interpretation. Although I must obey economic laws, I am free as a Christian to speak out against what I feel are injustices in them. (That was actually my point...)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-09-28 17:28:41 I completely disagree with the assertion that the free market, "by necessity of competition" must produce at a fairer price. I think any simple glance at history will demonstrate that fairness is not a factor in a true "free market" economy. Products are sold at as high a price as the provider can afford to sell them, and often competition doesn't really enter into that. Socialization can add a lot more costs (especially if mismanaged, but it can also be a government intervention to make a product or service more affordable to the consumer (typically by compensating for externalities not accounted for by the market.) I didn't so much mean to call the government charitable in a moral sense (though I take some exception to your insistence that they are giving away money that's not theirs. If you acknowledge the legitimacy of taxation on principal, it is their money. Provided by you yes, but given/surrendered to them.) It's a non-sequitor to equate government with Robin Hood unless you call taxation theft, which you've said it is not. Welfare programs aren't the only place for wasteful spending. (I'd point you to our current administration). Ultimately I think Democracy presents some interesting conflicts for Christians, because as much as we'd like to think it's not the case, for all intensive purposes we have become an integral part of Caesar, so decisions which would be left to him are now in part ours, and we've little biblical instruction for how to rule a government (wasn't a practical reality for Christians at the time.)

emperorbma   |2008-09-28 19:13:48 Quote: I completely disagree with the assertion that the free market, "by necessity of competition" must produce at a fairer price. The problem is that we've only been able to observe the corrupted forms of "free market" rather than the intended ideal. I doubt seriously that the free market ideal is the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft and would consider them closer to a diabolical perversion of it. As I see it, I favor a competitive market based on cooperatives and small businesses rather than corrupt megacorporations. Believe me, I do see the flaws of the free market even without you pointing me to them. But I don't believe the government is the answer to them... As a matter of fact, as I see it, it is precisely because the government interferes in the market that the market forces have coopted it. Coopting the power to grant monopolies is a corporate abuser's dream. Quote: It's a non-sequitor to equate government with Robin Hood unless you call taxation theft, which you've said it is not. I admit, I don't consider it theft. However, I do believe it is being used outside of the intended context of governance. It may not be principally theft, but it is not something I agree with by any means. (I've got an anarcho-capitalist friend who considers taxation theft, though... *wink*) Quote: Welfare programs aren't the only place for wasteful spending. (I'd point you to our current administration). Indeed... I think we can both concur there is some massive waste and unnecessary debt in governance. Quote: Ultimately I think Democracy presents some interesting conflicts for Christians, because as much as we'd like to think it's not the case, for all intensive purposes we have become an integral part of Caesar, so decisions which would be left to him are now in part ours, and we've little biblical instruction for how to rule a government (wasn't a practical reality for Christians at the time.) Yeah, it rather does. On the one hand, we have the Gospel call directing our daily lives and on the other we have to act with vigilance to defend the security of the state. I happen to believe that the answer is not in having the government lock down liberties with more legislation but rather in having the people exercise their liberties with wisdom and Godly consciences.

metallurge  - re:   |2008-10-05 00:19:07 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: I completely disagree with the assertion that the free market, "by necessity of competition" must produce at a fairer price. Two observations. First, a free market is not concerned with virtues like fairness. Secondly, I would observe that people do not really want a transparent free market. Sin always loves darkness. But it's better for sales if the illusion of a transparent free market is maintained. WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: Ultimately I think Democracy presents some interesting conflicts for Christians, because as much as we'd like to think it's not the case, for all intensive purposes we have become an integral part of Caesar, so decisions which would be left to him are now in part ours, and we've little biblical instruction for how to rule a government (wasn't a practical reality for Christians at the time.) Very well put.

emperorbma   |2008-10-05 00:53:16 Quote: Two observations. First, a free market is not concerned with virtues like fairness. Secondly, I would observe that people do not really want a transparent free market. Sin always loves darkness. But it's better for sales if the illusion of a transparent free market is maintained. Aye, but neither of these is the fault of the "free market." As you admit, it is sin at play. However, systems like markets cannot sin without sinners to sin in them. The problem is still people sinning, not the market. The same sins would take place under a socialist system or a Communist dictatorship, would they not? I think the free market, however, is far better because it consists of less sinner-on-sinner compulsion.

WebbedFeetOfClay  - re:   |2008-10-06 17:07:27 emperorbma wrote: Aye, but neither of these is the fault of the "free market." As you admit, it is sin at play. However, systems like markets cannot sin without sinners to sin in them. The problem is still people sinning, not the market. The same sins would take place under a socialist system or a Communist dictatorship, would they not? I think the free market, however, is far better because it consists of less sinner-on-sinner compulsion. People establish and perpetuate systems. That's not morally neutral. Some of the basic premises of free-market capitalism are morally suspect.   As far as compulsion is concerned I completely disagree. When the basic subsistence needs of people can be bought and sold like any luxury or commodity there is ample and disturbing compulsion. People are forced to compete in order to eat in a nasty tension that threatens death by starvation instead of gunpoint if they don't cooperate.

emperorbma   |2008-10-06 21:18:57 Quote: People establish and perpetuate systems. That's not morally neutral. Some of the basic premises of free-market capitalism are morally suspect. In my opinion it is no more suspect than top-down socialist government. The question is where evils can take place and who is accountable when they do take place. In terms of a socialist economy, we have to have faith that the government can police itself. I don't and for very good reasons. I know that man is sinful and that it is far too easy to corrupt such an institution in a Machiavellian manner to suit one's own agenda. I think, actually, it is because America is too socialist that it has the corruption that it does. In a genuine free market system, buying out politicians would be stupid because they really wouldn't be able to do much to help the company cheat the people. In the free market, the locus where evils are committed is far less centralized and there is more time and effort required on the part of evildoers to establish an evil empire. It is also far easier for the people to combat the evil if they don't become complacent. That is the rationale for true competition, it provides genuine and sensible alternatives to potentially corrupt companies. Quote: As far as compulsion is concerned I completely disagree. When the basic subsistence needs of people can be bought and sold like any luxury or commodity there is ample and disturbing compulsion. People are forced to compete in order to eat in a nasty tension that threatens death by starvation instead of gunpoint if they don't cooperate. The question is that of "points of failure." If we are trusting in a socialist government to regulate these "basic goods," we have a single point of failure where evil can fester. If we have an economy based on true competition, it will have several points of failure which are effectively acting to undermine the other points of failure should they actually become corrupt. Right now, we actually do not have a free market. It is really managed by centralized food cartels and regulated by government mandates. There are only 5 major food producing companies and the entire agricultural market is managed from a cabinet position. One example of this system in action is with milk products... The government actually buys tons of powdered milk that it wastes and lets rot away in order to keep milk prices at their current rate.  Instead of using it to feed hungry people around the world, it simply lets it rot away. This artificially drives up prices of such products worldwide. Now which is more evil? So I am not accused of making this up, I provide a reference and a more recent one showing this wasteful practice continues to this day. I'm no fan of corrupt corporations, but I can say the government has shown itself to be far more corrupt than any corporation could even dare to dream.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-07 08:35:23 Who said anything about a socialist top-down government? I by no means said or believe that a socialist top-down government is free from error (anarchist). But since you bring it up, a socialist government can still be police-able by itself or the populous, that's not really an intrinsic element of it being socialist. Hypothetically a government can be a lot more transparent and accountable than hundreds of disparate captains-of-industry. (like we, as you must have noticed with your cited statistics have transparency laws so that if people are willing to do the footwork they can see essentially all the budgetary laws passed by congress.) I know we're not a true free-market, and some of those government regulations you mention are idiotic (though were in part life-saving when most of them were initiated. mostly means that they just never got reformed and readjusted to better meet peoples needs). As far as corporations being nowhere as corrupt as governments can be, or it being so much harder for people to organize their corruption through capitalistic means, we really do not see eye to eye. Beyond the basic conjectural nature of your comments, I think you underestimate Morgan, Rockefeller, and Carnegie, who without help of government regulation worked men women and children to starvation and early death (and honestly they were nowhere near as cruel as a thousands of local half-rate robber-barons and bosses and share-croppers.) It's not hard for abuse to happen, perhaps hard for a randomly selected individual to get the means to abuse others, but once someone has the means it's child's play (and seems to happen more often than not, though perhaps that too is too conjectural)

emperorbma   |2008-10-07 12:13:18 Quote: I by no means said or believe that a socialist top-down government is free from error (anarchist). Ahh, okay... so you're coming from the other side then. That was my error, I apologize. I must have misread the inertia of the discussion as pointing to socialism due to everyone else's opinion that I forgot you in the mix. As a matter of fact, I do have some experience with anarchism, although it is from an anarcho-capitalist (which is basically like "free market + no government") slant. I'm betting you're coming from the "Christan anarchist" side though, aren't you? I'd probably need to tune my arguments quite a bit for ya then... :P Quote: Hypothetically a government can be a lot more transparent and accountable than hundreds of disparate captains-of-industry. Hypothetically. First of all, when I am describing a free market, I don't really consider these "captains of industry" to be a paragon of what I'm advocating. In fact, they're sort of like traitors to the free market because they abuse the system to create a monopoly. This behavior is the "monopolism" that I rail against. It is best exemplified in companies like Microsoft, the RIAA or the MPAA which pervert the government to serve their twisted agendas. If anything, I suspect that we'll probably agree that big business doesn't deserve the power to dictate laws to the government to serve its own bottom line... Quote: (like we, as you must have noticed with your cited statistics have transparency laws so that if people are willing to do the footwork they can see essentially all the budgetary laws passed by congress.) Indeed, the paper trail may be the one side-benefit of a socialist system. However, it doesn't help one iota if nobody can do anything about it. If we have a socialist system, it is effectively a class system with the "chosen monopoly" at the top and little anyone can do to break in and compete by providing a better service. Overall, in terms of managing the economy, our vote counts for very little except the "dog and pony show" we call the Presidency. Even if it is a fully open system, we would still need to be able to do something to make sure our voices are adequately represented.  However, as it stands, the representatives actually make their decisions contrary to the will of most of the people even on such vital matters as the "economic bailout" which received 75% disapproval when the population was queried on the matter. Quote: As far as corporations being nowhere as corrupt as governments can be, or it being so much harder for people to organize their corruption through capitalistic means, we really do not see eye to eye. Probably not. I have a rather innate fear of "systems" versus people and I believe the government is a very dangerous system because of its power to grant monopolies. In effect, when I see ideal free market I see "mom and pops" rather than Wal Mart. (Perhaps this will provide a better perspective of what I'm intending) I would much rather have the situation where we have small competing organizations than a top-down, systemic bureaucracy. Quote: Beyond the basic conjectural nature of your comments, I think you underestimate Morgan, Rockefeller, and Carnegie, who without help of government regulation worked men women and children to starvation and early death (and honestly they were nowhere near as cruel as a thousands of local half-rate robber-barons and bosses and share-croppers.) Interesting rebuttal, but I think that this is largely because the government was providing them the tools necessary to engage in their misbehavior. I really didn't mean to imply that this is a "bad guy versus good guy" situation. Rather, both sides are contributing to the problem. However, your point is valid and I, thus, revise my argument to consider it. So, in summary, a socialist government is an engine which permits evils that a corporation could only dream of in any other situation.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-07 16:25:22 I find your stance on monopolism fascinating on a variety of counts. I have a hard time seeing how you envision a free-market would avoid monopoly. Most of the monopolies you discuss as government aided are more aided in that the government allows them to exist while stopping other monopolistic efforts. I don't see why a grand portion of the early american monopolies were somehow dependent on government involvement in your reasoning. (But monopoly is by no means the only grounds for abuse.) (Should also note that I am indeed an anarchist though for the interest of full disclosure I do toy with the pursuit of anarchism through socialism, albeit preferably bottom-up rather than top-down, basically by surrendering to the immediately unavoidable reality of some form of "government" and saying if this must, at least at present, be the case, and governmental compulsion/intervention/influence is going to happen one way or the other, I would much rather it do so to the benefit of the poor rather than the wealthy, and to the frustration of Capitalistic hyper-commodification.)

emperorbma   |2008-10-08 02:15:52 Quote: Most of the monopolies you discuss as government aided are more aided in that the government allows them to exist while stopping other monopolistic efforts. Ah, but it isn't only a crime of inaction. The problem is there is much legislation is geared specifically towards corporate interests which directly ignores the interests of the people. A good example of this are modern copyright laws. Quote: I don't see why a grand portion of the early american monopolies were somehow dependent on government involvement in your reasoning. Another good point, you can probably make the case that the present level of collusion is a recent innovation. The government was actually, at one point, far more proactive in destroying threats to economic stability such as monopolies. The problem is, I see the seeds of this collusion operating long before they reach germination. Even if there was not as much direct involvement, the tools which are being exploited have been provided since the beginning. One tool of this is the concept of government-granted monopoly on ideas, also known as intellectual property. Another tool is the concept of corporate personhood. Yet another is where the government contracts to a company, yet inevitably serves to provide that company with a monopoly. In a way, the government has slowly been betraying its original intent. One of the early examples of a government-granted monopoly is that of the Union-Pacific trans-continental railroad. It gave one conglomerate a literal monopoly on transcontinental trade. I admit that companies have sought monopolies apart from government meddling, but government meddling exacerbates the problem. If anything, the government is being lax in its duty to protect the economy from internal threats. However, I don't agree that micromanagement should be the solution.  I think breaking up offending companies to foster competition is the more effective solution. Quote: I have a hard time seeing how you envision a free-market would avoid monopoly. This is actually the interesting thing. My vision isn't really a "solution" as much as a "challenge" to use the tools we already have. It's more an attempt to suggest that the people be proactive in defending their rights and that the government should operate on the principles of "minimum necessary to do its job." On the basis of Scripture I see this as ensuring we may "live peaceable and Godly lives, dignified in every way." (1 Timothy 2:2) The present system is simply unacceptable, the government has been increasing in its power and corruption. The government has acted to "tweak the economy" when it should be left alone. The government has also increased its debt to the detriment of the economy. Such abuses are not good government and should not be promoted as such. That's what I consider the flaw of a socialist viewpoint to be, it advocates government meddling where it isn't necessary. Quote: (But monopoly is by no means the only grounds for abuse.) True, but as I noted... I believe the people should be proactive as well. The company which has abuses should be brought to the attention of the people and the people should use the tools available to them to bring it back in line. The government intervening is a sign that the people have failed their duties, and that is the problem I think should be addressed. Quote: (Should also note that I am indeed an anarchist though for the interest of full disclosure[...]) If we go beyond our basic positional rhetoric, I think there are a lot of points on which we agree despite our disagreement on what form that vision should take. As I see it, I don't really agree that capitalism must be interpreted as a system of "hyper-commodification." My interpretation of the free market is such that I easily recognize some things are not "goods [or] services" and should not be treated merely as such. One example is in terms of ideas, which I believe should not be treated as property.  I don't totally reject copyright as my "anarcho-capitalist friend" does, however.  I also believe that, at some level, we must be willing to recognize that our "property" is not really ours but rather all things ultimately belong to God. For me, the rationale behind the free market is that a free exchange is a necessity for a free society. Artificial regulations do not benefit free exchange, but only serve to hinder it. My viewpoint here is similar to my view of the Law and Gospel in theology. The Law shows us our sins, but does not save us. The Gospel saves us by leading us to God. Similarly, I believe that human laws can only serve as a curb for problems, not as an inducement to good virtue.  I believe liberty is necessary to be able to permit true virtue in a manner which is not prescribed or forced. As God does not work with coercion, neither should we. By and by, there is also some similarity between basic anarchist ideals and libertarian ideals as I have understood them. Both are principled on a rejection of large government, for example. My own take on that perspective is one of minarchism: A government should only operate where it is necessary to fulfill its basic purpose, so that we may "live peaceable and godly lives, dignified in every way." As you said, some government is necessary and there's really no dispute on that.  Total anarchy would result in a "power vacuum" which is inhabited with those with little concern for the good of others. (If anything, I'm sort of on the same boat, but coming at it from a slightly different angle vis a vis anarchy) As I said before, I have a friend who is anarcho-capitalist and believes that even the government itself should be considered a service that can be licensed out. I don't take that position, of course. Instead, I believe that whatever is not in the government's purview or in the purview of the Church or family is a part of the economy and should operate under the principles of a free market. The government itself must be able to operate to fulfill its purpose, and to that end it is given a limited amount of power according to its need. Furthermore, I know that we are disagreeing with the basic means to this end, but I don't think the poor folks should be left aside either.  The main difference is that I think that the way to care for the poor is through voluntary acts.  Having the government micromanange the process of charity is really a detriment to genuine charity.  Real charity is rooted (ultimately) in God's grace and a (consequent) personal decision to take care of the less fortunate. If a person does not decide (by God's grace) to be charitable, then it was done through coercion and it is not genuine charity. Coercion means it was given grudgingly, and as we know "God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7) I should admit that I'm a bit of an idealist as to the nature of my viewpoint. I don't really see it as a finished work, either. It's more of a consensus based on what I see as the necessity of governance and the necessity of liberty.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-08 13:57:07 I'm going to make a few general replies because otherwise, especially without nesting I'll confuse myself. I still have a hard time viewing monopoly as anything but the expected norm in an unregulated market. Even if we posit that monopolies crumble and shift, the basic reality at any point is that the wealthiest individuals can dictate the terms of the economy and their competition and thereby effectively control, or at least something beyond influence, the resources necessary not only for upstarts to compete but for the average citizen to subside. That influence seems to be the natural result of basic free-market capitalism and I don't think we can underestimate the danger of such financial tyranny. I'm not so confident as you that the people will police their own market, I doubt people would consistently care or develop concern until such a point as the monopolist controlled enough resources to cut off their options (especially when basic resources for day-to-day life are commodities to be controlled, not to mention control of media outlets.) It seems hard for me to accept that "tweaking the economy" is a direct violation of 1Timothy 2:2. (It seems that a lot of your interpretation hinges on the belief that the free-market is somehow more natural or innate than other systems, whereas it seems to me that preserving a "free-market" or establishing it for that matter requires just as much if not more tweaking than other economic systems. i.e. money ain't a natural conception, it's a government invention.) I also fail to see how government involvement in welfare somehow impedes true heartfelt charity. If you would give but see that a government program is in place that does part of it and that "prevents" you from being charitable, it doesn't strike me as having been a charitable intent to begin with. Beyond that, any welfare involvement by practical necessity can't really kick in until after voluntary charity has missed a step. You can help people before they fall on their face. (and while voluntary charity is by far preferable to welfare I'd much rather have the safety net to insure that people's callousness and failure to do their Christian duty won't leave others to starve and die while we fail to take notice on a local personal level.) Hoover was a well-meaning man, but leaving all social-welfare donation and care to churches and private citizens left a lot of people in the lurch and helped in the ruin of the American economy. I also don't think legislation is fundamentally morally neutral, voting for or encouraging legislation which gives your money (we can question making that decision for others, but ultimately that's the way democracy rolls) to help those in need still can have a charitable element, or at least a demonstration of prioritizing the welfare of your fellow people. (Part of my anarchistic perspective is a rejection of government as a distinct moral category beyond the people that comprise it. While that leads to staunch opposition to some aspects of governmental thought (e.g. war etc.) I think it also feeds into my willingness to see welfare as the potentially charitable decision/action of a majority of the people that comprise the so-called government, and make decisions under its auspices.)

emperorbma   |2008-10-12 18:19:09 In case you missed it Webby... the next reply is at the bottom of the page.

metallurge   |2008-09-27 10:41:19 I do not see how charity is a purely Christian matter. I do not see a wall of separation between Church and state.

emperorbma   |2008-09-27 15:06:14 Quote: I do not see how charity is a purely Christian matter. It may or may not be. The thing about it is that I believe that without the Holy Spirit the world cannot be moved to genuine charity. However, with the Holy Spirit, they will almost inevitably become Christians so long as they aren't actively resisting His grace. Quote: I do not see a wall of separation between Church and state. I actually do... I think it is a necessary conclusion from Christ's own doctrines. Christ says "My Kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) as well as saying "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21) The civil government is the administrator of the fallible interpretation of the "curb" use of God's Law that is common to all mankind but corrupted by the Fall. The government is, indeed, by Divine commission, but it's purpose is not the same as the Church. This is attested to when God establishes them with the power to "carr[y] out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:4) By contrast, the commission of the Church is the Gospel: "go make disciples of every nation, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19) Likewise, Christ also commands us to "go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15) By a simple necessity of the Scriptural teaching and, concurrently, the testimony of the Apostles themselves, I think that civil authority is fully intended by God to be a different authority with a different commission. (A case can be made from patristics as well... but I prefer Scripture.)

Entity  - re: re: No Problem With Women In Leadership from T   |2008-09-29 09:42:18 exile wrote: Obama promotes the idea that you and all your possessions are the property of everybody else for a common good. This is why I would vote Libertarian. Libertarians promote the idea that your life and your possessions is yours to do with it what you will. Will you use it for God's glory or for your glory? Well, I would have to agree more with Obama on this one - as much as it pains me. Acts 2:44-45 says "All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need." Now, I will note three important differences. First, it was only those who chose to join. Second, as Acts 5:1-10 seems to indicate, they had a choice over how much they donated. Third, it was distributed according to need, not adherence to government programs. As far as one's life and possessions belonging to oneself, Psalm 24:1 says "The earth is the LORD'S and all it holds, the world and those who live there." It doesn't belong to us, but God. Now, the church does recognize private property and that God has allowed us possession of His assets. I certainly don't think government, corporations, or individuals have the right to take from others. Taxes, as long as they are not onerous, are permitted. However, since Obama ignores so much more of the Bible and Church teaching, I certainly do not believe that his tax structure has anything to do with him being a Christian or a better choice for Christians.

emperorbma   |2008-09-29 15:13:56 Indeed a fair criticism of the literal reading of Libertarian positions. "Do as thou wilt" is not "the sum of the law." (*) However, does not even Saint Augustine say: "Love God and do as thou wilt?" Obviously Augustine would not entreat feigned obedience, but he means a genuine faith through which the Holy Spirit has conformed our hearts to God and which desires the things that God desires. Yet, doesn't it also bespeak that we have liberty in Christ? I suggest that we should not operate from compulsion to force charity, but rather from genuine and unfeigned faithfulness to God. If we permit the government to act to force charity, does this not impinge on the freedom of Christ by making His commandment to be a statute of men? Does it not impinge on the freedom of conscience that God has given to us as His children? I would suggest that even unbelievers may be charitable, though in a flawed manner which does not root in a faith in God, but even then we should not force such people to give if they are not so moved to give. God does not want forced charity, since He specifically inspired Paul to write that "God loves a cheerful giver." As such, I must naturally stand opposed to government imposed fake charity. Not only on the principle of freedom in Christ, but also on the fact that it undermines the very manner in which God intends us to give. (* - N.B. I'm fully aware of who says that it is. The comparison is deliberate...)

Entity   |2008-09-29 16:05:07 I'm sort of an anti-libertarian. I believe government should have some role in both fiscal and social decisions. For example, I do believe that redistribution of wealth to help the poor is a good thing. I don't have a huge problem with a progressive tax rate. I do have a problem with the excess of government spending in many other areas. If the Wiccan philosophy of "Do what thou wilt if it harms none" was actually adhered to, I would probably find it more acceptable than the libertarian philosophy of "Do what thou wilt". However, Wiccans do end up betraying their philosophy by both directly (abortion) and indirectly (promiscuity) harming others and society. Libertarians often don't even seem to hold to this "no harm, no foul" philosophy and often seem to be OK with society and others suffering (within limits) to achieve personal gain. Libertarians who do not adhere to the "me-first" philosophy seem to do this because of a strong moral compass, but this is sadly lacking in so many Americans that I don't think relying on others' moral compasses is a sound philosophy. Now I realize that I'm probably not adequately representing Libertarian philosophy, so please set me straight where I am wrong.

emperorbma   |2008-09-29 21:21:45 Well, it actually wasn't the Wiccan Rede I was alluding to, but rather La Vey... At any rate, I would be critical of either Thelemic approach to ethics. I intended to rely on Saint Augustine's approach which is rooted in Godly faithfulness because it is both Christian and dogmatically appropriate when it is properly understood. Now, I will make a disclaimer that I'm not representative of all forms of libertarianism. In a sense, I am a "Christian libertarian" who interprets the ideas of libertarianism through the lens of the Book of Concord and Scripture. Certainly, some libertarians might advocate blind freedoms and rampant abuse, but from what I have observed most libertarians are advocating freedom with the caveat that it should be expressed in a self-disciplined and well-ordered society which does express concern for others. This is not an issue of justification, principally, but an issue of virtuous living. Without the Holy Spirit no one can be truly faithful to God and (as a result) genuinely charitable. However, even unbelievers have some sense of God's Law (albeit one which is corrupted by sin) and even enlightened self-interest can see a benefit to itself in certain forms of altruism and duty. I'm not so deluded to believe what can be produced is a Christian nation with universal Godly morality.  In fact, I don't even think we could attain that with a police state which forcibly enforced the Law of God. However, I do believe a reasonable and secular form of civic morality can be established which is predicated on a free society based on fair and equitable standards. This requires that people take responsibility for themselves and be educated about how the system can be corrupted and are willing to address it within their rights as citizens. Although a libertarian viewpoint can be misunderstood to support simply doing whatever people want to without regards for good morals, I do not believe that this is the intended result of libertarian philosophy. As Augustine is quite for God in the quote "love God and do what thou wilt," La Vey is for deviltry in the quote "do as thou wilt is the sum of the law."  So, just as we must remain committed to Godliness in the Church, so also one must be vigilant and concerned in a free society, lest it lapse into corruption and laxity. Vigilance, as Christ exhorts his Apostles to regarding the Word, is also necessary to protect any kind of liberty. We cannot root liberty in a blind parroting of libertarian ideology or a faith that the free market is the only solution. Neither would I do any such thing. I freely admit that the government has necessary jurisdiction over certain affairs because of its Divinely instituted purpose. It has the right to tax citizens, raise armies, establish police forces and to maintain justice. Nor do I argue against these proper duties of governance. I am not as the anarcho-capitalist who believes these roles should be simply delegated to private institutions, although I do see the point in attempting to restrict monopolistic control. I don't believe that the government is meant to be a charity organization and it should not serve as a "morality police." Neither role is found in Scripture and I would advocate that taking either role weakens our ability to witness for the Gospel. With the given example of progressive tax-rate, I feel it undermines the basic principle of charity in which so much of our own Lord's teaching is grounded. How can a rich person be charitable if the government takes more and more of their money simply because they are rich? Will this not encourage the rich to hoard what little they can get? We should not make them into hoarding dragons by attempting to take their wealth. Yet, I agree that Christ says "to him who much is given, much will be expected."  The rich should be encouraged to freely share through encouragement. Encourage the rich man by defending his freedoms and educating him about his responsibilities. Chastise those who choose to hoard wealth and boycott his business if necessary. Likewise, I don't see helping the poor as a problem. In fact, it's a very good thing.  However, if it is done through the means of taxation it will reduce the opportunity for genuine charity. Not only will the government be subsuming the duties of the Church as one who collects for the needy, but it will also be squeezing out the freedom that permits someone to be charitable even if they are a member of the Church. While I advocate a large amount of freedom, philosophically, I also advocate a requisite amount of responsibility. I know very well that man is a sinful creature and, based on that fact, there will be abuses. However, I also believe that, as Christians, God can encourage us to reject those who desire sinful gain and even the unbeliever can be led to see that a reasonable and fair system of trade is superior to one where the measures are imposed from a big nanny government. Who will guard us against a corrupt guard, should someone bribe him to alter the weights? In terms of businesses, this is expressed with the ability to boycott evil companies with no regard for human decency. With regards to politics, this is expressed in our freedom to choose a party which doesn't do evil in the name of the people. In terms of our responsibility as God's Church it also calls on us to stop being lazy (this is not an accusation on anyone in particular, but a general exhortation) and to do our duty as God's representatives on Earth. The preaching of good morals is a duty of the Church which naturally follows from the Gospel commission, under the third use of the Law.  Charity flows likewise from faithfulness. (Rule (third) use of the Law: once we are saved, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are moved by grace to seek and desire those things which are pleasing to God) I don't see this as a single-answer solution. The free market is not God and it will not save us from our sins.  However, it is a part of the picture and something which we must deal with as a part of God's creation. I prefer to use it to the best of its abilities rather than to relegate it to sitting on the sidelines and benefiting no one except the corrupt and the wicked.

metallurge  - re:   |2008-09-30 10:04:57 Entity wrote: I'm sort of an anti-libertarian. I believe government should have some role in both fiscal and social decisions. For example, I do believe that redistribution of wealth to help the poor is a good thing. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. ;-)

Entity   |2008-09-30 13:05:17 I heard a buzzing noise as that just flew right over my head...

wezlo   |2008-10-01 10:03:30 Monty Python...

Entity   |2008-10-01 10:19:56 That part I did know, but I'm clueless on how the reference pertains.

wezlo   |2008-10-01 11:32:37 metallurge is shocked that emperorBMA is happy with the idea of the redistribution of wealth.

Entity   |2008-10-01 12:11:20 I don't think he does. That was my quote he responded to. That is one issue I've changed on a bit over the years as I have become more Catholic in my thinking...

emperorbma   |2008-10-01 16:16:12 Yeah, Entity is quite right. I'm not happy with the "Robin Hood government" which was my point. (Ah the foibles and fallibilities of human words, would that we could communicate in pure ideal concepts...)

metallurge   |2008-10-04 22:56:00 Sorry for the delay in responding. It was a bad joke about giving away too many powers not quite turning out how people expect sometimes.

WebbedFeetOfClay  - re:   |2008-10-01 16:07:59 Entity wrote: I don't think he does. That was my quote he responded to. That is one issue I've changed on a bit over the years as I have become more Catholic in my thinking... I had thought some of that was also a somewhat tongue-in-cheek commentary on catholicism and government social involvement. I may be wrong, and honestly don't know why I'm giving my guess instead of waiting to hear it from the metallurge's mouth.

metallurge  - re: re:   |2008-10-05 00:12:19 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: I had thought some of that was also a somewhat tongue-in-cheek commentary on catholicism and government social involvement. I may be wrong, and honestly don't know why I'm giving my guess instead of waiting to hear it from the metallurge's mouth. Who knew that a somewhat-cryptic comment would generate a discussion? Sorry for disappearing there, I was just crazy busy there for a few days, out here near Desdemona. Your interpretation is correct.

wezlo  - re:   |2008-10-01 17:08:07 emperorbma wrote: Yeah, Entity is quite right. I'm not happy with the "Robin Hood government" which was my point. (Ah the foibles and fallibilities of human words, would that we could communicate in pure ideal concepts...) My bad..

emperorbma   |2008-10-01 17:11:56 No problem, we all make mistakes. :)

laika  - re:   |2008-10-06 22:33:36 emperorbma wrote: Right now, we actually do not have a free market. and the events of last week once again make that abundantly clear - fabulous private profit for the few, but collective debt when things go sour. for all our yap about the free-market, we've never actually seen one.

emperorbma   |2008-10-08 16:26:01 Quote: without nesting I'll confuse myself. Here, let me fix that... Quote: I still have a hard time viewing monopoly as anything but the expected norm in an unregulated market. I'll grant my position is rather odd from that perspective, but this is because it's not a short-term outlook. Over time, without government support for a corrupt company, I see a monopoly as destroying itself inherently. There is only so much greed one can accrue before one experiences a moral backlash. Consider how the RIAA/MPAA is abusing the government to attempt to shore up places where the customers have already rejected its corrupt monopoly. The moral backlash is in force and they are attempting to use the government as a shield to protect themselves from justice. Given sufficient time and if the government leaves it alone, it will collapse due to a popular rejection of its behavior. Microsoft, on the other hand, is actually a tricky little monster because it has marketing inertia. It plays the government against itself to avoid justice and it relies on marketing to deceive people into using its inferior products. That is where the people being proactive comes into play. Grass roots campaigns are very important to slowly whittle at the evil empire. The "word of mouth" is something the advertiser cannot control. Quote: I'm not so confident as you that the people will police their own market Indeed, I am aware of this problem of human nature. Abject laziness and simple ignorance go a long way to perpetuating the system of corruption.  As someone said, "where good men do not intervene, evil flourishes." Furthermore, not even "the people" are without sin. From my viewpoint, the problem is something inherent in human nature. This will be true no matter which solution we choose. It will all self-corrupt eventually, so I would rather choose something which is less likely to corrupt in a manner that turns us into a Post-WW2 Weimar Republic. The problem is the "state of fear." What we have now is just such a state. People are more than willing to trade away their freedom for a false sense of security. In the Weimar Republic, the nebulous threat was the "Communists."  In modern day America, the "terrorists" have more than served to push the agenda of those destroying liberty. (A side note: I'm not denying that the terrorists are actually a threat, mind you, but I think the response to terrorism has proven that they are a convenient tool for those seeking to undermine the liberty we have hitherto taken for granted.) Quote: I don't think we can underestimate the danger of such financial tyranny. Indeed. I think I should distinguish, however, that what I'm advocating is not an "evil entrepreneur" but rather a "benevolent" one. It's actually one of the weaker points of my argument because there's really no good way to predict beforehand what sort of entrepreneur a person will be or become. The way I shore it up is my overhaul of just what a corporation means. I reject the idea of corporate personhood in favor of a system of competition between small economic cooperatives. (aka "mom and pop shops") The ideal is not Microsoft, but the local general store. I think, from that perspective, you can see why I'm rather upset. The ideal sort of business is being driven out of business. Quote: It seems hard for me to accept that "tweaking the economy" is a direct violation of 1Timothy 2:2. I'll grant that the connection isn't as clear as I seem to suggest. The thing is, I principally reject the idea of one sinner being morally superior to any other. As you note with your basic understanding of anarchy, since all mankind is sinful, that would mean no man has inherently more authority than any other. Even so, some authority must exist by necessity of God's command for order in a fallen world and the basic needs of man for government. To that end, I prefer a system which requires the least coercion and the most liberty possible without creating the "power vacuum" of total anarchy. (i.e. minarchy) Quote: I also fail to see how government involvement in welfare somehow impedes true heartfelt charity. Let me put it this way, do you feel charitable when you pay taxes? Let's be honest, if someone is forcing you to pay money you are less likely to give.  First of all, you have your own basic needs (and wants) to cover. Secondly, taxation fosters a certain cynicism towards giving in general especially if you consider the next part... Quote: Hoover was a well-meaning man, but leaving all social-welfare donation and care to churches and private citizens left a lot of people in the lurch and helped in the ruin of the American economy. Increasing "government programs" does another thing which is bad for personal charity, it actually invades the places where people can actually do charity. If there is a government "soup kitchen," who needs the Church to provide the same "soup kitchen?" Instead of being able to help people here, that means we need to focus on helping people in far off countries that no one has ever heard of. It hurts our witness to our own people, who will cynically view us as preaching but not living the Gospel.  No matter how much we give to our local church, the people in Zimbabwe are getting it not the people right here in the USA who are in need.  This sort of stuff gives militant atheists the ammunition that they blast the Church for being "hypocrites" with. We just "trust in Uncle Sam" to do this job for us... In a way, this is really a blot for everyone. The government is doing our job for us! We should not be relying on Uncle Sam as the great providence of man. Rather, we should rely on the grace of God as the Providence of all things. Quote: I also don't think legislation is fundamentally morally neutral, voting for or encouraging legislation which gives your money (we can question making that decision for others, but ultimately that's the way democracy rolls) to help those in need still can have a charitable element, or at least a demonstration of prioritizing the welfare of your fellow people. As I said above, I see it as diluting the amount of charity we can really claim. When people see their taxes they will think "look at those Christians, making me pay more on my taxes for no real benefit." It's kind of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' sort of thing. We will be the butt of cynicism either way, but if we are working through means of liberty, it will undermine our witness far less. The things that we try to do for charity are turned upside down so that they appear to be tyranny and socialism simply plays into that trap. Of course, blind faith in capitalism is the other side of the vice grip. As I see it, we shouldn't sacrifice our freedom but we shouldn't be uncharitable either.  My intention is to answer "neither" to the false dichotomy and to keep both liberty and charity. Quote: (Part of my anarchistic perspective is a rejection of government as a distinct moral category beyond the people that comprise it. Indeed, I think we are concurred on this point... as I said above, a sinner is by no means morally superior to any other sinner. As I said above, I think we are on the same boat with regards to this point but coming at this from a different angle. Quote: While that leads to staunch opposition to some aspects of governmental thought (e.g. war etc.) I think it also feeds into my willingness to see welfare as the potentially charitable decision/action of a majority of the people that comprise the so-called government, and make decisions under its auspices.) I'm not really against the principle of charity here. I think there are better ways to get to it which don't involve a coercion and undermining liberties, however... Overall, however, I think we have a twofold problem: keeping liberty and keeping charity. As a Church, failing either of these would hurt our witness of God's love. As a society, failing either undermines our basic humanity.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-12 21:08:22 I had saw this on the way out then forgot to respond, sorry. I appreciate that you think monopolies would eat themselves because of moral backlash, but I fail to see why that would be the norm or what evidence you have. Along the same lines of thought you could say that if people could only deal with so much greed before moral backlash made a change then the corruption and greed in government wouldn't be around (especially as we've got a democracy with all the channels in place already for complete change if people actually cared to mobilize to do so, and I would point that that those are changes more easily made through governmental channels than through amorphous market feedback (especially when by that point, like I say the financial capital at the disposal of those wanting to backlash would be pretty much dwarfed by those who they would want to backlash against.)) I also still don't buy your argument that government programs hurt personal charity, the same things I said above stand. Government programs don't honestly kick in until after churches and others have already to some extent had a chance and would cease to apply in circumstances that churches and others actually took care of it. the "oh well they're already doing some of that argument" is weak-sauce and honestly seems to pass moral culpability for falling short of being stewards of God's gifts from those who have fallen short to a government scapegoat. (and again the same stuff I said in the last post applies.) If this is a blot for everyone, the answer isn't get rid of the government programs and hope we catch up, it's catch up until they are no longer necessary. I'd also say government programs aren't in opposition to liberty (especially in a democracy). I am rather adamant that the title "free-market" is a misnomer, or at least misleading. There are by no means intrinsically more liberties in a free market. It's skewing the notion of what it is to be free.

emperorbma   |2008-10-12 22:25:16 Quote: I had saw this on the way out then forgot to respond, sorry. It's okay, I was just checking on ya. Quote: I appreciate that you think monopolies would eat themselves because of moral backlash, but I fail to see why that would be the norm or what evidence you have. Given enough injustice, the people can and do respond to a problem. Certainly we could probably say that the people aren't as proactive at scoping out injurious practices as they could or should be, but they will do so. With education, they can see the dangers of letting things go unchecked, but this is a another systemic weakness in my position that is worth noting. Now, as for the reason why I believe a market is superior to government. Are you familiar, perhaps, with Linus's Law: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." Which infrastructure is more likely to get fixed? A government or a market? I liken the government to "proprietary" software and the market to "open source."  The reason why I believe that market is superior in most cases is that all of the tools to create a corporation are freely available to everyone and require no "special license" to use. A government, on the other hand, while it is selected through elections, is not much different than proprietary software. Like Microsoft, it has only a few people with access to the "source code." Likewise, it also has only a few people who can make modifications. There's times when this strategy is beneficial, but there are also times when it is not. Admittedly, even an open source project has administrators who determine what gets accepted into their version of the codebase. However, there is absolutely nothing that stops people from forking it and making a new codebase with their own changes.  Presumably some of these changes will be superior and survive better than more corrupt versions. As anyone who knows Open Source projects can attest, a project which stagnates is usually forked and then the fork ends up becoming the new version if it surpasses the original. Corrupt businesses are like a stagnated project, they can be easily replaced by a fork if they continue in their corrupt practices. Not only that, but the fact is the customer can choose to boycott a company, while they cannot boycott a government. Conversely, if I tried to start a new government I would either be shot or arrested.  The "barrier of entry" is absolute and there is no way to improve it except to hope that the system is still fair. (... and by and large, it isn't.) Quote: I also still don't buy your argument that government programs hurt personal charity Good point, you can say that it is laxity on the part of the Church if it fails to continue despite government programs. It really isn't a total failure, either, since there are some good Christian charities. However, the "bottom line" at which people can make charitable donations is reduced because the government takes a larger proportion away in taxation. Therefore, even if Christians are charitable, they have less to give. It becomes like the "widow's mite," not much to give but still meaningful.  The question is whether we can sustain our churches with an extremely high tax rate or whether we would have to go back to the old way of "house churches." There is a cost of business in the Church, even though it is God's house. I kind of wonder if those nice historic churches in Europe wouldn't all fall down if the European governments didn't keep them as public landmarks at taxpayer expense. Of course, those parishes might actually have the money to spend in donations if the government lowered the tax rates afterwards. For reference, compare average donations in Europe to those in America... which is larger? My suspicion is that the European ones are lower. Although there are probably other important effects and probably taxation, the socialist economy is probably one of the reasons. (The general lack of religiosity may be another) *Note: the hint of uncertainty is because I really can't find any good statistics for this... Quote: I'd also say government programs aren't in opposition to liberty (especially in a democracy). I am rather adamant that the title "free-market" is a misnomer, or at least misleading. There are by no means intrinsically more liberties in a free market. It's skewing the notion of what it is to be free. At its root, free market means the freedom to trade goods with no unnecessary interference from the government. This means that I don't deny that there's necessary interference, for one. It also means that I think some of the current modes of interference are excessive. The "bailout," for example, is not something I agree with because it is forcing the entire economy to shoulder the bad decisions of a few banks who loaned out to people that cannot pay.  Why should the whole economy suffer increased interest rates and larger tax bills because Fannie Mae can't figure out what a bad loan prospect looks like? Let the market deal with the failures as the market deals with them instead of keeping things artificially afloat and swamping everyone else. Managed economics is not as efficient as people think. Although I'm not too well grounded in their ideas, you may find the Austrian school of economics to be a bit interesting.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-13 09:41:56 I think OpenSource is an interesting introduction. Definitely a counter-example demonstrating some legitimate goodness coming out of a less regulated setup. (makes me, as a side, curious about your thoughts on Intellectual property rights as well as how they relate to Free-market capitalism) However I do think that it's plain incorrect to say we don't have access to the government "Sourcecode" Just because we consistently fail to mobilize to effect the reformations and changes we so irritably demand doesn't mean we lack the resources or abilities to effect them. (I also don't see what's stopping your moral backlash from going into effect on some of the ugly companies that are making money hand over fist right now. Government involvement or no government involvement they could still be taken down many pegs, pegs which they are clearly not being taken down. Both historical and contemporary). As to your taxes take away from money we could be using for charity argument. A lot of my objections still stand, but additionally on a more practical level, I'm curious why this is an indictment of welfare programs and not military/police/prison etc. systems (I'm saying basically I think a lot of well organized welfare/education/healthcare programs can more efficiently protect people (physically and financially) than can the former, perhaps at a lower cost (while we're entertaining hypotheticals). I doubt the market deals with them best. Again, I make no claims that government intervention and regulation is an intrinsically good thing that will always work swimmingly, but I am even more skeptical about "free-market". (Curious how international government debt and things like that play into the free-market discussion, haven't really thought about it heavily, but am placing this parenthetical comment in to hopefully remind me to think on it more.)

emperorbma   |2008-10-13 10:25:06 Quote: (makes me, as a side, curious about your thoughts on Intellectual property rights as well as how they relate to Free-market capitalism) Intellectual property is one of those things that I think is greviously abused. Unlike kiba, I am not a "copyright abolitionist." My position is that the concept of intellectual property is being abused and it should be fixed.  They can serve a good purpose if used properly, for example the Free Software movement is a good use that protects the rights of the consumer. The present misuse of copyrights is creating an environment of legal terror that prevents people from being able to innovate. Today, if you don't "cite" all of your works and pay all royalties you may be sued or imprisoned. The prison time for copyright violations is actually longer than the prison time for murder in many cases! I believe that this is contrary to the intent of intellectual property which is, in the Constitution of the USA stated as "to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Its present use is stifling the very thing it claims to promote because it is being abused by monopolists. Copyright should not be used to criminalize the consumer and prevent them from sharing your works. In fact, freely sharing works has a side benefit of giving exposure to the original artist. Through that exposure, you find that if people like your work, they will be willing to buy other works that you create. Furthermore, the technology is such that copying is a trivial action. It is meaningless to create an artificial barrier to copying and is actually contrary to sound free market principles.  If we go back to that Aquinas excerpt, he says that a trader should not sell at a higher price than necessary despite a scarcity. However, the present copyright regime that is used by the RIAA/MPAA (Mafiaa) is one of artificial scarcity used specifically to create higher prices. Quote: However I do think that it's plain incorrect to say we don't have access to the government "Sourcecode" Admittedly, my parallel is not exact. The republic is a far more liberal system than an autocracy. However, there remains a barrier of entry that is not present for companies and cooperative enterprises. Quote: (I also don't see what's stopping your moral backlash from going into effect on some of the ugly companies that are making money hand over fist right now. For my own position, I would say that this is a "call to arms." Making money itself is not the evil, it is rather how the money is made.  The fact that it can be made without regards to morals is a serious concern for any intelligent free market proponent. By the way, kiba also believes that if the government did not intervene, a company would reach a maximum equilibrium size.  If that were the case, then the government is also complicit in creating the monsters. Quote: I'm curious why this is an indictment of welfare programs and not military/police/prison etc. systems (I'm saying basically I think a lot of well organized welfare/education/healthcare programs can more efficiently protect people (physically and financially) than can the former, perhaps at a lower cost (while we're entertaining hypotheticals). As a matter of fact, that's an excellent point!  kiba actually would agree that these duties could and probably should be privatized. I have my own reason for thinking that certain duties shouldn't be privatized. Namely, if we privatize these infrastructures, then people could raise private armies like in Rome and march on the capital.  Civil war is the major threat to completely privatizing the police and military. These military and police forces tie into the basic purpose of a government, which is to "ensure that we may live a peaceable and godly life" and to bear the "authority of the sword."  I'm quite amenable, however, to private prisons because there's no outstanding reason that they couldn't be managed privately. My position is basically one which deals with a tension between the necessity of governance in certain areas but also the advantages of privatization in others. Quote: I doubt the market deals with them best. Again, I make no claims that government intervention and regulation is an intrinsically good thing that will always work swimmingly, but I am even more skeptical about "free-market". A fair point, I have my reasons to believe that the market will have certain advantages. I also admit it has disadvantages that must be compensated for as well. In the end, I think that the market's advantages outweigh its risks.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-13 19:12:06 Intellectual property has been on my mind for a while (especially since talking with my photographer sister about how pending legislation would absolutely screw her over by giving all sorts of loopholes and exemptions for her work to be used and profited from without her getting paid. Exposure isn't all you want when you've got bills to pay and the pending legislation is a fascinating example of government playing both sides. It supports intellectual copyright for huge corporate folks like Riaa but is perfectly willing to screw over independent artists.)  Though to be fair in the case of intellectual property she'd be even more screwed if there were no regulations at all. Companies and corporate entities have an even larger barrier. Running for office or voting for office are guaranteed rights of citizenship. Owning a company and being a shareholder is not only limited by personal wealth, but by the whims of those who've already got it. emperor wrote: kiba actually would agree that these duties could and probably should be privatized. agree with who? certainly not me. I'm arguing if you believe government can do the first three than it seems a tenuous claim that government doing the others is somehow out of line. If it exists at all I think the latter are more sensible uses of government funds for protecting the general populous than the former (especially being a pacifist.) I don't see the advantage of privatization in the others. I see the legitimacy of arguments for the possibility of private options for them or aspects of their function, but none of those seem to me to be arguments for the government not being involved at all, especially arguments that the government shouldn't ensure general access to these basic necessities. basically, seeing the failures on all sides I don't so much mind something along the lines of the compromise we've currently got. free-ish-market with government involvement. of course I'd rather things were somewhat different, but there you have it.

emperorbma   |2008-10-13 20:08:28 Quote: giving all sorts of loopholes and exemptions for her work to be used and profited from without her getting paid. Mind elucidating this a little more. From what I've seen copyright has only tightened controls and increased penalties. Quote: Though to be fair in the case of intellectual property she'd be even more screwed if there were no regulations at all. Like I said, "no copyright" isn't my bag and I really wouldn't defend it as my position.  However, kiba does bring up some interesting ideas about how a no copyright system might work even if they haven't been hammered out fully. Quote: Owning a company and being a shareholder is not only limited by personal wealth, but by the whims of those who've already got it. I'm not so sure I agree that there is a larger barrier of entry to the market. If you want to be a "big dog," maybe but as I see it the "big dogs" are generally bad. The ideal situation is not Walmart. There's this quality of entrepreneurship at play also. Even if you start with minimum resources, it is possible through judicious transactions to make a substantial profit. If you have the money, you can usually get past any opposition unless there is a systemic problem. It's certainly possible to create successful small businesses even today, so the barrier must not be that significant. Conversely, to become a politician you need the support of a national party or a boat load of money. Good luck changing the system when the "big dog" corporations have the power to buy out all the candidates... I'm not saying that the government has an insurmountable barrier, but I think it is significantly higher than creating a business. Quote: agree with who? certainly not me. Hmm, I must have misread your position, since I thought you were saying the opposite of what you meant... Quote: I don't see the advantage of privatization in the others. Okay, let's put it this way. Would you rather have educational vouchers where schools can compete based on accreditation or would you rather have the system managed from the top down and run the risk of children being forced to learn at substandard schools? Now don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with the concept of educational standards being set up nationally or at the state level. However, when it comes to managing the schools at that level, the fruits of this are that some children are forced go go to substandard schools. If they aren't competing on the basis of quality then the entire system suffers. The United States is severely lagging behind other countries in terms of educational quality, despite the government's attempts to "fix it." I think that if the schools had to compete on the basis of actual educational capacity, then we wouldn't be lagging as far behind. Not only that, but it provides diversity in education styles.  Not all people learn the same way. If we examine the education systems of successful countries, we find that the most successful have different tracks based on the natural abilities of the students. Socialism, however, attempts to lump all people into the same bunch and we get the brilliant children who are light years ahead in the same class as the people who are more concerned with shooting wads of paper at them. Quote: If it exists at all I think the latter are more sensible uses of government funds for protecting the general populous than the former (especially being a pacifist.) All I can say about that is I must interpret Romans 13 a bit differently. I don't see education or health care in the basic purview of "an avenger to execute God's wrath upon the wicked." Justice and laws, yes. Civic infrastructure, not so much. That's not to say it can't help, but it shouldn't be the "boss" managing it. Quote: basically, seeing the failures on all sides I don't so much mind something along the lines of the compromise we've currently got. free-ish-market with government involvement. of course I'd rather things were somewhat different, but there you have it. Indeed, I'm not trying to "overthrow" the system either. If given the opportunity I will vote for candidates that support my views, but I won't attempt to impose them externally.  I'm convinced that a more libertarian system is one that will be better in the long run, but since this is a democracy (republic, actually) it's good to have a diversity of opinions on stuff like this.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-14 08:22:04 Largely the legislation deals with image-copyright and internet-access. It has a weak expression of the museums or business et al. making a "good faith" effort to find the owner of a photograph freeing them of any penalties or financial responsibilities for copyright and attribution. Basically while doing lip-service to intellectual copyright it allows unenforcably large loopholes that would allow any company to steal images and claim they couldn't find out who they belonged to. I have a hard time seeing how a completely unregulated system could handle copyright, or intellectual property. I'd be curious to hear some of kiba's ideas. So you believe in the Andrew Carnegie Cinderella story of anyone can make it in business with a little initiative (a really rare occurrence) and not the rather less rare occurence of these cinderella stories in politics. Just because it's possible to start a small business doesn't mean there aren't significant barriers. i.e. more fail than succeed. Whether or not an individual can substantively influence the free-market is based primarily on chance. Whereas an individual is guaranteed the right to influence government (with as few people voting as are voting, each voter has all the more influence) I fail to see how that barrier is larger. (I'd also note that national parties are by no means a requisite, they are an extra-constitutional extra-legal invention that we could, and I would say should, just as easily ignore.) I find it fascinating that one of your primary arguments for barriers to political involvement is the power of big dog corporations. Any candidate buying they can do is subject to impeachment and election if people gave a damn to fix it. Their candidate buying is back door means of executing the power they naturally exert through the market. You don't think big companies crush smaller competition? Do you think the free-market wouldn't allow sub-standard education. Most of the primary instances of "sub-standard" education are victims of their geographic and social contexts, not really of government involvement (which in a lot of cases is the only reason there's an accesible school there at all. I don't know where you get thee idea that people are forced into sub-standard education by the government as it is. They may be forced into substandard education but that is often despite the government. I don't see a) how your vouchers don't qualify as government expenditure on social projects, and b) how public education is by necessity a worse use of funds (I never would have been able to afford private school and I think my school system did me dern well) I really don't think we're lagging so much as you indicate. The primary elephant in this room is specialized division of education. Many of the countries beating us in math scores or whichever are a) significantly more socialized than we are, and b) tend to from early ages filter their student bodies into academic echelons and vocational programs. leaving the high achievers as the only ones being evaluated, whereas we have an average including everybody. This is less of a question of government involvement and more of a question of general philosophy of education. (FYI public education does have aptitude levels and divisions. And plenty of the "bright" kids are more concerned with shooting wads of paper, the inverse is also true. Behavioral disruptions are matters of discipline and order, not intellect) You see minister to good and minister to evil, in Romans 13, only the ministry to evil is made explicit, but it is certainly not the only thing mentioned that the government does. With all due respect I think you're missing that half. If paul's talking to Rome and somehow doesn't accept civic infrastructure that's an odd thing for him to assume (from a government that had quite a bit of it.) The fundamental principal (particularly as you've described it, I of course don't quite agree.) of government in biblical thought is preservation of order. I think books, food, and medecine can do leaps and bounds more for that than can swords and scourges. (I don't see you advocating flogging). I am convinced in a rather different direction than you. I believe Libertarian shift of government would be a dangerous blunder.

emperorbma   |2008-10-14 09:23:59 Quote: Largely the legislation deals with image-copyright and internet-access... My opinion on this is that it should be handled as fraud. I don't believe the word "stealing" is accurate to describe copyright violation, because I am not depriving the victim of the good. A "potential profit" is not a real good. Now, as I said, I agree this is a serious issue but there are also problems with asking people to have to research every picture and every text they use. Remember the "climate of fear" I was talking about.  If we are going to become legal-happy, this will create a climate where nobody will even touch a picture for fear of copyright violation. That would negatively impact the market for all artists, just as a lack of copyright would. By the way, the PRO-IP Act was passed yesterday so we now get a "copyright czar," worldwide IP "evangelism" and increased penalties for trivial offenses. Quote: I have a hard time seeing how a completely unregulated system could handle copyright, or intellectual property. I'd be curious to hear some of kiba's ideas. I'll relay this when he is on... I think he'll have a boatload of websites on this. To whet your appetite, here's his blog and a wiki that he runs which advocates Free Software games. ... I'm gonna break this post into pieces since I've got classes today, so we may end up with a few posts.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-14 09:46:27 freesoftware when people mean it to be free is one thing. taking what wasn't meant to be given is quite another, particularly taking it and making a profit off of it. Even if you're using Opensource as your poster child there's a contractual agreement not to profit through the sale or distribution of opensource material. If your lively hood is selling your artwork and people decide they can not only take it and look at it for free (which is one thing) but also sell it (or use it in exhibitions and advertisements for profit which is essentially the same) there's a pretty huge occurrence of theft. It's not just potential profit, it is stealing their work.

emperorbma   |2008-10-14 16:29:41 Quote: Even if you're using Opensource as your poster child there's a contractual agreement not to profit through the sale or distribution of opensource material. Actually there is no such agreement not to profit. The GPL explicitly allows people to sell copies of Free Software provided that the source is also distributed and the MIT and BSD licenses do not restrict use at all. I can sell GPL stuff if I want to, even without paying the original authors, since I am the one who provides the means of distribution.  Otherwise Red Hat could not sell Linux CDs. [addendum: On the other hand, royalties are not permitted for free software and I think this may be what you intend to say, correct?] Quote: If your lively hood is selling your artwork and people decide they can not only take it and look at it for free (which is one thing) but also sell it (or use it in exhibitions and advertisements for profit which is essentially the same) there's a pretty huge occurrence of theft. It's not just potential profit, it is stealing their work. See, I think the former use is acceptable. The latter use is clearly wrong, but I don't believe a copy deprives an artist of the original.  Therefore, I don't accept it is thievery. As I said, I do accept it is fraudulent and wrong, however... If I made a copy of a table that you make, I have not stolen it. Even if you don't like my copy of your table, I did not steal your table. If I try to present my copy as if it is your table, however, I am a liar and committing fraud.

emperorbma   |2008-10-14 09:49:14 Quote: So you believe in the Andrew Carnegie Cinderella story of anyone can make it in business with a little initiative Not necessarily. Someone without the proper initiative and entrepreneurial ability cannot succeed. Quote: Whereas an individual is guaranteed the right to influence government (with as few people voting as are voting, each voter has all the more influence) Not necessarily. Most of the voters rejected the banking bailout, but the government did it anyway. The representative is not required to follow his constituency's wishes, even if they voted for him. Furthermore, he is far more likely to follow the wishes of people who give him cash. Quote: I fail to see how that barrier is larger. Many can try to get into office, but few will be chosen. The people are subject to the asinine meme that voting for an alternative candidate is a "wasted vote." Quote: You don't think big companies crush smaller competition? Oh I know they do, and this is one problem.  However, bigger companies are less agile than smaller ones. The thing is that big companies shouldn't even be able to exist in the form they do now. The reason it is possible is because they are using loopholes in the laws and badly conceived laws to sustain themselves against scrutiny. Quote: Do you think the free-market wouldn't allow sub-standard education. Of course it would... but thing is that the people will have an alternative. Substandard schools will be chosen by fewer and fewer people in a truly free market. Quote: forced into sub-standard education by the government as it is. Simple. You cannot opt to go to the good school if you live in the wrong part of town. That's not a "free market," since they cannot opt to go to that better school without buying a new house... and one usually outside their means. Quote: I don't see a) how your vouchers don't qualify as government expenditure on social projects, Good point... the thing is that a voucher doesn't carry a stipulation with its use. The people's decision on how to use the voucher is what adds the stipulations. Quote: b) how public education is by necessity a worse use of funds (I never would have been able to afford private school and I think my school system did me dern well) Indeed... I am not rejecting using tax money to fund education. What I am rejecting is the massive bureaucratic infrastructure surrounding it. Quote: I really don't think we're lagging so much as you indicate. The primary elephant in this room is specialized division of education. Diversity is a characteristic of a truly free market. Quote: This is less of a question of government involvement and more of a question of general philosophy of education. Indeed, this is largely irrelevant of the governing structure. I think, however, a true free market is more conducive to the diversity needed to implement the system properly, however. Quote: And plenty of the "bright" kids are more concerned with shooting wads of paper, the inverse is also true. Indeed, many "bright" kids are tuned out by boredom and many "not so bright" kids are trying honestly. [post 2/3]

laika   |2008-10-14 11:59:14 emperorbma wrote: Of course it would... but thing is that the people will have an alternative. Substandard schools will be chosen by fewer and fewer people in a truly free market. sorry to butt in, but we already have an answer to that: private schools that only the wealthy can afford.

emperorbma   |2008-10-14 12:47:57 Quote: sorry to butt in, but we already have an answer to that: private schools that only the wealthy can afford. Yes, but the problem there is "only the wealthy can afford." :P I was (quite ironically, perhaps) advocating some government involvement (government pays for schooling vouchers), just not the sort of top-down involvement that it is practicing now. (public schools crappily run)

holmegm  - re:   |2008-10-14 17:00:48 emperorbma wrote: Substandard schools will be chosen by fewer and fewer people in a truly free market. My favorite part: people will be allowed to disagree about what is substandard, and about quality in general.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-14 22:23:58 what of folks like myself who've little entrepreneurial savy and little desire to take business initiative but who still feel they should have some say in their society? The key dilemma of corrupt politicians as you've presented it isn't the corruptive power of government but the corruptive power of wealth on government. That seems to undermine your model, non? Asinine memes are part of human social interaction, not part of government more so than free market, failure on all counts. null set. They're not necessarily less agile. If they've a broader access to resources and infrastructure they've not only a larger cushion but more leeway to shift their model. It's why conglomerates can get better prices etc. I'm by no means convinced that large companies only exist for reasons of interference.  They sustain themselves by wholesale access.   People have an alternative if they can afford an alternative, which for many leaves no options at all. Our current model allows for private education but ensures access to at least some education. Without that you ensure all the class stratification to the nth. but you can afford to commute and pay for high priced private institution (which may refuse yo service) while living in the ghetto. (not to mention the existence of specialty government schools for the gifted etc. and busing in my state which is a bit more controversial) I don't think the free market is more conducive at all to the necessary diversity. Some governmental structure allows for coordination, specialization and focus in a way that would get muddled in the competition otherwise. not just boredom, many of them are jerks. many kids are jerks, they've got their reasons but they're jerks. (pointless rant because I was amused. apology)

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 09:35:22 Quote: what of folks like myself who've little entrepreneurial savy and little desire to take business initiative but who still feel they should have some say in their society? Who actually funds the companies? Is it not the people who buy from them? You may not be an "entrepreneur," but even the choice from whom to buy gives the non-entrepreneur much say in the market. Quote: The key dilemma of corrupt politicians as you've presented it isn't the corruptive power of government but the corruptive power of wealth on government. While I do not deny that wealth can corrupt, an ascetic dictator can be just as corrupt as a money-grubbing entrepreneur. Perhaps you have heard the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely?" Was not (invoking Godwin's Law) Adolph Hitler was quite the ascetic? A practitioner of vegetarianism and one who eschewed personal excesses. Yet, he was the worst dictator that ever effaced German politics to this day and the architect of the most appalling genocide in human history. Nay, I think power also can corrupt. Like I said, however, I am not denying that the market can become corrupt. What I am denying is that using the government as the "fix it all" is an inherently superior solution. No doubt you are denying that the market is the "fix it all," and I really haven't disputed that. In that vein, what I do dispute is that the market can fix nothing. Quote: People have an alternative if they can afford an alternative, which for many leaves no options at all. Welcome to the crux of my complaint with regards to the education system. The market is not truly free. The fact that quality education has such high costs is because it has to compete with the government. The government provides cheap and crappy services using its inherent market advantage as the watchdog to cheat. The service that the government provides is competing with quality services, which inflates the price of said quality services. Now, if we kept a system of government vouchers (aka the government still pays for education), but we removed the government's market interference, then it would ensure both positive market competition in the market and a universal provision for education to all. See what I'm saying? Quote: I don't think the free market is more conducive at all to the necessary diversity. Some governmental structure allows for coordination, specialization and focus in a way that would get muddled in the competition otherwise. Ever heard of the concept of a monoculture? An ecology which is naturally based on the same genetic base is inherently weaker than one which encourages hybridization. A free market is a system which basically a natural hybridizing ecology. As kiba says, you are asking a capitalist to envision all possible systems... except you are tasking this to a small set of people called a government. The market, which is the set of all people, has a natural advantage to a government in terms of adaptation. The market can envision and adopt solutions that a large government cannot in far less time and with far cheaper costs. If you reject the free market, I fear you would reject the benefits to scientific and methodological advancement that a free market affords concurrently. Ironically, the comparison between Microsoft and the Free Software movement is an excellent example of precisely what I mean.  Microsoft is, like a government, a small set of individuals being forced to fix all possible bugs.  The Free Software/Open Source system, however, encourages everyone to contribute to fixing the problem (even though there are some project admins to ensure the new fixes don't create problems). The ideal free market is Linus Torvalds and Richard M Stallman, not Bill Gates. Trust me, the computer science side of my personality is a significant encouragement to my libertarian philosophy. The Internet has more than demonstrated that a truly free market is possible to some extent. Naturally, there are warts with it, but as I see it there is a more ideal solution that has been eschewed by socialist philosophers. We are no longer in an era where ideas are hidden behind closed doors. Free information is the key to a free people and a free market. Quote: not just boredom, many of them are jerks. many kids are jerks, they've got their reasons but they're jerks. (pointless rant because I was amused. apology) You needn't apologize. I've experienced some of what we were talking about and I bet you have too.  You can call a spade a spade in good conscience, I think... :)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-15 11:25:20 I still am only as influential as I consume or purchase. If I don't like consumerism I'm really an outlier with no say. I never said the only type of corruption possible was wealth. I said that all the examples yuo had presented about governmental corruption were corporate influence which throws some real questions toward the level of corruption when those corporations have fewer hoops to jump through to exercise their power. I see what you're saying with vouchers but still disagree with much of the reasoning. Education isn't expensive because of competition with government it's expensive because it's freaking expensive. Staffing and resources to keep a school going are very pricey (unless you've got a bunch of monks with nothin' to do, which is no longer really an american reality) I should also note that a big part of why private schools have the reputation for excellence they have (often undeservedly) is that they are selective. They can and do refuse service for whichever reason. I also don't think there is a short-term market incentive to provide universal education. Government is certainly capable of "hybridization" you act like schools don't have their own school-boards and teachers making decisions, but need to wait for the DofE to approve every homework assignment. Without the same competitive market concerns public school shave some other flexibilities as well. I've been a jerk, not the paper tossing variety, but my own breed.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 15:21:00 Quote: I still am only as influential as I consume or purchase. If I don't like consumerism I'm really an outlier with no say. An interesting question. In a way, you are still voting. You are basically voting against the "wasteful practices" by not participating in them. On the other hand, what couldn't be conceived as a good? Food, health services, et al. All of these are a part of the market. Competition in these domains ensures alternatives to immoral producers. (Part of this is also my interpretation of kiba's response... *wink*) At any rate, kiba actually advocates frugality as well. Quote: I never said the only type of corruption possible was wealth. I said that all the examples yuo had presented about governmental corruption were corporate influence which throws some real questions toward the level of corruption when those corporations have fewer hoops to jump through to exercise their power. Quote: I see what you're saying with vouchers but still disagree with much of the reasoning... Actually, I agree with the fact there's no short-term incentive for universal education.  That's actually why I support vouchers. kiba sees vouchers as a transitional thing, but something that will be abolished once it is finished. I think, however, we all agree that there's probably not going to be a significant increase in efficiency in terms of education. The market may not reduce the costs *that much*, but we really don't know yet. It may well only reduce them a little bit. What it will do, however, is foster diversity and provide alternatives that would not be otherwise possible. The advantage of the market over governance is that an economy creates "niche industries." Basically, if there is an opportunity to make a profit and an entrepreneur, someone will take the chance. The same is not true of governments. I mean, we don't look at North Korea as a model of efficiency, now do we? Quote: Government is certainly capable of "hybridization" you act like schools don't have their own school-boards and teachers making decisions, but need to wait for the DofE to approve every homework assignment. Without the same competitive market concerns public school shave some other flexibilities as well. Quote: I've been a jerk, not the paper tossing variety, but my own breed. Indeed... I've also been one. I think I almost drove my 4th grade teacher insane... :P

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-15 21:31:58 a couple of those quotes without replies have me very curious. But not participating isn't voting in a market. you're not witholding substantive resources nor are you feeding their competition, you don't need to enter into their calculations at all. (competition doesn't ensure moral options it just ensures options.) where there is an opportunity to make a profit is right. what I'm saying is a profit driven basis for education opens up some dangerous compromises. Fairness and truth aren't always profitable. I think your NK example is just as out of place as the Stalin and Mao's earlier. I make no claim that all governments are efficient (and those cited are certainly not typical in many respects.) Some of the best school systems in the world and in the country are socialized (not all of course.) I don't mean to toot my own horn or some such but it's not just a fluke that states like MA that put more government money into education have better education statistics for their students. If education goes wholesale freemarket I really don't think quality of education will be the primary concern of a lot of parents. I should say for you and holmegm's sake, I'm not entirely convinced that vouchers are a bad idea, less on grounds that think competition will boost the educational system in general, and more on the grounds that parental choice in educational content becomes a pricey commodity without it. But I still get concerned because I do believe there are intrinsic merits to public education and a public education system, and vouchers might very well make a downward spiral for them. which I think would be a big problem.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 22:38:16 Quote: a couple of those quotes without replies have me very curious. Indeed. One of these days, I think we're probably gonna have to set up a better discussion about this kind of stuff. Hopefully I can convince kiba to join in without me having to "copy and paste" all the time, but he's reluctant to come on directly because he's "not interested in theology." (I have suggested it, a couple times... :P ) Quote: But not participating isn't voting in a market. you're not witholding substantive resources nor are you feeding their competition, you don't need to enter into their calculations at all. Well, basic economics shows that if a company cannot sell its goods to anyone then it has to reduce production or suffer a loss. Of course, I think that you mean to imply more than this don't you? Namely, that a single person isn't going to make much impact by choosing to boycott. The thing is, the same is pretty much true of voting isn't it? You can't elect a president with one vote. Quote: (competition doesn't ensure moral options it just ensures options.) 20:56 {kiba} better than having no options, no? 20:57 {kiba} only indiviuals can make themsleves moral options 20:57 {Gramlath} I've got an inkling of how I'm gonna answer this 20:57 {Gramlath} the government doesn't exactly ensure moral options either 20:57 {Gramlath} it just ensures that there's a standardization on one single option 20:57 {Gramlath} or a set of predefined options 20:57 {Gramlath} rather than ones that are defined by conditions at the time [I see no need to de-IRC-ize it :P ] Quote: where there is an opportunity to make a profit is right. what I'm saying is a profit driven basis for education opens up some dangerous compromises. Fairness and truth aren't always profitable. ... I should say for you and holmegm's sake, I'm not entirely convinced that vouchers are a bad idea, less on grounds that think competition will boost the educational system in general, and more on the grounds that parental choice in educational content becomes a pricey commodity without it. Oh boy don't I know it? "Fairness and truth" aren't usually going to be what is going to result from either side, though. I know you aren't meaning to suggest to me that the government actually concerned with the truth. I mean, this is the same government which literally pays entire agencies to hide the truth from the American public. It is also inhabited by politicians who make it a habit to lie and misrepresent the truth as common practice. I fail to see how giving the decision to the people is really any worse than the government who has a track record of substituting the truth with its own agendas, consistently and repeatedly, from day one. I'm fully aware that giving the decision to the people will have children being educated in a manner that reflects their parent's views, but I don't really think this is an entirely bad thing. In some ways, even though people will differ in some basic ideologies, there will be an distinct economic incentive to teach the same basic truths to children. For example, if a school fails to teach basic science correctly, it will produce people incapable of participating in any scientific endeavor which defeats the purpose that a parent has in getting their child taught. To be frank, I honestly don't see how any system could produce an inherently "neutral" system of education.  Systemic bias is simply a fact of human life.  This is going to be true whether it be the government which would present a "majority bias" focused through the lens of political agendas or the market which will play to a "minority bias" focused on the personal views of the people choosing where their kids learn. Frankly, I would rather the people themselves should be given the choice, and not have some false and mechanistic "average opinion" presented in its place. I feel for your concern. I mean, in all likelihood this means most education would gain the ideological or religious slant of the parents... however, it will lose the capacity to be an instrument of creating a society of puppets for the state. I think the Fascist states of the 20th century more than show the threat of making education too socialized.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 09:20:25 I was curious why you have several quotes up that you didn't respond to. though more fluent discussion would be nice. I'm not meaning to imply "what can one person do" I'm saying that If I have generally pulled myself out of market participation rather than simply boycotting a specific product, i.e. if changes in their policies won't affect the likelihood of my purchasing. I am an economic non-entity (I hope Entity realizes how much baggage they've given that word for me.) I made no claim that government ensured moral options (though I do believe it does a better job in theory) I was merely rejecting your claim that "Competition in these domains ensures alternatives to immoral producers." The government is not a monolithic entity it can be corrupt and obfuscating while simultaneously open and striving for fairness and truth. Government however prioritizes ideology over profit ( with the possible exception of personal profit though I really don't believe that is the normative basis for governmental decisions) It is thereby better suited to pursue ideas like truth and fairness than a system that prioritizes profitability. My concern isn't as much parents ideological slants. It's core quality of education on an intellectual level. What you think of as the promotion of average opinion seems more often to be compromised presentation of a variety of opinions or evaluation that doesn't take stance on controversial opinions into consideration. Your reasoning skills, creative thinking, practical knowledge base etc. are the important criterion of education. My concern was that many parents would be less likely to prioritize a quality education, I wasn't thinking as much on ideological basis as much as on the basis of frugality. The quality of school needs to compete with the quality of car or the quality of food, or the quality of insurance or whichever other concern or desire if schools are free market.

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 11:02:56 Quote: I was curious why you have several quotes up that you didn't respond to. though more fluent discussion would be nice. I might have missed them... the board is starting to get crowded with our previous discussion so I'm having to fight to find what I'm replying to more and more. :P Quote: I'm not meaning to imply "what can one person do" I'm saying that If I have generally pulled myself out of market participation rather than simply boycotting a specific product, i.e. if changes in their policies won't affect the likelihood of my purchasing. I am an economic non-entity Yeah, I figured you mean something like this.  The thing is, I think kiba would say that nobody is a total non-participant in the market. Even if you don't buy luxuries, you still need to buy sustenance goods such as health care and food.  Your vote may not count towards certain luxuries, but that's because it is basically a different niche. Everyone participates in certain parts of the market to some extent. Quote: (I hope Entity realizes how much baggage they've given that word for me.) ROFL Quote: I made no claim that government ensured moral options (though I do believe it does a better job in theory) I was merely rejecting your claim that "Competition in these domains ensures alternatives to immoral producers." I'm going to work from the understanding that you are using the colloquial sense of "theory" here. If that is the case, then we're basically saying that neither one will inherently produce more moral choices. The problem is then: would you rather have the government's small selection of options or the market's wider range of options. In that case, kiba and I are saying that we'd rather have a wider range of choices rather than some mechanistic government concoction. Quote: The government is not a monolithic entity it can be corrupt and obfuscating while simultaneously open and striving for fairness and truth. Neither is the market. In effect, it is going to be a question of whether the government can produce enough diversity of options to avoid a monoculture. I don't believe that it can. All evidence shows that diversity has fewer risks associated with it than one single strategy. This is true in stock investment and it is also true in terms of basic design strategy. It is far easier for a malicious hacker to break into an operating system like Windows that is a monoculture than it is for them to break into a diversity of systems running a variety of Operating Systems. The problem is one of ease of compromise. Diseases also spread better in a monoculture. Consider the Potato Blight in Ireland, where they used one single kind of potato and the entire country starved when the disease came. Quote: My concern isn't as much parents ideological slants. It's core quality of education on an intellectual level. See, I think the market would improve that... Quote: The quality of school needs to compete with the quality of car or the quality of food, or the quality of insurance or whichever other concern or desire if schools are free market. Not so. Competition is only between compatible goods. We're not talking huge megaconglomerates that we see in our present age here. We're talking small to medium sized businesses filling niche industries. I think that this would provide a marked improvement over our current system.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 12:44:39 I can be out of the market if I live in a cave and make all my own stuff. trust me, it's tempting. I disagree with the concept that the government isn't diverse or has a short supply of options (one of the reasons FDR's administration was as effective as it was is he tried everything any idea presented him practically and what worked he stuck with.) (One of my sunday school students asked me to define "entity" the other day, they like ghosthunters etc., and It was so difficult for me to answer seriously.) Competition isn't just between compatible goods, this goes back to one of my fundamental disputes with the market. If I have $5 I can't decide to spend $5 on food $5 on education and $5 on shiny slippers. The capitalist market structures makes all such pursuits fungible. Money spent on my children's education is money not spent on my house, or my car or my faberge egg collection.

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 13:07:09 Quote: I can be out of the market if I live in a cave and make all my own stuff. trust me, it's tempting. Yeah, but if that's the case, then you probably don't care about what the market or the government do anyway. Although, you'd probably have more to fear from the government trying to impose its laws on you in your cave if they knew you existed... Quote: I disagree with the concept that the government isn't diverse or has a short supply of options (one of the reasons FDR's administration was as effective as it was is he tried everything any idea presented him practically and what worked he stuck with.) I didn't say it can't have some diversity. I said it lacks the capacity to be as diverse as a system which involves the entire economy. Quote: (One of my sunday school students asked me to define "entity" the other day, they like ghosthunters etc., and It was so difficult for me to answer seriously.) Heh. Quote: Competition isn't just between compatible goods, this goes back to one of my fundamental disputes with the market. If I have $5 I can't decide to spend $5 on food $5 on education and $5 on shiny slippers. The capitalist market structures makes all such pursuits fungible. Money spent on my children's education is money not spent on my house, or my car or my faberge egg collection. It's probably going to boil down to Maslow's hierarchy of needs in terms of what people buy first, obviously. You can't really fault it for a basic fact of human needs. What are you intending here? That the government buy food for everyone and then leave the market only to luxuries? I can see capacity for abuse in such a system... after all, wasn't Ancient Rome on just such a system? (Then again, since we're talking about farmers' markets elsewhere, maybe not... I'm not sure what we're trying to debate now, if you're not meaning a dole :P )

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 22:51:04 don't you tell me what I think in my own cave! Perhaps I've gone there to pray for the redemption of all those in government and market. Or perhaps I've just bee distracted by shiny rocks, those are the two big possibilities. The sad thing is I doubt entity will even see this part of the thread since it's so mucked down in our rantings. not necessarily government buy all these necessities but guarantee at least a subsistence level access to them for all who are willing to try.(particularly if we're talking kids. There are things parents don't have the right to deprive their children of, and that children are entitled to in some capacity, even if their parents are incapable of providing it.) Not necessarily a dole bu ensuring that channels are guaranteed open and available for subsistence. This particular point was dealing with my concerns of some of the darker possibilities with free-market education. ( I don't believe rome was really quite what I'm describing, or even solid dole-ish, although i guess a lot of that depends on the time period we're talking.)

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 23:56:35 Quote: don't you tell me what I think in my own cave! Sure. But you'd better hope Uncle Sam plays by your rules. If they find some natural resource or something your nice cave is probably forfeit. Me, I'd be looking at an extradimensional fortress if I could find a way to fork off a piece of space-time... :P Quote: The sad thing is I doubt entity will even see this part of the thread since it's so mucked down in our rantings. Yeah... seriously. It's a wonder I can even find it anymore. Quote: not necessarily government buy all these necessities but guarantee at least a subsistence level... ...even if their parents are incapable of providing it.) There's a few things here. First, I'm not really opposed to a basic subsistence level insurance, personally. (I bet kiba is tho) Secondly, most people aren't so poor that they cannot afford food. On the other hand, most are also too addicted to certain luxuries to do without them also. Thirdly, for the abject abuses of this situation, there is "Child Protective Services." (Although, I worry they can be too meddlesome at times and not meddlesome enough at others) Quote: This particular point was dealing with my concerns of some of the darker possibilities with free-market education. Yeah, I think we're all trying to avoid a situation where education doesn't foster an intellectual life. The thing I observe about our current system is that it doesn't encourage critical thinking. Of course, some people also don't ever learn even if we give them every opportunity...

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-17 22:05:27 uncle sam or Entrepreneurial jones, both stand the possibility of taking my cave from me, but then I move on (I don't own the cave, I simply use it.) I think if you looked at the statistics you'd probably be surprised at how many people really can't afford food (or housing etc.) certainly not most, but it's by no means a small number (disgustingly high considering our relative national wealth.) critical thinking is a cultural defecit, as far as educational system is concerned it's got a lot more to do with individual teachers than schools.

emperorbma   |2008-10-17 22:26:19 ... and again.

emperorbma   |2008-10-14 11:32:19 Quote: You see minister to good and minister to evil, in Romans 13, only the ministry to evil is made explicit, but it is certainly not the only thing mentioned that the government does. With all due respect I think you're missing that half. If paul's talking to Rome and somehow doesn't accept civic infrastructure that's an odd thing for him to assume (from a government that had quite a bit of it.) Interesting rebuttal. Certainly Rome had infrastructure and civil programs as well.  However, my rationale in using this is not to deny that programs can exist but rather to deny that this is the purpose of the government. Quote: The fundamental principal (particularly as you've described it, I of course don't quite agree.) of government in biblical thought is preservation of order. I think books, food, and medecine can do leaps and bounds more for that than can swords and scourges. (I don't see you advocating flogging). Indeed, I agree with the assessment that preserving order is paramount for a government.  However, the tools it is given necessarily limits the role that it must act in to preserve order.  It is, after all, a system which is fundamentally based in maintaining a curb on human wickedness rather than a tool to force people to be good. Not even God's Law forces people to be good, although it may attempt to encourage it. Only the grace of God actually brings people to be good but His grace is, naturally, outside of the purview of any world government. Quote: I am convinced in a rather different direction than you. I believe Libertarian shift of government would be a dangerous blunder. My rationale in libertarianism is not to give the keys to the free market without a requisite level of responsibility on the part of the people.  I know very well that people don't always do the best thing, but when they do well they should be given the freedom to do so without government micromanagement. As it is written, "rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval." (Romans 13:3) Why must the government, then, become a terror to those of good conduct? It is this balance which is why I'm a libertarian minarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist. I admit government is actually necessary for some things (*gasp*) and I don't assume that the free market can do everything. On the other hand, I think that it has stuck its hand into things which it has no business in because the people are already doing good and well on their own. If anything, I think that it is more kiba's view of it that you are criticizing than mine because he places a lot more trust in the market that it will always behave well on its own. (... and as I said, even I debate him on some of those points) However, even he criticizes the abuses of the market. [he also blames the government as if it was the only one making the abuses possible, which I don't entirely agree with] I am well aware of the abuses and, on those terms, I reject blind "free marketism." On the other hand, the abuses do not characterize the nature of a true free market in general. As I said, Microsoft is a very bad example of the so-called "free market" because it is more like the antithesis of one. Perhaps it is a flaw, but I also admit that some regulation can be necessary. However, it is not the primary solution which is what the present two-parties seem to believe it is.  Government regulations should be rarely used and only when they are necessary to prevent the system from failing due to its own weaknesses. The government should never, ever be the "first" or the "only solution." In fact, I think that last sentence may actually sum up, in its entirety, why I am libertarian...

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-14 22:37:04 The rome-specific question of civil programs was a smaller point. I'm saying I think your interpretation ignores half of what Paul is saying. You mention government ministering to evil, and that is your expressed purpose of government. Paul mentions that and ministering to good. He is, granted, not explicit there but he clearly believes there to be another purpose or function of government. I made no mention of forcing to be good. I am saying education healthcare food etc. curb wickedness by preventing the scarcities and deprivations that so often provoke it. If a government thinks the only way to prevent crime is to punish those who do it, they've missed a lot of humanity, and I think failed to protect society (if we want to look at recidivism we can draw serious questions about the efficacy of punishment by itself). We don't force people to be good, of course, but we also don't completely ignore all the stumbling blocks in front of them. We don't need to passively tolerate all the corrupting circumstances and situations that lead people astray. I apologize that my arguments by necessity are ending up responses to you and kiba together. I don't see much example of people doing good and being interfered with in what we've discussed ( a few but those are more in case by case rather than overall issues.) as we've discussed instances of government involvement in welfare are a direct response to people not doing good. (though again the government is people.) I don't see the government as really presenting any particular terrors to those doing good by providing healthcare or education or food.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 09:57:47 Quote: I'm saying I think your interpretation ignores half of what Paul is saying. You mention government ministering to evil, and that is your expressed purpose of government. Paul mentions that and ministering to good. He is, granted, not explicit there but he clearly believes there to be another purpose or function of government. I don't think he says that the government can cause people to be good. Rather, it only says you will "receive his approval." Does this mean that the governor must create massive programs to force people to do good? I don't agree with that because I think it is an impossibility. The government does not make good people, it only prevents bad people from screwing it up for everyone else. Quote: We don't force people to be good, of course, but we also don't completely ignore all the stumbling blocks in front of them. We don't need to passively tolerate all the corrupting circumstances and situations that lead people astray. I'm not suggesting that we do tolerate the situations which lead people astray. What I am saying that the government is not the one which is specifically equipped to do this. The government is not a set of everyone, it is a select set of officials with a specific task before God, to preserve the order of society. On the other hand, the market is indeed inclusive of everyone. Who doesn't buy or sell goods? As it is written: "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward." (Mark 9:39-41) I don't see this as a call to "trust in the government" to fix it. It is, in fact, a call to everyone to do good. Simply saddling the government with the responsibility of all is not right as I see it. Quote: I apologize that my arguments by necessity are ending up responses to you and kiba together. It's okay, I do agree with kiba on some of the points but I have a very different raison d'etre. kiba has avowed that he is an atheistic agnostic, so he clearly cannot be Christocentric.  He is, however, a moralist in his perspective and some of the Kantian philosophy he uses leads to similar conclusions. Quote: I don't see much example of people doing good and being interfered with in what we've discussed ( a few but those are more in case by case rather than overall issues.) as we've discussed instances of government involvement in welfare are a direct response to people not doing good. (though again the government is people.) I don't see the government as really presenting any particular terrors to those doing good by providing healthcare or education or food. I can certainly respect this. After all, you are seeing through a different set of eyes and will interpret the evidence somewhat differently.  From my own perspective, it appears to me like the government is the one infringing and the market is usually the one being pushed around... although sometimes the market is complicit in it's own oppression. Perhaps this is simply something we are destined to disagree on though.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-15 11:39:08 I NEVER SAID CAUSE TO BE GOOD! I never made the claim. I explicitly rejected the claim. I don't know where you're getting it from. I used pauline language of ministering to good. And followed up with explicitly discussing education/healthcare/welfare as preventative measures. But now your arguments are exclusively those of what you think is more practically feasible. Your scripture verses and biblical justifications don't support the rejection of government social programs as I've outlined them.  Your rejection is just based on a disagreement about practical application. This post is catching me with a lot from left field. I've also never said it's the governments sole responsibility to be saddled with this. I've said explicitly that it is our responsibility and our failure to follow through has a government safety net to lessen the impact of our failure. kant...really kiba...kant? i find the idea of government infringing on market as very strange for a few reasons. On one level, I don't really believe in either of them, so the idea of a false construct infringing on another false construct is a bit trippy. But also our market is a government market. If you take a look at what you're paying with, it's governmental trust. Government involvement in the market isn't infringement it's part of the root nature and composition of the american market. I'm moderately curious about your thoughts on the Gold Standard.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 15:44:08 Quote: I NEVER SAID CAUSE TO BE GOOD! ... I don't know where you're getting it from. I used pauline language of ministering to good. I know that you didn't mean "compulsion to do good" and I apologize if it seemed to be what I was saying. I need to be more careful to reign in what I'm trying to criticize, I guess. Let me put it this way: What I'm seeing is that most people are interpreting the license for "preventative measures" as if they give the government a license to forcibly compel people to do the right thing. You are quite correct that the practical application is where my criticism was leading. I guess, despite my inept presentation, you managed to get the correct point out of it. I don't deny that the government can provide a "safety net" where the system is failing, but I don't believe that it should be micromanaging the system to that end. Like I said, I don't mind vouchers or that sort of thing.  What I do mind is the government mucking around in how the system works. Quote: kant...really kiba...kant? I think that's my fault, probably... I tried to use the universal maxim concept to demonstrate a point ages ago and I think he took off with it. His own statement regarding this is: 14:41 {kiba} If I bear any resemblance to ancient philosophers, than it is entirely coincidental 14:41 {kiba} and I doubt kants have much influence in the Austrian school of economics If anything, he is following Ludwig von Mises more than Kant. Quote: i find the idea of government infringing on market as very strange for a few reasons... But also our market is a government market. If you take a look at what you're paying with, it's governmental trust. Government involvement in the market isn't infringement it's part of the root nature and composition of the american market. I'm moderately curious about your thoughts on the Gold Standard. As I told kiba the other day, I think the distinction between government and market is in terms of specialization. The market is specialized for the trading of goods. The government is specialized for the keeping of public order. However, both are "economic" structures just like a family or the Church or the whole of humanity to some extent. kiba, I would note, thinks the government is simply a service that a market can provide. At any rate, in terms of the Gold Standard I'm rather ambivalent. It would be nice to tie down money to real goods since it can curb certain abuses.  However, if everyone suddenly cashes in, the economy would be bankrupt. kiba, on the other hand thinks we should return to it and let the market sort it out.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-15 21:46:32 I apologies if my capitals were a bit much. but what that again leads us to isa question of practical application. there are a lot of things that I think fall better into the public order sphere than the market sphere, some of those being basic subsistance and safety (which I feel education healthcare and food are a big part of) that doesn't mean that public order is just the governments responsibility or can only be addressed governmentally. (I also again don't think government is really accurately described as compulsion because we vote for people to make these decisions and have, mostly, agreed to go with that system. it's effectively a middleman for us.) I was also perhaps a bit to flip in my kant comment, the guy just really drives me batty. I think the categorical imperative is nonsensical, and I think Kant was a generally rude and disrespectful writer who admittedly tried to obfuscate his own writings because he thought they shouldn't be for common people. I've read nothing of his that didn't annoy me. I have a hard time accepting those specializations (again I don't think either governments or markets really exist) so much of this strikes me as semantics. But beyond that, I don't think the market is really specialized in anyway for anything, that struck me as part of the point. It's freeform. Libertarian perspective on money (i.e. federal trust reserve notes etc.) fascinate me. Including Greenspan way up on the top of the fascinations. Government sets and provides the entire medium of market exchange but has limitations on how it is acceptable to behave. It's a fascinating tension to me.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 23:03:58 Quote: I apologies if my capitals were a bit much. You were justified, I think. I seemed like I was just ignoring you, after all. Quote: but what that again leads us to isa question of practical application. Fair enough. I certainly think you have some good points with that, in fact. I might believe that the ideal situation is to avoid government intervention, but I know that the sitrep on the ground is rarely ideal. I try not to be a blind idealist if I can help it, but it certainly shapes my overall outlook. Quote: (I also again don't think government is really accurately described as compulsion...) Ah but this ties into me viewing the first use of the Law as a curb. (N.B. The only use the government actually gets) You've noted that you see it working more as a harmony between Law and Gospel rather than a dynamic tension, so this probably gives you a somewhat different take than I have. Having recently been shown Max Weber's theory on the origins of capitalism (presumably in Calvinism), it has only reinforced my observations that theology may be a significant influence on my interpretation regarding this. On the other hand, Weber thinks we Lutherans are a weak and servile religion, so your mileage may vary. :P kiba, on the other hand, believes in the market as the engine of liberty from what I can tell. Quote: I was also perhaps a bit to flip in my kant comment, the guy just really drives me batty. I think the categorical imperative is nonsensical, and I think Kant was a generally rude and disrespectful writer who admittedly tried to obfuscate his own writings because he thought they shouldn't be for common people. I've read nothing of his that didn't annoy me. True enough. I, personally, find it to be a useful tool but I am wary of the rationalist thread that he seems to exhibit. I think philosophy is hardly a ground for which to base everything, but it does make a good tool for aiding discourse. I mean, I'm not just partial to the guy 'cause he happened to be Lutheran. :P kiba, however, did disavow Kant was his origin so it makes the point moot anyways. :P Quote: I have a hard time accepting those specializations (again I don't think either governments or markets really exist) so much of this strikes me as semantics. But beyond that, I don't think the market is really specialized in anyway for anything, that struck me as part of the point. It's freeform. Ah but it is specialized. Its basic purpose is the exchange of goods. Certainly, you can make a case that this is a lot more free formed than government or other structures and I really wouldn't dispute that... the lack of structures is probably what makes the market as useful as it is. Quote: Libertarian perspective on money... It's a fascinating tension to me. Indeed it is. It's actually diverse in some ways, since I don't think there's only one view on how to fix it. kiba's view amounts to a view of ultimately turning the money into a representation of a physical good. (The Gold Standard fix) My view is more of keeping the same system but trying to reduce the amount of tweaking the government does with it. We're both agreed that this budget needs to be balanced though, I think...  (Jacksonian) I betcha kiba's is closest to the average position on this, though.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 09:36:26 I don't see government as a harmony of Law and Gospel. I don't believe government exists. But I believe if we're going to attribute any authority for order to the "government" that order is best pursued by more than a police state.  Social programs keep better order and safety than does policework alone. I'm going to censor myself because I'd like to say some very rude things about Kant, but as he is a real person he is due some Godly respect. I'll try to be good. sorry, I had meant to type "Libertarian perspectives..." didn't mean to make in monolithic.

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 11:20:14 Quote: I don't see government as a harmony of Law and Gospel. I didn't say that you did. What I said was that you have a different viewpoint on the nature of government than I do. Lutheran theology of government strongly links civil government to an "imperfect representation" of the "curb use of God's Law," so the understanding of the distinction between Law and Gospel is a significant influence in my case.  Since your ideology of government is that it is persona non grata, your theology regarding the nature of the Law doesn't even come into the equation... Quote: But I believe if we're going to attribute any authority for order to the "government" that order is best pursued by more than a police state. Social programs keep better order and safety than does policework alone. Nobody said anything about a police state, though. In fact, that's what I'm trying to prevent! What I'm advocating is not that the government should simply go to become a "sanctioned vigilante," but that it should stop regulating the market in ways that undermine a reasonable and beneficial freedom of exchange... That's my beef right now. The government's regulations have basically only served to harm the overall economy. Tariffs do not aid the economy, they simply restrict free trade and raise the costs of goods for everyone.  Government regulations have their place, especially when the people and the market are being lax, but the government forcibly regulating the economy has only made it slow to adapt and inefficient. Quote: I'm going to censor myself because I'd like to say some very rude things about Kant, but as he is a real person he is due some Godly respect. I'm not sure why you're upset about him, but you probably have good reasons for it. I'm not going to belabor it any further either.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 12:52:29 ok, i see, I confused antecedents in the law and gospel business. Though I should say I don't see government as persona non grata I see it as persona non est. False construct. It's not that government is bad, it's that government is fake. it's not a real entity. the rest we've already talked on, and I don't really think I've much new to contribute.

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 12:55:01 Quote: the rest we've already talked on, and I don't really think I've much new to contribute. Yeah... we can finally close down one subthread of the discussion. Geez, this is getting large.  I bet "The Palin Paradox" is now gonna be the thread with the most posts on TP.

emperorbma   |2008-10-14 16:39:26 ... and now for kiba's response to your sister's situation: 15:33 {kiba} If she dislike what the measuem is doing. She could use the power of words to shame the measuem 15:34 {kiba} Gramlath: that can be one solution 15:34 {kiba} but it is no mean the only solutions 15:34 {Gramlath} seriously, you probably should post some replies :P 15:34 {kiba} but seriously 15:34 {Gramlath} I can only channel your opinions as best as I grok them 15:34 {kiba} I will be forced to think of every single fricking business models 15:34 {Gramlath} lol 15:35 {kiba} it is like asking a capitalist to think of every single business model ;) 15:35 {kiba} but no many business models I pointed out 15:35 {kiba} the only person that can be convinced is themsleves 15:36 {kiba} they have to overcome fear 15:36 {Gramlath} I think what Webby is concerned with is that his sister will be left out in the cold while we continue the endless debate of how this should work 15:36 {kiba} That's how a capitalist overcome evil. 15:37 {kiba} their faith in an ethical business model to pervail 15:37 {kiba} no matter how much economics I can point out...part of it is faith 15:37 {kiba} that it can work 15:37 {kiba} no matter how much your guts think it is a bad idea

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-14 22:43:59 I've seen no reason for faith in the market. Money isn't exactly a chum companion. Nor am I looking for every possible business model, I'm just curious if any singular explanation can be given as to how intellectual property rights of artists can be protected in a complete laissez-faire market in the modern age. Unless artists completely shun the digital world their work is subject to theft Even if they did so they'd lose the primary conveyance of their work. I can't see any model that would provide protections for artists without some kind of regulation. Artistry would become a labor which the artist could only profit others with. You can say donations etc. may still support them in some capacity but the simple fact of the matter is that other people are profiting from their work without their consent or benefit in any capacity. That's not only theft but an abrogation of what you two seem to be lifting up as the ideals of the market. (ranty-rant grandstand grandstand.)

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 10:52:16 Quote: I've seen no reason for faith in the market. In fact, I did say something similar to him in reply: 15:39 {Gramlath} needless to say, neither webby nor I have faith in anything but God in the sense you seem to imply 15:40 {kiba} Gramlath: it is proven in the world of economics 15:40 {kiba} that they really do work 15:40 {kiba} it is not the kind of faith that you would instill in god 15:40 {kiba} or at least I don't believe in 15:40 {kiba} that sort of faith 15:41 {kiba} I am so damn sure that it will work 15:41 {Gramlath} see, what we believe is that only by God's grace is evil overcome 15:41 {kiba} at some point 15:41 {Gramlath} all the systems of the world are fallible and limited 15:41 {kiba} you have to ignore your gut feeling and take a plugnge 15:42 {Gramlath} you have a rather Kantian outlook in favor of the free market, I would note... 15:42 {kiba} there will alway be naysayers who ignore any sort of success by entrepneurs who thrive in a world of no copyright 15:42 {Gramlath} but I believe the free market is simply one system in God's creation and it is a fallible one at that 15:42 {kiba} indeed it is falliable 15:43 {kiba} because there will alway be some sort of fraud 15:43 {Gramlath} I cannot put my trust in men that they will do the right thing 15:43 {kiba} alway some sort of deception 15:43 {Gramlath} because I know well that we don't... 15:43 {Gramlath} it's not only proven from facts, but something that God Himself has revealed to be true 15:44 {Gramlath} we are all fallen short of the glory of God 15:44 {kiba} there are a thousand business model that a capitalist can think of 15:44 {Gramlath} as I see it, while I believe the free market has many advantages, I cannot place my unconditional faith in it 15:44 {kiba} but if you remain unconvinced of their models, how can you make a move toward an ethical living? 15:44 {kiba} Gramlath: I don't put my unconditional faith in it 15:45 {Gramlath} as I see it, we bring in ethics from outside the market 15:45 {Gramlath} ethics are brought in by those who participate in the market 15:45 {Gramlath} from whatever realm they come 15:45 {Gramlath} a Christian will bring his faith to the market 15:45 {Gramlath} a marxist will bring his idealism 15:46 {Gramlath} the ethics of the market are an external feature 15:46 {kiba} only indiviuals can bring change and justice in society 15:46 {Gramlath} they aren't inherent 15:46 {kiba} not the government, nor any sort of insitution 15:46 {kiba} whatever source they use, I hope they choose well 15:47 {Gramlath} aye, but in terms of security that's a rather tenuous hope isn't it? 15:47 {Gramlath} you have to trust that someone will be honorable and not deceitful 15:47 {Gramlath} I consider this a natural weakness of any human system 15:47 {Gramlath} be it government or a church or a market 15:48 {Gramlath} at some point, if you don't have a ground in anything else, these will fail 15:48 {Gramlath} that's the way I see it 15:48 {Gramlath} a church that loses sight of God is the weakest of all these 15:49 {Gramlath} however, even a market and a government can fall to the wayside on their own if they don't seek guidance outside themselves 15:50 {Gramlath} that's why, while I believe the market is superior to many other alternatives, it is not superior if we lose sight of it's limitedness 15:50 {Gramlath} that's probably the one point you and I differ the most 15:51 {Gramlath} you do realize that the market is flawed, as you say 15:51 {kiba} I do not see the government as fundamentally different from the market ... (P.S. I hope you didn't mind me speaking for you at the top...)

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 10:26:33 Quote: Money isn't exactly a chum companion. Nor am I looking for every possible business model, I'm just curious if any singular explanation can be given as to how intellectual property rights of artists can be protected in a complete laissez-faire market in the modern age. kiba and I have some similar ideas, but mine are a bit less extreme than his. kiba actually considers IP to be theft, namely... My view on this is that the concept of IP is being used beyond what it can be to create an artificial market where one does not really exist.  Fundamentally, what is a copyrighted work but an idea? The whole problem hinges on the concept that someone can own an idea. If we can own ideas, then are we not implying that we can own the laws of nature or mathematical truths? Do I have to pay royalties to Newton because I use the concept of universal gravitation? It is only natural that once an inherent falsehood becomes evident, a system would collapse. The problem is that some people actually make a livelihood using this system. As I have stated, I don't believe copyright to be an entirely false system but it has exceeded the scope of what can be really claimed for it. A copyright, in its original intent, was to protect the author's ability to request compensation for a work and that they are recognized as its original author. It was not, however, supposed to create a guarantee of profitability. As I see it, copyrights don't need to be removed, but rather fixed so that they apply to real problems and do not make false designs on the free exchange of ideas. What is literally at stake here is the freedom of speech, conscience, religion and the ability to conduct scientific research. If we say that we can own ideas, then the whole of human history is awash with copyright infringement because no idea is ever truly original. The concept of science originates in Greek philosophy. The concept of mathematics dates long before anyone had formalized it into its present state. Perhaps the Romans should have posthumously sued Brunelleschi for using their ruins to invent the artistic technique of linear perspective. The threat here is that ideas cannot be freely exchanged if we force copyright to its logical extreme. As it stands, however, the big copyright holders actually are attempting to do this by increasing the span of copyright to near perpetuity as well as prosecuting people for making use of their ideas. Needless to say, I agree with you that a poor photographer should be protected. However, I am quite afraid of what happens if we aren't careful about how we protect her. Quote: Unless artists completely shun the digital world their work is subject to theft Even if they did so they'd lose the primary conveyance of their work. As I have said, the present system of intellectual property is built on a misconception of just what an idea is. Can we really own facts?  What needs to be done is to reenvision copyright so that it does not pose a threat to free speech... that is the challenge and the difficulty of the present state of intellectual property.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-15 11:57:03 it's not just that I only have faith in God, it's that I just plain don't trust the market. It has worked before, it has also failed horribly before by its own doing. I'm not even saying people can't be succesful in a full free market, I'm saying that whatever kiba has to say about ideals being injected from outside the market, participation therein requires an ideological assent to the market. I grant any system is going to require assent and have some coercive influence, I just don't see why free-market is special. I'm uncomfortable with the implications of my involvement in the market just as I am uncomfortable with the implications of my involvement in voting. hold on: just caught the last line. So we are arguing about something we both don't feel exists? Just to be clear. So isn't government involvement just corporate policy by your approach? It's not just owning an idea, it's owning your labor. Unless you feel labor isn't a real commodity? Artists work (and pay fair amount of money) to produce art. This is labor, that labor is used to corporate profit. If corporations recognize that profitability from someone else's labor, which they have taken without consent, how is that not theft. Emperor, i think you overstate what's at stake with american copyright law. Ideas and concepts aren't copyright, intellectual property is a specific concrete creation, you can not copyright an abstract fact. For the most part american copyright law only really kicks in when people are making profit on the work of another. free-speech is really not addressed. This is less an issue of adding protections and more an issue of protecting protections from being caved in by corporate interest. As it stands photographs have substantive copyright protections (not perfect but functional). Pending legislation threatens to effetively remove those protections (while maintain the perhaps over-stringent riaa stuff)

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 16:18:10 Quote: So we are arguing about something we both don't feel exists? Just to be clear. So isn't government involvement just corporate policy by your approach? Ah but it is a monopoly. kiba rejects monopolies and "political entrepreneurship" in favor of a "market entrepreneurship." The government, quite simply, doesn't have to compete and it can dictate by fiat whatever it wants. So, while kiba may see a government as not significantly different than a market, he does see it as a monopoly and this is the point of his criticism. Quote: It's not just owning an idea, it's owning your labor. Unless you feel labor isn't a real commodity? At this, kiba immediately noted "labor theory of value." It seems that kiba does not agree with this concept. 14:31 {kiba} The values is determined only by the market, via the law of supply and demand. Your labors does not automatically yield a certain profit that you can demand from the market. 14:32 {kiba} Otherwise as a game developer and encyclopedia author, who literally sink many hours of work, I would have been able to demand a certain amount of money. 14:32 {kiba} I do not think that you would be pleased that I can demand a certain amount of fees just for copying my work. Quote: Artists work (and pay fair amount of money) to produce art. This is labor, that labor is used to corporate profit. If corporations recognize that profitability from someone else's labor, which they have taken without consent, how is that not theft. Like I said, how can me making a copy of your table be theft? What we're dealing with is not the originals, but copies. The author still possesses the original copy does he not? I haven't actually taken anything from him, so it cannot be a thievery. Fraud, maybe? Stealing, by no means! Quote: Emperor, i think you overstate what's at stake with american copyright law. Ideas and concepts aren't copyright, intellectual property is a specific concrete creation, you can not copyright an abstract fact. Are you familiar, then, with the concept of an "illegal prime number?" You see, a book or a text is fine to copyright, since it is a good that can be taken away. However, I cannot steal the idea of a book from your mind. I can make a copy in my own mind, however. The problem is that the digital technology has made the costs of reproduction so minute that it the old models of physical goods no longer apply to digital media. Quote: For the most part american copyright law only really kicks in when people are making profit on the work of another. free-speech is really not addressed. Oh yeah it is. A scientist, under the DMCA cannot report a flaw in a program or some other tool without fear of prosecution. This is for pro bono reporting of flaws, which is not a profit endeavor. Quote: This is less an issue of adding protections and more an issue of protecting protections from being caved in by corporate interest. As it stands photographs have substantive copyright protections (not perfect but functional). Pending legislation threatens to effetively remove those protections (while maintain the perhaps over-stringent riaa stuff) How ironic, since the corporate interests are the ones creating increased protections for themselves... Seriously, it is almost like they are hypocrites! :P

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-15 22:22:21 Neither of you has yet convinced me that lack of regulation would somehow end monopolies. I don't think history or logic support that conclusion. it's not demanding money for labor on some sort of labor=$ intrinsic scale it's a company profiting from your labor without your approval or compensation. Its me working a full week in a marketing department for a company to increase their sales and then them not paying me. what do you think of plagiarism? Or privacy rights? Can someone take your digital information and distribute it without your consent. If I hack into your computer and copy your files am I stealing? If you don't want to call it theft we can do some creative philology but basically an artist has a right to their creations. If you are inspired by their work and by your own efforts make a knock of that was still fully produced by you, that's one thing, however if you break into a house, steal a sculpture, use it to make a mold, and cast a replica you've swindled them in some capacity, even if you gave it back. A copy is made by direct use of the original, the rights to control of that use belong to the original's owner. If you get photographs from a website with a contractual agreement that access to those photos comes with consent not to take them for alternate profit and distribution without the artists consent, if we don't call it theft it is at least contract violation. (which would be another weakness of the freemarket) I think your book discussion misrepresents copyright. Copyright is rather plainly the right to copy. If I write a story based on slaughter-house five, or containing comparable ideas, I've not violated Vonnegut's copyright. If however I open up to page one and make a direct copy the production of which hinges on use of the original I have violated his copyright by copying without his consent that to which he has the right to allow copying. There is no far stretch between letters on a page and letters on a screen. letters on a screen are easier to copy, but the basic principle of using the original to directly produce a facsimile is unchanged. I think the RIAA is a bit nuts in the extent they've gone to about some of this, (I think largely as copyright doesn't deal heavily with personal use as much as business use) but honestly if an artist wants to be very restrictive with what they have uniquely produced, they've everyright to do so, and if you don't want to follow their contractual requisites you just as little right to take or copy their stuff as I do to sneak into your house and play with your g.i. joes when you're not around. fear of prosecution is everywhere, welcome to civil law. I'm not saying our current structure is ideal either, I am saying that to eliminate copyright altogether because of some abuses would be an immense injustice as well.

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 00:38:13 Quote: Neither of you has yet convinced me that lack of regulation would somehow end monopolies. I don't think history or logic support that conclusion. I'll level with you here, I'm honestly inclined to concede that the market may not "correct monopolies" to you. My own principles are more the result of what I've run across on the matter and I was already in partial agreement with this statement even before this point. I don't think kiba would agree. He is of the opinion that large companies would not be able to exist in their present form if the government was not intervening as it is. He thinks that companies will somehow reach an equilibrium size at a decent level instead of continuing to grow as they do. My own opinion is that companies should be limited in the situations where they can buy and sell other companies and that this will probably result in the natural equilibrium that kiba speaks of. Quote: Its me working a full week in a marketing department for a company to increase their sales and then them not paying me. Heh, I thought you had a reason for your perspective. :P Quote: what do you think of plagiarism? Or privacy rights? Can someone take your digital information and distribute it without your consent. If I hack into your computer and copy your files am I stealing? From my previous discussions with him, I remember that kiba and I are pretty much in agreement on these two questions. In terms of plagiarism, we both believe it is quite fraudulent behavior. kiba mainly believes that the market will punish the fraud. I still think civil punishment for fraud is perfectly acceptable. In short, it's still a crime even without copyright law. As for privacy, both kiba and I strongly support it. Cracking* into someone's computer is basically criminal trespassing and should be punished accordingly. This is certainly a property infringement, but I don't think we would consider it "stealing," per se. What is being done, basically, is that someone has broken into your house and copied one of your letters verbatim, then left. That is already an established crime, no matter how you slice it. Two things here: kiba also believes in thing called "first mover advantage."  Basically, if you have created a work and only you have that work then it is your decision what to do with it. He rejects the concept that the author retains the rights to control what his customers do after he has distributed a copy to them, however. This is one of his strategies for making money without copyright, in fact, since it permits what is called "ransoming." You keep a work private and only sell it to someone if they pay you enough for you to put it in the public domain. kiba also believes that the original author only has a guarantee that they can be able to try to make a profit. He rejects that anyone has the right to make a profit, even if they produced a work. Namely, the success of someone's business model is not the concern of the government. Copyright and patents (which are worse), as he sees them, make the government into a tool to grant monopolies. In essence, simply because someone makes a work does not guarantee them the right to determine how others must use it. *-For reference, in programming circles hacker doesn't necessarily mean "malicious hackers." Many professional programmers who have no malicious intent use the word "hacker" to describe themselves. The hacker term for the "malicious hacker" is either cracker or "black hat." (... and, no, I'm not offended. It's a common usage although I think it's misapplied) Quote: If you don't want to call it theft we can do some creative philology but basically an artist has a right to their creations. If you are inspired by their work and by your own efforts make a knock of that was still fully produced by you, Indeed, nobody disputes that the artist has a right to their work. What kiba has a dispute with is that they have a right to restrict what people do with the copies of their work. Quote: that's one thing, however if you break into a house, steal a sculpture, use it to make a mold, and cast a replica you've swindled them in some capacity, even if you gave it back. That's not what copyright infringement does. I don't even make contact with the original author's goods. Someone else bought a copy from the original author and made a copycat clone and gave it to me. To use your sculpture model.  Michelangelo carves a David statue and sells it to Raphael. Now Raphael makes a mold from the original statue. Raphael then makes a copycat David and gives it to his friend in Rome. This is not stealing, because Michelangelo already sold it to Raphael. I can't steal something I already bought. Quote: if we don't call it theft it is at least contract violation. (which would be another weakness of the freemarket) Ah, but I fully admit that it is a contract violation. Namely, it is a violation of the contract by the one making the copy. On the other hand, that doesn't mean the person who receives a copy has committed any crime at all even if they knew it was a copy. That's one abuse of copyright law that's currently in force. Namely, if someone downloads a copy of a song, they can be prosecuted merely for possessing it. They never agreed to the license, so they cannot be held to account for breaking it. Quote: I think your book discussion misrepresents copyright. Copyright is rather plainly the right to copy. If I write a story based on slaughter-house five, or containing comparable ideas, I've not violated Vonnegut's copyright. If however I open up to page one and make a direct copy the production of which hinges on use of the original I have violated his copyright by copying without his consent that to which he has the right to allow copying. That's the question. Did I ever agree to that license? If you bought the book from him, yeah I can see it. However, if someone else made a copy and gave it to me only they broke the agreement.  I'm simply a bystander in the affair because I never actually made an agreement with the original author. The issue of copyright is that it is being used as if we all automatically agreed to a license with an author, even if we never even did any business with him or her. That's the "monopoly" aspect of copyright.  Basically, the author pays me nothing but expects me to agree to a license of his or her choosing.  That's compulsion if I have ever seen it. Quote: There is no far stretch between letters on a page and letters on a screen. letters on a screen are easier to copy, but the basic principle of using the original to directly produce a facsimile is unchanged. Again, I don't deny that you can copyright book texts. The thing is, I don't think you can force people not to copy them if they haven't made a deal with the original copyright holder. Say John types a book into the computer and gives it to Sally. Why should Sally be bound to an agreement she never made? Indeed, there is also another problem with this concept. Namely, it is being applied to computer code. Code is a set of computer instructions, not a unique and original story. At its very base, computer code boils down to numbers. Therefore, once it is compiled and distributed by all rights I should be free to reverse engineer its operation and make my own version. If Microsoft had its way, however, we would have to pay for each time we wanted to use the code on our own personal computer. They are claiming ownership of our property, namely... they limit what we can do with our own computer. Read the EULA of Windows XP for a good scare, by the way... you don't even have the right to privacy as far as they are concerned. You have to trust they won't take any "personally identifiable data." Moreover, in the latest version of Windows, it also controls what you can do with your own files because they added DRM restrictions. Quote: I think the RIAA is a bit nuts in the extent they've gone to about some of this, (I think largely as copyright doesn't deal heavily with personal use as much as business use) but honestly if an artist wants to be very restrictive with what they have uniquely produced, they've everyright to do so, and if you don't want to follow their contractual requisites you just as little right to take or copy their stuff as I do to sneak into your house and play with your g.i. joes when you're not around. It presumes I received the agreement, which is not necessarily the case. Piracy only applies to the original copy not to any subsequent ones unless we want to be unfair to people who had no part except receiving software that happened to be copyrighted. Quote: fear of prosecution is everywhere, welcome to civil law. I'm not saying our current structure is ideal either, I am saying that to eliminate copyright altogether because of some abuses would be an immense injustice as well. Like I said, I'm not a copyright abolitionist.  kiba is but from what I can tell he also realizes that there may be problems with actually implementing such a system. He basically takes the approach that people should look into adopting new business models that don't rely on copyright. By the way, since this was missed earlier I'll note it here. One interesting thing is that copyright violation has been noted to have positive effects in some industries. Consider fansubs. Technically it is copyright violation, but it actually serves to increase awareness about an anime series in other countries so that when it is sold in their local area (through licensers), there are actually fans who know about it and many choose to also buy it once it is available through a licenser. This is the case even for those who downloaded the "free version." Some buy it out of principle and others simply because they really liked the show. Sometimes the anime companies even take notice of the fact that it helps them, although others are silently complicit. (Ironically, for the few companies that have complained most fansubbers don't even touch their series...)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 10:12:59 I'm going to try to see how well I can reduce this because we're taking up a lot of space here and I fear the internet my dry up. if you prevent companies from buying and selling other companies, you aren't free-market. I'm not actually in marketing. I would be one of the worst possible candidates for a marketing job (see the entire rest of this discussion) First (albeit 3 points down the page) Much of what you're criticizing are the excesses of recent expansions. As I've said copyright regulating personal use/distribution not-for-money is a slightly tenuous territory. Not, mind you, completely absurd, but tenuous. It's not quite the field of copyright I'm discussing but I will say, possessing something illegally produced is a legal problem, we can talk about culpability if they knew or didn't know the illegality of the copy they received but in most cases with music industry stuff people are aware of it, and while I think some of the rules are stupid that doesn't give people a right to ignore them. Arguments from ignorance are legally very weak. To say copyright law refers only to the original and not to copies seems absurd, even at first glance. An Artists rights to their work includes the right to contractual distribution which can include whatever restrictions they place on it. If you buy it with that contract you are liable to those restrictions. Violation of them is violation of the law, and copies made in violation of that contract are illegal goods (though primary culpability goes to the initial copier) I think by this point it should basically be assumed that I doubt the market would adequately handle copyright violation and plagiarism.

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 12:27:22 Quote: I'm going to try to see how well I can reduce this because we're taking up a lot of space here and I fear the internet my dry up. Yeah, we kinda need to start a new discussion somewhere maybe... Quote: if you prevent companies from buying and selling other companies, you aren't free-market. That depends if I think a company is actually a good that can be "owned." Since it involves a transfer of people to another company as well as the goods owned by the organization being transferred, I don't think it is simply buying a good or service. There can be restrictions on an exchange of people, since it isn't a system of slavery. Quote: I'm not actually in marketing... Ah. Quote: First (albeit 3 points down the page) Much of what you're criticizing are the excesses of recent expansions. Yes. Quote: As I've said copyright regulating personal use/distribution not-for-money is a slightly tenuous territory. Not, mind you, completely absurd, but tenuous. Fair enough. Quote: It's not quite the field of copyright I'm discussing but I will say... Arguments from ignorance are legally very weak. To say copyright law refers only to the original and not to copies seems absurd, even at first glance. An Artists rights to their work includes the right to contractual distribution which can include whatever restrictions they place on it. See, what I'm seeing is that people are being forced to abide by a contract regardless of whether they actually agreed to be bound by it or not. It's fair to make the case that it's the law of the land, but is it really just that someone has the right to control what other people do simply through an implicit agreement that was never actually agreed to? See, the person who bought the good from the artist agreed to the license and paid the artist in exchange for the good itself. However, nobody gave me anything and I'm still expected to abide by the agreement?  It's basically saying that I have to follow the agreement because the artist says so, isn't it?  Isn't that the definition of tyranny, "a government in which a single person rules absolutely and esp. despotically?" Quote: If you buy it with that contract you are liable to those restrictions. Violation of them is violation of the law, and copies made in violation of that contract are illegal goods (though primary culpability goes to the initial copier) I didn't say the original copier was not culpable, though. I agree to that fact without reservation. What I'm saying is that subsequent copies cannot be treated as if the people have agreed to the same license. Quote: I think by this point it should basically be assumed that I doubt the market would adequately handle copyright violation and plagiarism. ... or the government, as I see it.

emperorbma   |2008-10-12 23:30:42 By the way, I talked with my anarcho-capitalist friend about our discussion and he brought up some interesting points that I hadn't thought of. I can give you a transcript if you are interested, but here's one of the more relevant points... Quote: Hoover was a well-meaning man, but leaving all social-welfare donation and care to churches and private citizens left a lot of people in the lurch and helped in the ruin of the American economy. {kiba} 22:03 Hoover with his government inteferences help only to make the situation worse {kiba} 22:03 not better So, if anything, he was directly meddling in the situation, not leaving it to the Church and personal charity.  According to Wikipedia: "Long before he entered politics he denounced laissez-faire thinking." ... and yes grizzly and laika, he's that kiba. :P

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-13 09:26:57 wasn't giving hoover as an example of laissez-faire or free market generally as much as I was citing the failure of his expectation that private charity would help those in need and that government assistance was unnecessary. With all due respect to Mr.kiba, again though we both may be prefixed "anarcho-" the fundamental natures of our anarcho-s are clearly different.

emperorbma   |2008-10-13 09:42:03 Heh, heh. ("intermediary duty") Quote: With all due respect to Mr.kiba, again though we both may be prefixed "anarcho-" the fundamental natures of our anarcho-s are clearly different. Yup, I think he realizes that from your comments. :P 08:33 {kiba} Gramlath: Although we have our differences, we do share a tradition, no? 08:34 {Gramlath} if you mean that you both reject government as having any superior value to any other institution, probably Quote: wasn't giving hoover as an example of laissez-faire or free market generally as much as I was citing the failure of his expectation that private charity would help those in need and that government assistance was unnecessary. 08:34 {kiba} the fact is..President Hoover did intefere 08:35 {kiba} if he had not thought that private charity would have help..he would not intefee ... 08:37 {kiba} the misguided socialists and their capitalist cornies think they can do better than private indiviuals 08:38 {kiba} thuggery is inferior to voluntary cooperation 08:39 {kiba} the free software movement has demonstrated this much *-Obviously my IRC handle is "Gramlath," to the uninitiated. (I did parse out some of my comments that weren't particularly relevant)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-13 10:08:20 I think we can all agree that thuggery is bad and voluntary cooperation is good. I just don't believe that government has a monopoly on thuggery (nor do I believe it is devoid of voluntary cooperation.) I really don't think the OpenSource movement is the only side of the free-market coin (particularly as it may be free, but isn't really market, and it deals with ideological property which is kind of an ambiguous terrain) I'm not about to deny that people can be impressively not bad and even, remarkably, good at times, but I don't think those are the prevailing behaviors in free-market or governmental "hands-on". even if they were the prevailing inclinations, I doubt they will regularly be prevalent influences on the powers that be (which, trust me, be whether they are elected with votes, money, guns or their own determination and grit) Freemarket seems to just lean towards plutocracy, different name, still plenty of grounds for abuse. I'll admit here, I don't know as much about HH as I probably ought to to get deeper into this conversation, I'm working off of pretty old memories at present. But if either of you could give me a more flushed out explanation of how his interference prevented private charity from addressing the rampant problems, I'd appreciate it.

emperorbma   |2008-10-13 10:36:46 (Heh... relaying again :P ) Quote: I think we can all agree that thuggery is bad and voluntary cooperation is good. I just don't believe that government has a monopoly on thuggery (nor do I believe it is devoid of voluntary cooperation.) 09:28 {kiba} to ask an anarchist to come up with every conceviable system of how it would work is like asking ants to plan a war 09:28 {Gramlath} so he's not seeing the government as "just about coercion" 09:29 {kiba} it is also like asking a capitalist to find a business model for everything 09:30 {kiba} the point of the free market is that it can and will find solution to problems.. 09:30 {kiba} but alas, before that happen..it is unproven 09:31 {Gramlath} [transscripting] Quote: I'll admit here, I don't know as much about HH as I probably ought to to get deeper into this conversation, 09:31 {Gramlath} btw if you've got anything on Hoover? :P 09:31 {kiba} Not really. I was working off bit and piece of histroy as well 09:32 {Gramlath} kay 09:32 {kiba} All I know is that he help cause a wordwide depression in trade 09:32 {kiba} because he gave in to farmers' demand 09:32 {kiba} rather than listen to all the economists from across the country 09:36 {kiba} it isn't that Hoover didn't do enough 09:36 {kiba} it is that it is his fault that he did something about the economy

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-13 19:26:46 I just don't have your confidence that the free-markets solutions will be the solutions I'd give any kind of priority. If the goal of freemarket capitalism is perpetuating free market capitalism, of course it will do fine, if it's goal however involves any ethical framework about providing access to the basic necessities of life or any kind of fairness beyond "only the strong survive" I'm more skeptical that the free-market really has any incentive to take that into consideration. (Or even in economic terms the market doesn't respond to a lot of negative externalities before it's all screwed. Pollution is the classic example where of course it is in the long term interest of the society as a whole to minimize pollution and destruction of resources, this isn't accounted for in the prices of those who pollute and destroy resources, the financial impact will hit generations down the line when profits have already been made. (or blocks down river, where others will need to pay for it)) I think it's a bit absurd to say the Great Depression was caused by HH's agricultural policies, WW is more like it ( ha, I was thinking World War but then realized I could be going for Woodrow Wilson as well, with less accuracy but still a fair chunk) Hoover certainly didn't help, but thats not just intervention it's failure to intervene (in what was honestly an immense international financial crisis, on that level it seems like standard free market structure and idiotic governments both wrecked up the place.) I don't know kiba, but it doesn't seem like he's an anarcho-syndicalist, they're economic model would be a viable response to the Great Depression (one of the reasons Anarcho-Syndicalism was much more popular in the earlier part of the twentieth-century.) any kind of organized international capital trade would be subject to the panics that cause depressions like that (and the one we're in)

emperorbma   |2008-10-13 21:29:56 Quote: if it's goal however involves any ethical framework about providing access to the basic necessities of life or any kind of fairness beyond "only the strong survive" I'm more skeptical that the free-market really has any incentive to take that into consideration. I think you are misunderstanding the goals of most free market advocates. It's not simply money-grubbing entrepreneurs who advocate a free market. I could make a similar case for socialism. Do Stalin and Mao prove socialism will naturally lead to autocratic tyranny? To present "law of the jungle" as the only position available to the free market advocate is a bit of an unfair characterization. The kinds of ethics that people can choose to operate on are as diverse as the people who are participating in the free market. Most free market idealists, in a worldly sense, work on a principle of "enlightened best interest." Put briefly, this means that they might be willing to forego immediate profit for a longer term goal or for sustainability. On top of this, nobody said that a businessman cannot or will not choose to work on Christian principles either. Certainly, as a Christian, I don't think that our ultimate values should be rooted in the things of this world anyway. However, since everyone in the market isn't a Christian there are (necessarily) other ethical systems at play. A lack of ethicality does not simply impact the market at one point, but it damages the entire system. Even a businessman who operates from a worldly principle of "enlightened self interest" can see through basic human reason that corrupt business will hurt the overall long term stability of a market. Some may choose to ignore this, but others will take the hint and try not to shoot themselves in the foot if they can avoid it. It certainly won't win salvation (as if any act of sinful man could), but it is more than capable of acting in a decent and reasonable manner. The thing is, those advocating free market such as myself are usually doing so with some other ethical understanding alongside that advocacy. No system can ever completely answer all of its problems. It's true of mathematics and it's true of social systems as well... Quote: I think it's a bit absurd to say the Great Depression was caused by HH's agricultural policies,.. Since it isn't really my argument I'm gonna wait for kiba to reply to that...

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-14 08:35:52 I'm not saying you believe in that ethic if you advocate free-market. I'm not saying you are a money-grubbing cut-throat if you advocate free-market, I'm saying whatever your ethical concerns or systems may be I have serious doubts that the freemarket will really address or prioritize them. Since influence in the freemarket is wealth and some of the surest ways to get wealthy are rather unethical the freemarket by its nature rewards these abrogations of ethics. There's a difference between recklessly corrupt and smartly corrupt. The smartly corrupt can be fine for the markets stability, in many ways they help stasis. (I also think that by its nature freemarket intensifies one of the worst ethical problems of capitalism, the false confusion of the means of subsistence and luxury. people's subsistence should not be in competition with others' luxury, this is already a problem, but one diminished (slightly) by government involvement.) Stalin and Mao aren't the products of their financial systems, they are the product of the totalitarian political system, the finances are virtually irrelevant (the barely visible line between Fascist Dictatorships and Communist Dictatorships) (Though I would say failed political systems can have something to do with Marxian socialism, which is frought with all sorts of problems.)

emperorbma   |2008-10-14 09:14:07 Quote: I'm saying whatever your ethical concerns or systems may be I have serious doubts that the freemarket will really address or prioritize them. In my experience, the government is not much better either. What with politicians and their own pandering to private interests and corporate sponsorships? Quote: some of the surest ways to get wealthy are rather unethical the freemarket by its nature rewards these abrogations of ethics. True enough, but I fail to see how it is significantly different than politics which is equally easy to corrupt and a lot harder to correct when it does go wrong. Quote: There's a difference between recklessly corrupt and smartly corrupt. Indeed... Quote: The smartly corrupt can be fine for the markets stability, in many ways they help stasis. (I also think that by its nature freemarket intensifies one of the worst ethical problems of capitalism, the false confusion of the means of subsistence and luxury. people's subsistence should not be in competition with others' luxury, this is already a problem, but one diminished (slightly) by government involvement.) Indeed also. Neither was I advocating that subsistence should compete with luxuries.  However, I don't believe subsidization is the answer to competition with luxuries. In fact, the government subsidization has actually inflated the prices of our food and other subsistence goods!  As I demonstrate, the government artificially keeps the price of food goods at a certain price by buying the excess. Quote: Stalin and Mao aren't the products of their financial systems, they are the product of the totalitarian political system, the finances are virtually irrelevant (the barely visible line between Fascist Dictatorships and Communist Dictatorships) (Though I would say failed political systems can have something to do with Marxian socialism, which is frought with all sorts of problems.) True enough, but I think of government intervention as being similar to totalitarian dictatorship. The government that governs best governs the least. If it has to fix things all the time, then there's something else wrong.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-14 09:41:08 the difference is that if the majority choose to give priority to their ethical concerns that can fundamentally change governmental ethical priorities, even if the majority tried to affect their ethical concerns unless they had money they could do nothing about it. Of course there are problems with contemporary manifestation of government subsidies (as I've already acknowledged) But social programs at their root provide a way to keep some degree of a market economy while giving protection to subsistence. These protections just aren't a feasible part of a free-market economy. at its root all things compete and it makes subsistence and luxury fungible. If it governs at all it's already made certain presumptions, I'd rather it not do a half-ass job.

emperorbma   |2008-10-14 11:10:07 Quote: the difference is that if the majority choose to give priority to their ethical concerns that can fundamentally change governmental ethical priorities, In terms of history, this usually coincides with some a period of violence. Abolitionism led to the Civil War. Prohibition led to Chicago gangland. Social security and the like were inexorably tied into the lead-up to the second World War. Quote: even if the majority tried to affect their ethical concerns unless they had money they could do nothing about it. Not so. In a truly free market, there is competition and the company has to worry about an ethical competitor undermining their business if they choose to be unethical. People don't have to buy from companies in a truly free market because there is always a niche for a competitor who can provide goods more ethically. Of course, I'm not so foolish to think that this is always true... certain things may require popular incentive as well. Quote: But social programs at their root provide a way to keep some degree of a market economy while giving protection to subsistence. Let clarify, then, that I am not entirely opposed to the government acting as a steward of public good. What I am opposed to is unnecessary interference. When the people cannot do something, I think the government may act in their place. However, if the people can do something, then the government should not be the one doing it for us. I'm a libertarian, but I'm not blind. I know that if we ignorantly cut all social programs there would literally be hell to pay. What I am advocating is that we prune things that add unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape to the process or do something that the people can do better by themselves. I am actually moderate on the sorts of changes that I think are necessary.  kiba, on the other hand, believes that somehow private enterprise could handle the interstate highway system... et al. That's one of the main topics of debate between him and me. Quote: If it governs at all it's already made certain presumptions, I'd rather it not do a half-ass job. Indeed, but my criticism was that some of these presumptions are false and detriment the people as a whole.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-14 23:05:54 just lost several paragraphs of response. quick summary. I think the violence connection is a stretch that is mixing up causations and coincidence (in most circumstances.) selective buying/boycotting requires money. (note the "unless they had money" clause) many people can't afford to boycott. I'm all for cutting dead-weight and red-tape wasteful spending, i just think it's wrong to say that education welfare and healthcare programs are by their very nature red-tape/dead weight. it seems a large portion of our dispute is based on a hypothetical practicality. which is making us get to some dead ends. You and kiba think the market functions efficiently. I think that's a false assertion.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 10:38:10 Quote: quick summary. I think the violence connection is a stretch that is mixing up causations and coincidence (in most circumstances.) Maybe, I wasn't intending to hinge my argument on that correlation but merely using it to make the point that fixing the government isn't as easy as you are implying. Quote: selective buying/boycotting requires money. (note the "unless they had money" clause) many people can't afford to boycott. You're still operating from the concept of our cartel-economy. If local farmers are all bringing goods to market and people can choose to buy them, they can choose the farmers which are more ethical. Indeed, an even more ideal situation is if we used these dead zones called cities to grow additional food resources. (that was actually one of kiba's ideas... but I think it's a really good one) Quote: I'm all for cutting dead-weight and red-tape wasteful spending, i just think it's wrong to say that education welfare and healthcare programs are by their very nature red-tape/dead weight. I didn't mean to imply that they are naturally dead weight. Rather, I am saying the present implementation is dead weight because it fails to make full use of the human resources that the market provides. Quote: it seems a large portion of our dispute is based on a hypothetical practicality. which is making us get to some dead ends. You and kiba think the market functions efficiently. I think that's a false assertion. Yeah, I will admit this point. That's the thing with idealism, it is basically taking a leap with one solution without all the facts being conclusive.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-15 12:06:44 I didn't say easy, I just think much easier than effecting broad change in a market. farmers markets are not now nor have they ever been the basis of a national market. unless you're arguing for a completely localized social structure (which would need to be enforced somehow) cartels are a part of market. I thought we'd already acknowledged that we don't need additional food-resources if we stopped paying people to destroy them? (I also am somewhere between horrified and amused that you call cities dead-zones. Unless you want to tear boston down (raze the underground as well), you're not going to do much productive farming.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 16:06:30 Quote: I didn't say easy, I just think much easier than effecting broad change in a market. Possibly, quite possibly... of course that doesn't mean "intermediate steps" cannot exist either. Quote: farmers markets are not now nor have they ever been the basis of a national market. unless you're arguing for a completely localized social structure (which would need to be enforced somehow) cartels are a part of market. At some level, there will always be a local component (particularly agriculture) this is especially true if you implement kiba's "rooftop garden" plan. On top of that, "farmers markets" exist pretty much everywhere. It will also always have a specialized trade component, such as Hollywood or Silicon Valley. I think that a sort of hybridization of both would suffice to help everyone. Quote: I thought we'd already acknowledged that we don't need additional food-resources if we stopped paying people to destroy them? (I also am somewhere between horrified and amused that you call cities dead-zones. Unless you want to tear boston down (raze the underground as well), you're not going to do much productive farming. You misunderstand... that's not a plan to destroy cities. It is a plan to use the unused city space for gardens and growing plants that can be grown in such a situation. Certainly not all agriculture is suited to this but "victory gardens" are not a bad idea. As I said, there are farmers markets enough that we don't need to raze our skyscrapers. However, we can use the space in the skyscraper to supplement our food production. I should note here that kiba prefers the small farmers market to the huge mechanistic megacorporation.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-15 21:51:06 okay, I think I can agree with most of that. Local produce is better ethically and environmentally (usually tastes better too). A transition to that would have some huge impacts on the economies of a lot of states.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 23:15:35 Yeah, a slow transition is probably good to avoid shock to the economy, but I think that overall more local participation will do good for everyone. Reducing waste will also inevitably a benefit to the environment no matter which way you slice it. kiba himself is considering living in a community where he doesn't need to commute and living on a strict self-sufficient budget. I, on the other hand, would probably have a lot of transitioning to do since I'm used to the way it is run. (Ironically, I argue my position against my own interests. Go figure...)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 09:39:40 as with a lot of market further complications and difficulties are expanded when the range of the market expands. I'm saying the impact would largely be gutting the economies of several states that are primarily agricultural produces for the rest of the country (and internationally as well). (I'm by no means averse to an open communitarian local focus)

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 11:27:13 Quote: as with a lot of market further complications and difficulties are expanded when the range of the market expands. I'm saying the impact would largely be gutting the economies of several states that are primarily agricultural produces for the rest of the country (and internationally as well). (I'm by no means averse to an open communitarian local focus) The issue is what we have now are basically "latifundia" or agricultural cartels that are competing with the small, local farmer. Now, the government doesn't want to lose the local farmers, so it artificially subsidizes them by buying (and wasting) their produce. The real goal here is to get rid of the megaconglomerates and return the land to the small people. It may increase community economy, but the goal is also not to completely gut worldwide trade. For certain things, specialization is effective. For other things, specialization is not.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 12:54:41 I'm by no means a fan of the huge agricultural conglomerates, I'm just saying there would be some very tough readjustments in the "Bread Basket" if other states were all growing their own bread.

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 12:56:38 Quote: I'm by no means a fan of the huge agricultural conglomerates, I'm just saying there would be some very tough readjustments in the "Bread Basket" if other states were all growing their own bread. Probably... that's why I said we'd probably need to space the changes out so that they don't suddenly "shock" the economy. Sudden changes of that sort are really bad.

emperorbma   |2008-10-13 10:43:51 BTW, one specifically for you from kiba: 09:41 {kiba} and would you allow an anarcho-capitalist society to exist in your society? 09:41 {kiba} We anarcho-capitalists quite happily welcome socialist societies 09:41 {kiba} and communes 09:42 {Gramlath} do you want me to make a new post just for that topic? 09:42 {kiba} yeah 09:42 {Gramlath} okay

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-13 19:33:48 I don't have a society. frankly I'm a bit confused about how an anarchist would be in a place to allow something more so than tolerate it. My anarchism is less a call toward realizing a contemporary political order and more calling a spade a spade for the time being, while acknowledging where the ideal is (and also acknowledging it's not one that's attainable by any ordinary means.) I don't call for the elimination of governments because I don't believe they really exist. I'm willing to work with the false construct while people use it for practical simplicity. (The ideal society for me, fwiw, is less about political structure and more about ideal humanity making political structure irrelevant. But of course that ideal humanity arrives where it arrives willingly and by consent)

emperorbma   |2008-10-14 16:04:22 Okay his reply: 15:01 {kiba} Gramlath: I agree with him. 15:02 {Gramlath} with respect to the comment on the ideal being that politics are irrelevant? 15:02 {kiba} but I also notes that if the market force has left alone, it would be a lot less painful 15:02 {kiba} Gramlath: yes 15:03 {Gramlath} okay, just want to reply to the correct post 15:03 {kiba} we strives for the ideal 15:03 {kiba} even if we never reach it 15:03 {kiba} though we have different idea of how that goal might be reached or how it might look like

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-14 23:10:15 refreshing. (reminds me of that old folk-song "you take the high road, and I'll take the low road and I'll approach without actually realizing the anarcho-ideal society before you") That's why I recognize myself under the technical category of "strange duck anarchist" thinking that the best approach is for government to get sooo big that it no longer exists. ok, now I'm just being silly.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 10:36:53 lol... heh. It is indeed refreshing. Even though we may not come to the same conclusion about what will work, we still are trying to reach a similar conclusion...

laika  - re:   |2008-10-14 16:25:59 emperorbma wrote: I was (quite ironically, perhaps) advocating some government involvement (government pays for schooling vouchers), just not the sort of top-down involvement that it is practicing now. (public schools crappily run) ah, vouchers, so you can get your kid out of that "inner city" school on the government's dime. so creative bureaucrats can turn education into a goofy industry as happens in states that are awash in lottery dollars for education. so the really good and exclusive private schools can charge even more...

holmegm  - re: re:   |2008-10-14 16:49:16 laika wrote: ah, vouchers, so you can get your kid out of that "inner city" school on the government's dime. That would be our dime. Which the government already took from us.

laika   |2008-10-14 16:54:32 holmegm wrote: That would be our dime. Which the government already took from us. well, er... technically, yes, um...

emperorbma   |2008-10-14 21:29:19 Indeed, which is why it should be used to the service of our children instead of wasted in some pork barrel endeavor like the "Bridge to Nowhere." I may not agree with regulation, but if they're going to tax us for something anyway at least put it to good use.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-14 23:17:03 no, it would be your dime that you agreed to give the government to allocate as it would at the discretion of the representatives you elected.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 10:40:57 That implies that I agree with the concept of "tacit consent," which I do not. The government may be our representatives, but I can believe that what they are doing is wrong. Indeed, I do agree with paying taxes, but I don't have to agree with how they're used.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-15 12:11:41 I didn't say you did, I said you agreed to vote and pay taxes. You agreed to the system that would determine how those taxes are paid. I didn't say you agreed with how it was used, I said you agreed to let people other than yourself appropriate it. meaning it's not your dime that has been taken from you, it's your dime you agreed to give over for someone else to spend, whom you may not have voted for personally, but was elected in a system you consented to. Disagree with the decisions of those in government all you like, make noise, complain, vote etc., but don't claim that it's theft when they don't spend it like you want them to.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 16:13:33 Quote: but don't claim that it's theft when they don't spend it like you want them to. Heh... I'm probably echoing kiba's rhetoric on that without taking the extremity of kiba's position on rejection of government. Okay, thievery may be extreme for this use. In a way, it is kind of like copyright advocates claiming that copying is thievery. *wink*

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-15 21:53:54 I accept that there was tongue in your cheek, but no, it's not like that. Copyright is Law. Taking something illegally is theft. There's also no complicity or consent.

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 23:22:37 Quote: I accept that there was tongue in your cheek, but no, it's not like that. Figures it wouldn't be that easy... worth a shot. :P Quote: Copyright is Law. It may well be the law, but I don't think it is correct. Furthermore, the law on the books is described as "copyright infringement" not theft. The conflation of the two is an innovation of the industry representatives. The same is true with piracy, which was originally referring to "radio piracy" but is currently bandied as if it means maritime piracy. Quote: Taking something illegally is theft. There's also no complicity or consent. See, that hinges on whether I accept that an idea can really be property. I don't. Copyright is not a property license, it is a law which pertains to distribution of copies. It is, after all, copyright and not trade law. If I accepted that an idea was property, then I would also have to accept that the laws of science and mathematics can be property since they, also, are ideas.

metallurge  - re:   |2008-10-16 02:41:49 emperorbma wrote: If I accepted that an idea was property, then I would also have to accept that the laws of science and mathematics can be property since they, also, are ideas. The stronger example 'round these parts would probably be theology. Is theology "property"? Ever? On this issue, we agree 100%. So-called "intellectual property" is actually a very innovative idea.  The legal foundations of copyright, patent, and trademark law are significantly different than property law. Period. Copyright infringement is certainly not theft.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 09:52:57 Ok, as I've said I don't have my heart set on theft terminology, you can call it fraud or abuse or contract violation, infringement, or not-nice-itude for all I care. (though I should say "theft" terminology is hardly the recent invention of the RIAA) Words are flexible, (and on occasion fun) I can see shades of connection to theft and piracy that make them not completely irresponsible connotations (while of course not super-technical) IP is not "Idea Property" it is intellectual property there is a huge difference and I think while we're discussing red herrings I'll reiterate that there is no such thing as copyright of ideas nor has there been or will there be. It is a red herring. To claim that copyright law endangers freedom of ideas is alarmist nonsense.

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 12:04:01 Quote: Ok, as I've said I don't have my heart set on theft terminology, you can call it fraud or abuse or contract violation, infringement, or not-nice-itude for all I care. Glad we've established this. I think thievery is completely inaccurate and it clouds the issue which is why I reject the use of the term. It induces a false moral panic where it is not appropriate because it basically makes Xeroxing a crime. Quote: IP is not "Idea Property" it is intellectual property there is a huge difference... I think that the distinction is quite trivial, in fact. What is an idea, but the product of an intellect in use? Now, what does copyright do?  It lets someone forcibly restrict who may use the product of an intellect in use. Not only the original physical object produced, but also all copies and reproductions that will ever be made of it. Okay, so what does this mean? I can't make a Xerox of it, for one thing. But do I not also have a copy of the artwork in my mind when I have seen it and recall it? Does the artist, then, not also have the right to prevent me from sharing this information with other people? Would I not be equally cited for infringement if I used my (hypothetical) photographic memory to reproduce the artwork on another canvas? This is why the concept of intellectual property is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to owning an idea.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 13:04:23 there still ought to be a moral concern (if not panic), whether or not you call it theft, for a lot of people the consequences are comparably severe if not even more so. It's not trivial. I can't copyright my idea for a book, I can copyright my book. A copy is made by direct use of the original, not simply inspired by it. Inspiration is a new intellectual creation. (it's like if you took my tissue to make replicas of me) There is a fundamental difference between a "mental image" or "copy in your mind" (which if we're going to be playing concern with philological accuracy are both rather false descriptions) and a photograph, print, or digital copy. The former has no legal restrictions, has not, will not. The latter is a finite concrete creation, which you've recognized the artist or creator has rights to. The artists copyright is not on information it is on their presentation of it. If I learn a neat fact from a book or evena cool story I can tell all my friends without legal ramification, if I copy the story verbatim and sell it there's a completely different issue. again I assert, even more adamantly that IP is not owning ideas, you've done some remarkable mental gymnastics to try to blur the boundaries but as the law stands it can't possibly be confused for copyright/ownership of ideas.

emperorbma   |2008-10-16 13:32:14 Quote: there still ought to be a moral concern (if not panic), whether or not you call it theft, for a lot of people the consequences are comparably severe if not even more so. I'm not saying that there shouldn't. After all, defending copyright principles are also quite important to the defense of Free Software principles as well. Quote: It's not trivial. I can't copyright my idea for a book, I can copyright my book. A copy is made by direct use of the original, not simply inspired by it. Inspiration is a new intellectual creation. (it's like if you took my tissue to make replicas of me) If that's the case, then why are we debating what people can do with the copies of the original? You are saying that you are only protecting things that make "direct use of the original." A clone of the original is not the original. Quote: There is a fundamental difference between a "mental image" or "copy in your mind" (which if we're going to be playing concern with philological accuracy are both rather false descriptions) and a photograph, print, or digital copy. The former has no legal restrictions, has not, will not. So, you are only concerned if someone had broken into the CSS consortium and makes a copy of its DVD algorithm? (Which did not happen) You wouldn't mind if someone made a copy of the CSS algorithm through reverse engineering or distributed it around the 'net using an "illegal prime?" You wouldn't mind someone reverse engineering the HD-DVD keys because the DVD consortium won't share them with linux users so that they can play DVDs on their computers? (Nowadays most CSS is broken by brute-force algorithms anyway, but this was a major case back in the day) ... I'm not making this stuff up. There are actual cases of copyright being used for oppression and stifling of ideas. Quote: The latter is a finite concrete creation, which you've recognized the artist or creator has rights to. The artists copyright is not on information it is on their presentation of it. If I learn a neat fact from a book or evena cool story I can tell all my friends without legal ramification, if I copy the story verbatim and sell it there's a completely different issue. Indeed, they have the rights to their original.  What we're really arguing about here is whether they have the same rights to a copy of the original. I don't dispute that the author has a unique claim to be the originator of the content, but what I'm disputing is the extent of their presumed right to control who makes copies of their book. It isn't a "natural right," it's a temporary privilege afforded by the government or by the customers. Quote: again I assert, even more adamantly that IP is not owning ideas, you've done some remarkable mental gymnastics to try to blur the boundaries but as the law stands it can't possibly be confused for copyright/ownership of ideas. Part of it is because I'm trying to parse the criticisms of IP into a cogent argument. That it is, far too often, IP conflated with "owning ideas" because of the false equation between intellectual property and the "natural law" concept of property. It's not really an attempt at sophistry if I can help it, it is more like I'm not really sure how to address the problems with the term "intellectual property" in a useful manner to convey why I consider it to be "idea ownership."

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 23:18:30 if you're talking a copy of a copy of copy etc. etc. of the original since the first copy is protected legally (and restricts production of copies) however many iterations you want to insert are still protected reproductions of the original.  The fourth printing of my book is as much my book as the first, not just the manuscript. A clone of the original is centrally and fundamentally based upon and dependent upon the original, it is a mimic and not a new creation. All the things you mentioned are alternate types of copying, these aren't copying ideas they are copying a concrete presentation. changing the typesetting of a book doesn't mean it's not the same intellectual property for all intensive purposes and neither would changing file format. These aren't examples of restricting ideas, they're examples of restricting copy of a specific presentation.  (and as contract law is central to copyright law if you've contracted not to copy in x manner you are bound to not copy in x manner and those are details that the artist or owner has full rights to determine.) (I would mind all of those things if they involved actual contract violation or illicit cracking (?). Of course a copyright owner isn't quite in a position to retroactively adjust the contract either. As they have the right in the initial stage to determine distribution, and their established rules for distribution (by contract) limit copying in manners x y + z any subsequent copies (even copies of copies) that deviate from the established contract are illicit and a violation of the initial right granted the owner/artist. This is no privilege, it is all bound to their initial right and contractually pursuant and dependent agreements. If you're doing so you're responding to ideas I'm not particularly advocating (I should say again I think some of the riaa stuff is abusive nonsense (though I also think a grand portion of opposition to it is  opportunistic and self serving greed on the other side as well.) I really have seen no case of copyright law that could accurately be called idea-ownership.

emperorbma   |2008-10-17 02:09:42 Quote: if you're talking a copy of a copy of copy etc. etc. of the original since the first copy is protected legally... Ah but we're not talking about a physical good here. We're talking about digitized data. From a technical perspective, the "thing" is an electromagnetic inscription on a piece of my hardware. Can we really make the same claims of ownership if it is data on someone's hard drive as we do with a book that someone can trade? Quote: These aren't examples of restricting ideas, they're examples of restricting copy of a specific presentation. All the things you mentioned are alternate types of copying... First of all, let's define what a "concrete presentation" is? Is it something like a pattern of words that is "for all practical intents and purposes" the same as the text?  Hopefully that's a good summary because I'm going to examine why I think that the distinction between IP and "idea ownership" is moot. It's gonna get a little bit technical here: 1. You might know this already, but a computer places all data into a numerical form.  Namely, the computer stores values as binary numbers either in RAM or onto a physical media. 2. Text is no different. There is a standard table which defines all the transformations between numerical values and their text equivalents. A canonical example: the letter "A" is represented in every computer on the planet* by a numerical value of 65 or the binary equivalent: 0100 0001. 3. As a result of this fact, an entire text document file can quite literally be construed as if it is a very large number. (Several hundred thousand digits at times... but still, it's a number...) 4. All textual variations are also represented by meta-codes within specialized text formats. Again, since it's a computer, the data is still a numerical representation. In effect, all textual emphasis/italics/etc variants are is a simple transformation tag applied to one part of a numerical value. 5. Encrypted and transformed, it can become any manner of other large numbers. In fact, they may actually be compressed into smaller numbers as well. (In fact, data compression and encryption are quite closely related to each other, but that's a story for another time, perhaps...) (* - technical note: there are some exceptions to this fact for certain specialized non-Western computer formats like EUC-JP or SHIFT-JIS or others. Even so, all transformations of this sort are well-defined and can be translated to the Unicode/ASCII standard easily so they basically amount to a "mathematical formula") Thus, from my (technical) perspective, what it seems to me like you are saying is that you can basically claim all rights on who can make copies of your own unique number.  There is a very logical case for believing that copyrighted data is not significantly different than a mere mathematical fact. My basic concern is this: how can we avoid the conclusion that someone can literally own the digital equivalent of a really long number if this is what it basically is? If I have failed to grasp a subtlety in your meaning with regards to "concrete presentation," please feel free to correct my misconception. I think, however, that I have done a reasonable job demonstrating why computerized texts can be treated as if they are merely a numerical fact. Moreover, I should also bring up the infinite monkey theorem..." Who says we programmers don't have a sense of humor? Quote: A clone of the original is centrally and fundamentally based upon and dependent upon the original, it is a mimic and not a new creation. Okay. What really is the original here? Is it those bits on my computer? I'm also seeing, here, a claim to own an (admittedly small) piece of someone else's computer. Quote: (and as contract law is central to copyright law if... Yes, I agreed that anyone who buys a copyrighted good is bound to the contract agreement. Quote: (I would mind all of those things if they involved actual contract violation or illicit cracking (?). Of course a copyright owner isn't quite in a position to retroactively adjust the contract either. See, the criminal is not the person receiving the copy though. I don't know how anyone can make a case that a person is bound to a copyright agreement they never accepted. Should people respect that agreement as if they accepted it?  Maybe. It's really a concern of conscience whether or not it can be considered fair to ignore that in some cases. Copyright protectionists would have us treat it as if we are required to protect their business model. I cannot agree to that sort of compulsion and I would actively shun those businesses that believe they have such a "right." Quote: This is no privilege, it is all bound to their initial right and contractually pursuant and dependent agreements. ... and this is fine. If people have chosen to be bound by the author's terms by buying his or her good, then they are bound to the terms of that transaction. However, if I receive a copy of the equivalent data without having ever engaged in a transaction with the author, then how can I be bound to his terms? It is, in fact, a privilege because they are invoking the government to forcibly impose their contract on someone who had no part in any agreement with the author. It is not some "natural right" that comes about strictly by ownership... Quote: If you're doing so you're responding to ideas I'm not particularly advocating (I should say again I think some of the riaa stuff is abusive nonsense (though I also think a grand portion of opposition to it is opportunistic and self serving greed on the other side as well.) I really have seen no case of copyright law that could accurately be called idea-ownership. You're not really advocating anything of the sort, I think. My disagreement is mainly that I think that you have bought too readily into the model of treating copyright as if it is a physical good and that you are, perhaps, not aware of the dangers associated with that model of understanding. You admit that the "Mafiaa" is abusing it's position, but I'm not sure you have the same view of their antics from a technical perspective. (... and, yeah, it's probably abused on both sides but I'm inherently opposed to someone saying that we have to defend their business model as if it was by Divine right.)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-17 15:38:42 You're still stuck on this idea that I'm talking about copyright as a physical good. Which isn't central to my thinking at all even if comparable bits of wording happen to pop up. As I've said the heart of copyright law is contractual distribution or access. We can perhaps say there is a different crime involved in receiving a copy etc. from someone actually violating contract but there is more than enough legal and rational precedent to lay some share of blame on those complicit in the violation of law. If you have acquired something only available by illegal mines your possession of that thing or access or privilege is illicit. If I steal a key and make copies and give them to my friends, even if they haven't stolen those keys their possession of them is legally suspect (though not in the same way my theft and copying is.) If you receive goods illegally and are informed that they have been received illegally you must surrender them. Likewise, we can diminish culpability if you received illegally copied artwork unknowingly, but if you are informed of this and retain that material (or whatever we want to call it) you are accountable for violation. If this weren't the case copyright could be nothing but lipservice whatsoever. (the basic flaw with the new legislation is it gives a complete carte-blanche to saying "Oh, I didn't realize this belonged to someone, so I'm not responsible for paying them even If I've used it to make hordes of money.") Your fancy number talk, if I understand it, is a bit off. If you've derived that number from the original with the intent and use of replicating the original in some capacity nothing is changed. If my novel, by a particular reductive equation equaled 756.2, I would have no legal basis for litigation against mathematician jones for solving the equation x+70.8=827, I would have grounds however if he was using 756.2, with the equation to spread and copy my novel against the terms of my copyright. 756.2 isn't my novel it's a number representative of my novel which with the appropriate equation can produce my novel, but again this is all talk about alternate methods of copying, which doesn't change that copying is the centrally relevant point. This is not a requisite to protect business model. Contract violation is illegal, knowingly aiding or participating in the violation of the law is also illegal. as much as the riaa can burn my buns on occasion, The idea that you don't know that the burnt music you have, at this point in time, is only on your hard-drive through criminal violation of contract is absolute bollux. (The bigger question is whether the riaa is adjusting copyright law retroactively and thereby breeching the original contract.) as I've said the culpability of third generation copyist is not the same as the initial explicit contract violator, but that doesn't mean there is no consequence or culpability (you might make an argument that the initial copier is responsible for all subsequent violation from their breech.) Though I should say copyright as it is is an assumed contract nationally.even before the riaa thats why the little circled c is just pretty, it's representative of a solid and enforceable contract. that citizens are responsible for knowing. It is not support of a business model its willful participation in a the violation of contract, which is law. Their business model determines the content of the contract, and when that becomes contract it is law not just model. You can think their stipulations are inane and ridiculous but they are still legally binding (and if contracts are to mean anything, ought to be.)

emperorbma   |2008-10-17 16:27:44 My next reply is here.

holmegm  - re:   |2008-10-16 12:17:21 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: no, it would be your dime that you agreed to give the government to allocate as it would at the discretion of the representatives you elected. Which I'd like to be allocated to vouchers. Therefore I request that my representatives vote in that direction. I may not get what I want, but I can request it, and it can affect my votes. The complaint that I was responding to was that I wanted to spend the "government's dime" on educational vouchers, with the implication that the whole idea was somehow illegitimate because it involved "the government's dime".

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-16 22:33:06 understood (well, lightly misunderstood now understood)

laika  - re:   |2008-10-15 00:07:20 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: what of folks like myself who've little entrepreneurial savy and little desire to take business initiative but who still feel they should have some say in their society? but see, free market competition should inspire you to get out there and hustle so you can afford your piece of the pie, right? maybe you don't deserve a say in a Darwinian model like the one we inhabit. the underlying assumption is that if you can't run with the big dogs, then you should stay on the porch. WFC wrote: People have an alternative if they can afford an alternative, which for many leaves no options at all. Our current model allows for private education but ensures access to at least some education. Without that you ensure all the class stratification to the nth. see above. people who can't afford an alternative are unproductive by choice or stupidity. social stratification is merit-based, right? WFC wrote: but you can afford to commute and pay for high priced private institution (which may refuse yo service) while living in the ghetto. (not to mention the existence of specialty government schools for the gifted etc. and busing in my state which is a bit more controversial) see above. if you're in the ghetto it's because you belong in the ghetto. i certainly hope empy doesn't mind me speaking for him, but i thought i'd help break it down for you ;-)

emperorbma   |2008-10-15 10:44:11 Quote: i certainly hope empy doesn't mind me speaking for him, but i thought i'd help break it down for you ;-) It's all right, although I wasn't meaning to take the Social Darwinism route. :P

emperorbma  - Breakin' up that long thread!   |2008-10-17 16:35:00 Quote: As I've said the heart of copyright law is contractual distribution or access. Yup, and I agreed to this point. Quote: We can perhaps say there is a different crime involved in receiving a copy etc. from someone actually violating contract but there is more than enough legal and rational precedent to lay some share of blame on those complicit in the violation of law... Saying that a contract applies even if someone never consented to it seems to me like saying "simply because you exist, you have to do what I say and there is nothing you can do about it." There's far too much potential for abuse here, the way I see it... Quote: If you have acquired something only available by illegal mines your possession of that thing or access or privilege is illicit. [...] If you receive goods illegally and are informed that they have been received illegally you must surrender them. Likewise, we can diminish culpability if you received illegally copied artwork unknowingly, but if you are informed of this and retain that material (or whatever we want to call it) you are accountable for violation. See, there are cases that I don't think this necessarily applies: First of all, some distributors have made it so that no legal distribution is actually possible. Abandonware is an example of this. The original distributor simply locks it into a vault and forces everyone do "do without" simply because they say so. To that end, they prevent those who have a copy from sharing it through their contracts. Second, there is the case of fans of anime or manga. If what you say is implemented, we would all have to wait for licensers to translate it and we would have a limited selection even when they did decide to. Furthermore, some series are never licensed and probably won't ever be. In that case, it literally says that fans can never enjoy something simply because the distributor doesn't want to "play ball." On top of this, most fans also have an "unwritten code" that once a series is translated, they buy it to support the industry. Finally, there's also the consideration that some people think the fan translations are superior so that even if they do buy the originals, they still want the fansubbed version. So, this being the case, stuff like this can and should be considered fair use. Third, what if a content provider decides to put unfair restrictive techniques on their goods? I've already shown you two cases where content providers have attempted to leave us people on Linux "out in the cold." Do we simply have to sit by and let them walk all over us? In short, I think that we would make actual injustice by taking this argument to its logical extreme. Quote: If I steal a key and make copies and give them to my friends, even if they haven't stolen those keys their possession of them is legally suspect (though not in the same way my theft and copying is.) It's certainly weird, but as I said above, there are sometimes quite justified reasons reasons why someone may want to do this with copyright. Taking someone else's house key is simply weird and may also constitute stalking in some instances. Quote: Your fancy number talk, if I understand it, is a bit off. If you've derived that number from the original with the intent and use of replicating the original in some capacity nothing is changed. "Fancy number talk," lol. What can I say? I'm a computer scientist and that's my business. Your reply is fair enough. However, I didn't see anything suggesting that you meant "intent" in your original criticism so I'm not sure how I'd have gleaned that. Indeed, copyright laws don't really seem to me to make a distinction of intent in many cases. Also, I think that there are cases of intentional copyvio that can be justified as I said above. Quote: This is not a requisite to protect business model. Contract violation is illegal, knowingly aiding or participating in the violation of the law is also illegal. Contract violation only applies if the contract is established. As I state numerous times, I don't believe that a contract can exist without consent. The idea of 'aiding and participating' is a bit more sound of a criticism, I will admit. The thing about it is... we have instances where "aiding and participating" may well be justified. Quote: as much as the riaa can burn my buns on occasion, The idea that you don't know that the burnt music you have, at this point in time, is only on your hard-drive through criminal violation of contract is absolute bollux. It depends on the circumstances and whether the person had a viable alternative to that course of action. Quote: (The bigger question is whether the riaa is adjusting copyright law retroactively and thereby breeching the original contract.) This is also an abuse of the situation, but I don't believe it's the only one. Quote: as I've said the culpability of third generation copyist is not the same as the initial explicit contract violator, but that doesn't mean there is no consequence or culpability (you might make an argument that the initial copier is responsible for all subsequent violation from their breech.) Ah, but they can hardly be responsible for a second generation copier making copies. They may have provided the copy, but the second generation actually did the copy. They may well be seen as an enabler but the culpability of the original copier in each copy goes down as the generations become further removed. Quote: Though I should say copyright as it is is an assumed contract nationally.even before the riaa thats why the little circled c is just pretty, it's representative of a solid and enforceable contract. that citizens are responsible for knowing. Another fair criticism, although I think you can see where kiba gets the idea that this is a government-sanctioned monopoly. (... and that's one reason I'm rather not happy about the situation present copyright law creates) Quote: It is not support of a business model its willful participation in a the violation of contract, which is law. Their business model determines the content of the contract, and when that becomes contract it is law not just model. You can think their stipulations are inane and ridiculous but they are still legally binding (and if contracts are to mean anything, ought to be.) Ah, but it is making the government into a tool to enforce its artificial business model, is it not? In a sense, I think copyright's use has extended past where it is actually useful. If it isn't tied to an actual good, the validity of a property claim is suspect.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-17 22:35:20 All your list of licensing issues are grievances of inconvenience, which is of no ultimate concern and needs not be of the copyright holder. You aren't being walked all over. You chose to enter into a contract because you wanted the good (all luxuries for that matter.) You've no right to that anime or software, and if you enter into a contract that restricts your ability to use it, that's their right and your problem. (That said, historically copyright has been almost exclusively concerned with copying/adjusting/sharing for purposes of profit rather than personal enjoyment, the internet provides a serious ground for evaluating the extent that personal enjoyment can and should include) not just weird illegal, even outside of stalking. ( for the record, didn't specify house key. could be a business or studio or archive) It's not just intent it's use.  756.2 isn't my novel. it can be used to replicate my novel, but it is not my novel. unless the replication occurs there is no copy and thereby no copyright infringement. copyright law is established contract (that's why it's copyright law). I've yet to see any instances where aiding and participating in the violation of copyright are justified. (I've seen plenty of instances where the nature of the contract is ambiguous) they certainly can be held responsible to some extent.  It was their responsibility to guard it. (again, personal use versus profitable use is really a complicating crux of much of this) OK, I made no mention of this before but it irks me, especially if we're going to talk about veracity and precision of language. copyright isn't monopoly. That's like saying Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. has a monopoly on Dr Pepper. Terry Pratchett doesn't have a chokehold on literature because he owns Discworld, I do not have a monopoly on the chair I'm sittin' on. No. It's not enforcing a business model it's enforcing a contract, which even among most libertarian philosophy I've come across is taken as a central function of government. You may be angry with what you call the Mafiaa, but don't take it out on every artist out there. Your discussion of copyright would leave them all bankrupt and make roadside keychain production more profitable than just about any artistic endeavor. If you only protect first generation it's as functional as protecting none of it at all. I own a printing press and you buy a novel for $20 and make me a copy, I then produce millions of copies and somehow owe the author nothing? That's the logical result of your proposal.

emperorbma   |2008-10-18 01:34:48 Quote: All your list of licensing issues are grievances of inconvenience, which is of no ultimate concern and needs not be of the copyright holder. You aren't being walked all over. I think you missed the point with this section... Quote: You've no right to that anime or software, and if you enter into a contract that restricts your ability to use it... ... if I didn't (or couldn't) enter into the contract then we have a different situation, would you not agree? Namely, the provider is forcibly keeping me from something that I would like to be able to buy from them and also preventing other people from sharing it with me. Quote: the internet provides a serious ground for evaluating the extent that personal enjoyment can and should include) Yes, it most certainly does. The thing is, I don't think we can demand that people have to live monkish lives devoid of all personal pleasure.  Outside of a voluntary personal religious discipline, to advocate this is simply unreasonable. That being the case, the content provider is basically committing a bit of an unfair behavior by preventing people by basically putting the carrot in front of people, but not letting them get it. In a way, it is like a bully teasing children. Or, in context, a rich guy paying goons to mess around with the poor guys just for fun... Consider also what the DVD industry has attempted to do with the creation DVD regions. There is a code on DVDs so that a person in one part of the world can't play the same DVD in a different part of the world. The reason for doing this is to allow the content providers to charge different (and inflated, mind you) prices for goods that are otherwise far cheaper. It may not be considered a subsistence good, but I think Aquinas's argument that we talked about earlier also applies here. On top of this, it is NOT a free market. It is artificial markets created through government meddling and big business treachery. Quote: You chose to enter into a contract because you wanted the good (all luxuries for that matter.) This presumes that I chose to enter into it or even had the ability to choose to enter into it.  Given that the industry has placed artificial regions on where things can be sold and used as well as having convinced the government to impose numerous unfair regulations on the consumer, I think it is fair to say that the ability to choose an alternative should exist... but it doesn't.  Copyright is an artificially created monopoly on a good and it is being used to create a situation where it gives a large cartel an unfair advantage and the ability to coerce people into paying far more for the same goods. If you also mean to imply that someone is bound to a contract before they make it, would that not be absurd? Simply desiring to have something should not bind me to the whims of an unfair monopoly. The problem with this is that it really is not a free market. I cannot choose a provider with a different set of restrictions which are more amenable. Instead, I am forced to buy from only one provider whose terms may be abhorrent. (This brings me back to why the free market is a better system than monopolism, by the way...) Quote: that's their right and your problem. (That said, historically copyright has been almost exclusively concerned with copying/adjusting/sharing for purposes of profit rather than personal enjoyment, Perhaps it should have remained simply concerned with "for profit" transactions. If it had, we would not be discussing what amounts to fans attempting to spread something to aid in its popularity and how it is a technically illegal thing even though it actually helps the original creators in many ways. Quote: not just weird illegal, even outside of stalking. ( for the record, didn't specify house key. could be a business or studio or archive) I must have misread your scope, then. The thing is, doesn't this make me accidentally finding a key on the street illegal then? I mean, it wasn't copied illegally but it was lost and found essentially without the original owner's consent. Quote: It's not just intent it's use. 756.2 isn't my novel. it can be used to replicate my novel, but it is not my novel. unless the replication occurs there is no copy and thereby no copyright infringement. The odd thing about it is, the law also makes it illegal for a researcher to publish flaws that may lead to circumvention. Even if the researcher's intent is to inform about the flaw so that it hopefully can be corrected, the DMCA still makes it illegal. Quote: copyright law is established contract (that's why it's copyright law). I've yet to see any instances where aiding and participating in the violation of copyright are justified. (I've seen plenty of instances where the nature of the contract is ambiguous) Okay, let's be clear on what situations you think fall into which category. Which are simply legal ambiguity and which are "illegal uses?" List of topics: *Fansubbing. (No additional description needed) *Taking a photograph of a copyrighted item. (Does this mean that my photograph now belongs to the "owner of the copyright?") *Happening to record a copyrighted speech or concert. (Do they own my recording?) *Bypassing restrictions to be able to use DVDs, CDs or other devices that do not offer support for your system. *Reverse engineering.  Specifically, writing your own software that does the equivalent of a copyrighted program without using the original or making use of the original data but not providing it with your program. *Researcher publishing vulnerabilities in obfuscation techniques used by a company to hide content. ... any other stuff you can recall that I missed. Quote: they certainly can be held responsible to some extent. It was their responsibility to guard it. (again, personal use versus profitable use is really a complicating crux of much of this) By all means, the original copyright violator broke the contract. To be clear, I'm not concerned with the original copyright violator and have stated this repeatedly. I'm concerned with the average citizen down the line who happens to get something from them. Quote: OK, I made no mention of this before but it irks me, especially if we're going to talk about veracity and precision of language. copyright isn't monopoly. That's like saying Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. has a monopoly on Dr Pepper. Terry Pratchett doesn't have a chokehold on literature because he owns Discworld, I do not have a monopoly on the chair I'm sittin' on. Let's go with definitions here: "a monopoly... exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods." (Wikipedia) What part of this is invalid? Does not a copyright grant the author exclusive control over a particular product or service?  Does it not also grant the ability to "determine significantly" the terms of access? Indeed, where is the ability for someone to compete with a copyright! The definition fits entirely... I did not say the entire industry was being monopolized. Instead, I was saying an entire good is being monopolized. If Terry Pratchett controls all production and distribution rights with regards to Discworld then how is that not a monopoly? He doesn't control all literature, but he most assuredly controls that particular piece of it. Furthermore, Dr. Pepper's trademark is a specialized limitation on the use of an emblem. It does not claim that all things that look like it cannot be traded without the consent of Dr. Pepper. It is certainly a monopoly with regards to whom may use the logo in an authoritative capacity, however... Quote: No. It's not enforcing a business model it's enforcing a contract, which even among most libertarian philosophy I've come across is taken as a central function of government. Guess whose rhetoric "enforcing a business model" is. I'm not saying that I disagree with it though, but I'm probably at a disadvantage defending it since I don't share the full extent of his position. The reason I see it is this: after an artist sold a copy of their work to someone, the only thing that actually forces someone to not copy it is that the government basically "beats up" (through fines or jail time) anyone who doesn't comply. (I think we see where kiba gets his "thuggery" arguments, though...) On the other hand, you make a good point since property is basically a contract. The problem with it is that I don't think we can apply contracts in the same way to ideas and concepts as we do to paintings and woodcuts. Quote: You may be angry with what you call the Mafiaa, but don't take it out on every artist out there. Trust me, I don't. If you think I'm bad, you should really see kiba. I'm actually moderate compared to him. In a sense, I have sometimes taken more of his side in this debate to present a position which is more useful for debating. It's also probably a weakness since I haven't gone and "come up with my own rhetoric" on some of this stuff. :P Quote: Your discussion of copyright would leave them all bankrupt and make roadside keychain production more profitable than just about any artistic endeavor. If you only protect first generation it's as functional as protecting none of it at all. Understandable objection. The thing is, I'm not really taking an absolute conclusion with this. I realize the "break in the chain" problem.  The other side of this is, I think the other extreme is equally disdainful. If the chain is totally connected without regards for individual circumstances it is also problematic. To wit, I'm taking a more extreme position than I'm really trying to defend in order to presumably make defense easier when I get down to the actual positions. That way, I have some ground to actually give. Although at this point it's sort of small, since you've defeated most of my herrings. :P

emperorbma   |2008-10-18 01:54:29 P.S. I probably shouldn't have told you about my herrings, but I'm too tragically honest to have done otherwise, I think. At least I'm not a politician, but I think it makes me a rather bad debater. :P I think you can tell where most of my key positions are by now, though. I practically gave you a list in my last reply. ;)

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-18 21:06:21 You have no right to purchase simply because you want to purchase. If you can't access my stuff on my terms you cannot access it period. That is my right. You can't force me to sell you my novel if I don't want to, even if you expect it to be a life-changing work of genius. Sucks for you, but that's my right. Inconvenient, maybe even mean, but it is my right, and simply your desire. monkishness has nothing to do with it. You can enjoy whatever you want to enjoy legally legally. In a free market, people can charge what they want where they want. You can't have it both ways. Just because your tricycle looks so cool, and you flaunt it in front of me and even let other people ride it doesn't mean that I'm within my rights to take it without your permission. Temptation and lack of willpower are no excuse, and even if the flaunting isn't nice or isn't fair, legality isn't about niceties. Now your demanding what would be paramount to intervention into freemarket to satisfy your sense of fairness. again, I think personal use makes a lot more sense, but the scope of "personal use" has been shifted considerably by the internet and I have a hard time viewing napster as the same thing as making a copy for your neighbor. One is basically an alternate (partially for profit) company that publishes copyright material making loophole around their distribution rights, the other is a limited person to person "intimate" sharing instead of mass-marketing. The law doesn't adequately distinguish between them yet. As to secondary copies etc. vis-a-vis the key, as I said it's not a problem to accidentally have it unknowingly it is a problem to possess and use it, knowing it to be illicitly obtained or created and failing to relinquish it. If you find the key to my house and are regularly using it to visit my kitchen I don't think you can really claim the innocence from ignorance argument. -fansubbing seems to fall more into trademark issues which are a whole different can of worms. (though they seem relatively innocent considering there is no feasible competition between the sub and the original) -photograph and recording depend on the situation, whether it is a distinguishably new entity rather than a replication and whether the context of photographing or recording was controlled (licit v. illicit) -i think this falls mostly under legal ambiguity (though if it is personal use it's not a particular violation) -without using the original strikes me as hard to say it's a violation, using but not presenting goes under other categories (mostly plagiarism issues) (though as may already be obvious my understanding of the intricacies of programming and programming politics is pretty week and hazy) -like I say....hazy. for you to stretch the definition of monopoly to that application is absolutely absurd. I understand the impulse to stick to ones argument regardless, but to shift your definition to that extent undermines everything because you've made all trade monopolistic. "Only I sell the apples that I grew in my orchard. I have a rich one-cart monopoly!" Nonsense. Plain and simple. If that's monopoly than for you to decry monopolies as a) not sustainable without government intervention and b) abusive, is rendered ludicrous unless you start claiming that all trade sales and market are wicked and abusive (which seems antithetical to you or kiba's argument.) again copyright isn't about ideas& concepts. It's about a specific concrete/liminal presentation. I think you're taking the more extreme approach has backfired with me at least because I'm prepared to argue even more stringent copyright law than I was before because some of your rhetoric has stirred me into a frenzy. I really have become more defensive and supportive of the riaa than i was to begin with. SOme of that will probably fade when tensions die down from this fervor.

emperorbma   |2008-10-18 22:09:05 Quote: You have no right to purchase simply because you want to purchase. If you can't access my stuff on my terms you cannot access it period. That is my right. You can't force me to sell you my novel if I don't want to, even if you expect it to be a life-changing work of genius. Sucks for you, but that's my right. Inconvenient, maybe even mean, but it is my right, and simply your desire. I wonder: doesn't this actually make the artist a demigod over their artwork, though? I mean, they are determining what is "good and evil," and anything against their whims is wrong. I do accept the concept of a contract, but no contract can be treated as if it's absolute license of control. Even property itself is a stewardship from God, not an absolute right. Contracts, being far more tenuous, are subject to far more caveats. There always has to be a provision for other necessities in contracts, whether the contract artist likes it or not, unless we are willing to permit unfairly tyrannical interpretations of the license. I'm not saying mere desire grants that "higher" privilege, but I think there are instances where desire can coincide with a justified circumvention. Quote: monkishness has nothing to do with it. You can enjoy whatever you want to enjoy legally legally. In a free market, people can charge what they want where they want. You can't have it both ways. Hang on a tick! You do realize that this is not what "free market" theory says don't you?  Someone cannot merely charge whatever they want and get away with it. They can attempt to sell it at a price that they choose, but if it isn't a reasonable market value then they can expect a competitor in a truly free market. In a free market, market value is only rightly determined by the balance between demand and supply. In the example of a company with an abandonware product, the market has high demand but the producer is refusing to supply it at all.  It's literally the opposite of a true "free market!" In this situation, we should expect that a competitor could provide a viable alternative. However, because copyright is an artificial monopoly produced through government intervention, the only alternatives involve breaking or ignoring that legal monopoly. The law is essentially making it inevitable that people to break it by violating the principles of of a free market... As it is written, even in God's Word, a person shall not use falsely weighted measures. (Leviticus 19:35) Man's law may well be conflicting with God's Law if we accept the logical extreme of this position. (... and in that case, I have a license from conscience to defy such a law) The irony is that a "free market" actually gives me plenty of room to criticize an abusive use of contracts, especially when we consider the command to use fair measures. kiba's really not inconsistent here, his position is that copyright is invalid from the get go. My idea is that copyright is valid, since the government is valid, but it should probably exist a more carefully controlled capacity than it presently does... Quote: Temptation and lack of willpower are no excuse, and even if the flaunting isn't nice or isn't fair, legality isn't about niceties. Now your demanding what would be paramount to intervention into freemarket to satisfy your sense of fairness. As I said above, though, I am actually suggesting that the government stop intervening outside of its capacity. What they are doing now is creating artificial markets which are unfairly slanted in favor of the original artists. This is basically forcing people to obey rules that are, in fact, unnatural and possibly unfair. To reduce the abuses of copyright law is actually the opposite of an imposition, it actually removes regulations and makes the market more free. As I said, I think we can fix it without destroying copyright, but we have to recognize that unless the market is determining prices, we're not creating a free market. (Irony, you seem to be pushing me towards kiba a bit...) Quote: again, I think personal use makes a lot more sense, but the scope of "personal use" has been shifted considerably by the internet and I have a hard time viewing napster as the same thing as making a copy for your neighbor.... Yes, you see... I think this is precisely what we need to do. We need to fairly distinguish between personal and non-personal use to ensure that fans aren't being persecuted by an artist merely for enjoying their art. Quote: As to secondary copies etc. vis-a-vis the key, as I said it's not a problem to accidentally have it unknowingly it is a problem to possess and use it, ] Okay... my "herring" point is becoming more clear then. I'm not really opposed to secondary license considerations as much as that copyright is being unfairly slanted towards creating an artificial monopoly. Quote: -fansubbing seems to fall more into trademark issues ... they seem relatively innocent considering there is no feasible competition between the sub and the original) To be completely factual, not everyone follows the "code." However, the existence of the code indicates some people have a conscience-based limiter on how they want to use a work. Quote: -photograph and recording depend on the situation, whether it is a distinguishably new entity Fair enough... Quote: -i think this falls mostly under legal ambiguity Okay. Quote: -without using the original strikes me as hard to say it's a violation, Yeah, but the instance of Freecraft shows that some licensers will attempt to abuse trademarks and copyright just for the purpose of making violations where they are non-existent. Quote: using but not presenting goes under other categories (mostly plagiarism issues) There's a few projects that use the "original data files" but run their own engine. The rationale for this is to let old games run on newer operating systems. You know, good old DOS games running in Windows XP? There's no real plagiarism here, since the engine isn't claiming to be the original. Quote: -like I say....hazy. Indeed. Quote: for you to stretch the definition of monopoly to that application is absolutely absurd. See, my take on this is that "if it quacks like a duck..." The "apple cart" example is simply defused because it doesn't claim ownership of all apples sold anywhere, ever. The problem is, most of your criticisms are based on claiming that the concept of monopoly is being connected to a physical good. What a copyright is claiming is a particular concept or complex of conceptual ideas. Blizzard is basically claiming a monopoly over the entire concept of World of Warcraft, for example. What about fans who decide to write fanfictions? I mean, does Blizzard own a fanfic that is set in World of Warcraft? Quote: I think you're taking the more extreme approach has backfired with me at least because I'm prepared to argue even more stringent copyright law than I was before because some of your rhetoric has stirred me into a frenzy. Good. I think you misunderstand me if you think my intent is to "win." I don't debate to "win," I debate to inform. If I were debating to win, I wouldn't be giving you all these tidbits that help you make a better case. :) Quote: I really have become more defensive and supportive of the riaa than i was to begin with. SOme of that will probably fade when tensions die down from this fervor. Yeah, I think the "underdog" thing is in their favor here. :P

emperorbma   |2008-10-17 22:25:23 Quote: uncle sam or Entrepreneurial jones, both stand the possibility of taking my cave from me... Yeah, not much else to say here tho. :P Quote: I think if you looked at the statistics you'd probably be surprised at how many people really can't afford food... Perhaps. The thing is, we don't really know that it isn't the higher level of taxation and increased "base level" of luxuries or whether it really is that they can't make enough to live. There's also the concern of people burying themselves in debt. Quote: critical thinking is a cultural defecit, as far as educational system is concerned it's got a lot more to do with individual teachers than schools. Some of one and some of the other. There isn't an incentive to hire teachers that can't teach if there isn't a system that is forced to keep them around. Economic market systems are usually meritocratic in that vein.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-10-18 21:12:42 if you're too poor to eat you really don't have many taxes. and I think the bigger point to garner from what you call "Base level" increase for luxuries is that that increase means a basic increase in capital necessary for actual subsistance goods. It costs someone more to buy a loaf of bread when those around them have more money. Debt isn't really an antithesis. If you can't afford to eat you borrow. (not to mention that debt is one of the largest problems of the modern economy, both in terms of overall stability and in terms of ethics, perhaps why the bible is pretty big against lending on interest.) Markets are only meritocratic if merit is measured by profit. If we as a culture don't prioritize the value of critical thinking (which we don't) then profits won't drive schools to provide it.

emperorbma   |2008-10-18 22:18:10 Quote: if you're too poor to eat you really don't have many taxes. and I think the bigger point to garner from what you call "Base level" increase for luxuries is that that increase means a basic increase in capital necessary for actual subsistance goods. It costs someone more to buy a loaf of bread when those around them have more money. Debt isn't really an antithesis. If you can't afford to eat you borrow. (not to mention that debt is one of the largest problems of the modern economy, both in terms of overall stability and in terms of ethics, perhaps why the bible is pretty big against lending on interest.) Let me offer this, then. The government is subsidizing agriculture at the current cost. The government is setting the prices at this level for two reasons: 1) the prices of these goods would be near-zero if it were permitted to operate on free market principles. 2) most small farmers would go out of business because of the corporate farmers because of that price issue. (the "latifundia" or corporate farms can "absorb the loss" and ride out the market being rebalanced) There's two issues here. The market is unfairly slanted towards the big corporate farms and the market is also unfairly inflated. Both are the clear result of government meddling. Quote: Markets are only meritocratic if merit is measured by profit. If we as a culture don't prioritize the value of critical thinking (which we don't) then profits won't drive schools to provide it. True enough... I won't dispute that critical thinking isn't really a focus of economics. (... although I do think a free market education system would produce critical thinking instead of market "dronery")

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."