rukkyg

I consider myself to be socially and economically liberal. Thus, I'd disagree with the libertarian economic platform.
The way I see it, one of two extremes in the world will eventually materialize. One, that the government becomes large. Two, that the corporations (eventually merging to one or two or three) become large.
The main argument I have in favor of the former is that government is still controlled by the people, while a single or few corporations would have basically nothing to stop them. Granted, a super-powerful government that abandons the constituion could do the same, but my whole idea hinges on the constitution staying around (so does the libertarians).
Large multi-national corporations eliminate democracy, the people's say, in the future course. Libertarians would argue that the they can vote with market forces. This has not happened, clearly; people are dying, and poverty is a problem. Libertarians would counter that the market isn't truly free or unregulated. I would argue that an unregulated corporation would do even more of the evil things.
And with large corporations owning most of the media in the country, people have no way to find out what kinds of things should help them determine the market forces. The government can potentially break up large corporations and try to keep media free, providing a independantly informed community.

So my question is this: If unregulation and free markets have shown that corporations will merge and become larger and more powerful, eventually owning close to all media, how can a free economy let the people be informed enough to "vote with their dollar"?

Kalibah

Well with monopoly laws in place and enforced that won't happen. Sure they might get big, but there will always need be competition

rukkyg

The Libertarian platform promotes minimal governmental regulation on anything. Therefore, anti-trust laws would be taken out to promote a free market.

Kalibah

Wow... Apple wouldn't be around in that poltical world then- Microsoft was buying up Apple stock like crazy to help keep the company afload IIRC so they didn't get in trouble from the Justice Department.


I'm all for free trade- but there has got to be some restrictions.... Do libertarians want Microsoft any bigger

kutulu

There are so many problems with the Libertarian Party's platform. If they had their way we'd eliminate the EPA, OSHA, and all federally funded consumer safety regulations. Instead of having a group that looks out for our long term and immediate safety, we'd have to wait until we have problems that can be proven in court before a problem gets fixed. That type of policy is completely retroactive and short-sighted.

Right now, if a company wants to build a new stack they have to demonstrate the the concentration of emissions will be below a certain level for it to be approved by environmental agencies. Once it is built, they then have to demonstrate (through testing and long term monitoring) that it is meeting those standards. Without the EPA, surrounding residents have to wait until they are experiencing negative health effects before they can even start doing anything about it. They also have to have enough people showing those effects for it to be significant enough to be taken seriously.

Because of OSHA, the ladders on that stack have to meet certain standards of safety such as resting points every 20 feet or so and enclosures that keep you from falling off. It might never be needed because there is no guarantee that someone will fall off. However, if someone does fall off they probably die.

History shows that corporations will not spend extra money to ensure the safety of their employees unless they are forced to. Even now, there are companies that do a cost-benefit analysis of potential liabilities before they decide to do a recall. If the analysis says that it's cheaper to face potential lawsuits and pay out damages to injured people or their family (if the person is killed) instead of doing the right thing and get the product off the shelves, they keep it out there.

Kalibah

I so disagree about paying out damages to injured people. I know a product liability lawyer for a maker of motors that goes in everything from ceiling fans, to table saws, to drills. They do recalls ( not often because they take steps to make sure a product is safe before they release it). You only hear about the PROBLEMS and injuries, never about the recall information.


Also You'd be suprised how many lawsuits are a total joke- he quoted that Louisville Ladder has 30% of the price you pay for their ladders is for litigation and product liability. 30% of that cost is to defend the ladder makers...



But that isnt really the issue....

kutulu

He's right. This is from their platform:

People need to be more informed about the dangers of the Libertarian Party. They are gaining support and would seriously fuck things up.

rukkyg

A libertarian would say that a corporation would spend extra money if it was eocnomically beneficial. That is, that people would hear about the horrible pollution or the person falling off the smoke stack, and then would boycott the corporation's products until they did something about it.

My argument is that without a government protected media, no one would ever hear about the pollution or the smoke stack incident. The media corporation wouldn't dare air something that shows themselves (or their buddy corporation) in a negative light. Things like this are already happening now, you just don't know about them for the same reason.

I support heavy regulation of everything corporate. There's practically no regulation now, and the regulatory agencies we do have are underfunded thanks to tax cuts and corporate lobbying. As such, I also support a tax-and-spend philosophy as well as an abolishment of corporate lobbying and corporate donations to political parties (supposed goals of campaign finance reform). Only if actual people have a say in the government, or more exactly, if all people have an equal say in government, can the government-over-corporation plan work. I want to know what magical condition will let the corporation-over-government plan will work. I'll remind you that our government is "by the people, for the people," and as such, the people ARE the government (in the extreme case I present).

kutulu

Yes, that would be their position. The problem is that it is totally idealistic and unpractical. How many fucking boycotts are going on as we speak? They may work on large corporations that have constant advertising and are totally consumer-driven products.

Say there is a sand and gravel opertation down the street. Instead of watering down the rocks before they are processed, they do nothing. As a result the dust in the immediate area is increased. People have health problems and it's a nucianse. It doesn't effect that many people so those outside of the area don't give a fuck. Nobody outside that area is going to join a boycott. Nobody will hear bad publicity.

People in the area could take them to court but there are no laws saying the company has to do anything about it. It becomes a battle of the lawyers. If you think we have problems with frivolous lawsuits, wait till we "let the market decide" As it is right now, the agency that has jurisdiction can shut them down immediately for doing this.

thefictionweliv

In the current society AOL/Time Warner and Clear Channel already do control most media outlets, down to many of the billboards, the government does nothing as it is to prevent monopolies in its present state. Microsoft is a joke compared to how much Clear Channel controls what you see and hear. Government regulation virtually kills any idea of a small privately owned television or radio station even though the technology is affordable.

Lebell

Unfortunately this is true.

In the first decade of the 20th century, an average of ONE THOUSAND coal miners died every year.

Today, coal mining is one of the safer "dangerous" professions you can do, with annual deaths measured in the 10s or 20s (and significantly more miners than back then).

But it took numerous mining laws and the formation of MESA (later changed to MSHA) to make it so.

The non-mining industry has similar stories.

This is one reason why I am not a hard-core libertarian.

I know for a fact that the industries I've worked in for the majority of my working life (coal and meat-packing) would gut their safety programs if they thought they could.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Willravel

I agree that the Libratarian opinion of the econemy is a bit naive, but doesn't it's stance on foreign policy make up for it in spades? Non-intervention, peace, and free trade are good things to vote on.

Lebell

I would say, "It depends".

The US has been criticized many times for how long we "didn't intervene" in those two little European wars last century.

No, sometimes it is in our best interest to intervene (which may or may not coincide with other's interests.)

On the other hand, I am very much for pulling our troops out of countries like Germany and Italy where, to the best of my knowledge, they have a stable, democratic government.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

rukkyg

The "deregulation" of the media during the 90s and early 2000s was not "deregulation," but regulation in favor of the media companies. There used to be regulations preventing large mergers, saying that you could only own a low number of television or radio stations, etc. Those regulations have been removed. That's why the media is so large now.

The main media regulation of the media still in place is yes, designed to prevent small companies to get started. It's in the form of bandwidth regulation. For example, there are only so many FM radio stations available for the technological regions. In most areas, the bandwidth is all already owned. If the government removed this regulation, then a small company could try to broadcast on the same bandwidth. If there is to be no government regulation, then there can be no base for a suit in either direction, so the large company would just have to broadcast a stronger single or take other actions (illegal actions not out of the question) to remove the smaller company from competition. This has happened in history (not with media).

Of course baring the following fact, the small company might have enough money to start taking over the media with stronger signals. However, the existing media forms public opinion. Public opinion will be that the small radio stations are evil, just trying to enchroach on the public's programming. The public will be outraged and boycott the small company. The end.

thefictionweliv

Instead of frequencies being controlled on a federal level they could be controlled from their local broadcast area by the respective county or city of primary influence, that would allow the consumers in that area to more influence the control of the signals through the petitioning of the local city officials, through signatures of residents, ect.

There are also many unnecessary regulations, that even make the selling of small arts and crafts from one's house. In the city I live in one has to get a permit to have a garage sale. There are many very unnecessary restrictions on the trade between people even on the basic level. Selling a used car between two people should also not carry a tax as one has already been paid on such item, it is unnecessary.

Another things is to eliminate government subsidies of businesses, the large airline businesses were bailed out by the government to keep their stronghold on the airline industry. Many smaller airlines would have come in their sted however the government intervention prevented this.

Scipio

You really get to the essential question here. Libertarianism assumes that people are informed, rational decision makers. What happens if they aren't informed? (I don't think consolidated media is the key here, though it is a serious issue.)

For what it's worth, I think people can be confused, or duped, or deceived by clever marketing and limited information.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

SecretMethod70

Are some free trade restrictions necessary?

Regarding your description of free trade vs. state corporatism at your website, How can we prevent the propagation of Multinational corporations without resorting to government regulation? Is that form of Government regulation a necessary evil, or is there a method for preventing the formation of huge multinationals and monopolies without the government restricting free trade? If so, how would this method be implemented?

Michael Badnarik:

"Free trade," like any other term, is often coopted to mean something other than what it should. In the context of modern America and the globalization phenomenon, it is often used to refer to a web of regulations, restrictions, subsidies, government-created monopolies and privileges. That's not free trade.

First, let's look at the nature of corporations. They come into existence with the grant of a government charter. They sell stock under the auspices and pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In court, they are treated as "persons" with "rights" -- and for purposes of liability, their stockholders are held harmless beyond the value of their stock itself.

A market in which single proprietorships and partnerships must compete against what are essentially mini-branches of government, with all the attendant privileges and immunities, isn't a free market. It's a rigged game.

I don't oppose growth or success. I support unrestricted trade across international borders, and I support companies developing themselves internationally. But the fact is that corporate growth today isn't natural market growth. It's growth encouraged and enhanced by government-dispensed privilege. It's artificial, and it distorts rather than serves the market.

We need to restore justice to the system. Stockholders are owners, and should be liable for the consequences of that ownership like any other owners. I have no doubt that the market will come up with "portfolio insurance" to protect the stockholders from ruinous claims, but that in itself will provide a market check on unrestrained, unaccountable growth -- companies which act irresponsibly will find that their stockholders can't buy, or have to pay unreasonably high, insurance premiums, and therefore aren't interested in having the stock.

Corporations don't have rights and don't face consequences. People do. Tinkering with that has been disastrous. It's time to get back to full responsibility for individuals instead of government privilege for corporations.

-----------------------

personally, I think most things come back to the fact the government doesn't have the right to take my money for anything other than what the constitution says it needs it for - essentially only protecting my rights from others. When the government statrs disrespecting my property as well, I see that as a problem.

Now, personally, I recognize that this raises some issues, such as those brought up. To be honest, I, personally, have not had the chance to think through any reasonable solutions on this. The fact is though, I think solutions need to be sought outside of taking my money. As an example above, Michael Badnarik talks about a system structured where people can no longer hide behind corporations (that corporations are recognized as people is one of the tragedies of our world today IMO). Likewise, stockholders are then treated as people who literally own stock in the company: they are part owners and also responsible for the company. Solutions need to be sought outside of more government control, As the quote in my sig says:
"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I'll be honest and say I don't know all the answers. Hell, I'm a 22 year old college student - what do you expect? But I do know that the answer doesn't lie in more government control and it doesn't lie in more money being taken from me for that government control.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

rukkyg

I don't agree with the "don't take my money" argument. Heavy regulation of corporations, in my mind, would include heavily taxing those corporations who require the most regulation. Perhaps a system where a violation of a regulation will result in a percentage increase in tax rate that will last for several years (at least 10). Corporations would soon find it more profitable to not kill me and destroy the environment than to continue doing so.

Think through the argument about the media. The corporations already exist. Simply saying "well that's because the government made it that way" doesn't hold any water. Republican economic policies have had a profound effect on the country's economy. That's the state of the current situation. I can't accept condoning the Libertarian platform without a convincing solution to the problems I've outlined above. Nor do I think the libertarian idea of just taking away all the advantages of forming a corporation is a responsible (read, won't kill a lot of people) solution to the current problems.

SecretMethod70

I'm not a strict libertarian and I would support the concept of heavy taxing of corporations. They are not people and THEY are the ones who should be taxed on "income" (i.e. their profits). The problem is, in order to have regulations of corporations, most solutions include the government monitoring that, which costs me money. I support private watchdog groups to keep the corporations in check.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

OpieCunningham

This is still not the answer. As long as buisnesses are not required to divuldge information or products for testing to these watchdog groups, those businesses can continue to provide services or products which are harmful to society. In effect, we are left with the boycott scenario. This fails due to the ease with which information can be withheld from society due to the monopolization of media (information such as any independent testing results, reports of product failures, reports of environmental damage, etc).

Libertarianism has one major flaw - and it is the flaw which affects all variations of societies: greed.

Libertarianism is especially suseptible to this flaw because it is a philosophy of independence which is dependent on the self-induced minimization of greed.

It's a shame, really.

SecretMethod70

Greed is actually an excellent source of drive and can be utilized to keep companies in check. John Stossel did an excellent special on this - aptly titled, "Greed," - whose message has stuck with me ever since I saw it about, oh, probably 5 or 6 years ago. Unfortunately, I don't remember many of the details, but I remember the clear conclusion - greed ought to be manipulated as opposed to squandered. It is a natural human feeling and attempting to deny it has done nothing but create problems throughout history.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cen...ssel-greed.asp

Again, I'm going to be flat out honest here and point out that my primary draw to Libertarianism is individual rights, not a significant knowledge of economic *solutions.* All I have to work on is what I've happened to pick up over time, and, as with most things, what sticks most is the effects as opposed to the cause. I do know that there are solutions which respect individual rights though. They must be sought out. I have confidence in the potential for viable economic solutions when a movement is backed by the likes of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman">Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman</a>

An equally releveant program is "John Stossel Goes to Washington."

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

hammer4all

If you have a lot of time on your hands and you're interested in what a future, better, non-capitalist economy might look like, consider Parecon. I think it's a well thought-out comprehensive attempt at solving many of the problems we have in our society today.

http://www.zmag.org/Audio/audiooptions.html

hammer4all

FAIR has a long history of pointing out Stossel's shoddy reporting. You might be interested in their response to Greed: Greed Is Bad Reporting

OpieCunningham

I can't stand John Stossel. I see him as nothing but a hack.

This might make sense to you: I love the book The Fountainhead because it deals with how a single person can live an excellent life. I do not like the book Atlas Shrugged because it attempts to apply that principle to society, and it fails.

And lastly, I disagree that greed ought to be manipulated. It ought to be dealt with - not squandered, ignored or twisted into a motivation. Greed is a problem - problems are not best handled by manipulation or brushing them aside, they are best handled by understanding them and working towards limiting their control.

Warlock69

If you want to understand more about libertarian economic reasoning, read this book.

I'm concerned about capitalism in countries where human rights are pushed out the back door such as China. If you think the US workers have it bad...

SecretMethod70

From FAIR:

Actually, no it doesn't. In socialism people are told what to do with their ability to make money.

As for one-sided sourcing, this is not to be unexpected. Any "special" or "documentary" is going to have one sided sourcing if it's designed to promote a point. That's like saying I wrote a bad paper because I concentrated on mentioning the things that support my thesis statement as opposed to trying to disprove it.

Ultimately, I think it's sufficient to point out that if there were a clear answer to anything, we wouldn't have people debating economics ever now would we? We wouldn't have Nobel Laurates who support Libertarian economic policies and, just as many I'm sure, Nobel Laurates who reject them.

In the end, I support whatever gives ME more control over what to do with MY things.

And, again, I want to make it very clear that I know that my arguments for justifying the economics are not the best. I've said before, I'm concerned with my individual freedom moreso than the economic aspects. I think that all solutions should be sought within that realm.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

hammer4all

FAIR's response: http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel...ashington.html

OpieCunningham

Cooperation for the common good is indeed a socialist principle. You can view it as coerced cooperation if you like, however the intended result is the same: benefit for the common good.

Business does not cooperate for the common good. Just the opposite - it cooperates for it's own good. If that benefits another business so be it. The common good is secondary to the personal good.

The difference is rather important because it creates an environment where the greed promotes cheating. If you can succeed by cutting corners and you can get away with cutting corners, you will cut corners - which is assuredly not a benefit to the common good.

SecretMethod70

The California "deregulation" was mentioned a little while up IIRC...here is a little something from the WSJ regarding that:


Also, information from the LPCA...

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Willravel

Forgive the tardiness of my response. I agree that the Libratarian party would have been out of place durring a war between world powers. Oddly enough, the end of the cold war has ushered in an era where war between countries is beyond a last resort. The military power in the US is more than capable of taking on any single state military force on the globe. If Canada or China were to attack, we would almost certianally win. If all of America was a smoking hole in the ground, we still have enough troops and bases abroad that we can win.

That being said, we now live in a world where our greatest enemy, the aptly named 'terror', is small cell groups that are usually run by independant organizations. We have a world where the enemy (from the outside) is terrorists. Why do terrorists attack the US? Good question, me. They hate our guts. They come from a reality where we bombard their homes with bombs from ships at sea and planes in the air. They are used to seeing babies slaughtered, and family members funerals. They hate us because we are the dicks of the world. We use our power to control the worlds natural resources, and we try to spread the propaganda that works so well on our citizens.

How do we get this 'unfounded' haterd out of them? Apologise for one. I feel badly that my $$ goes to making bombs that kill innocent people. Then we WITHDRAW OUR TROOPS FOR GODSSAKE. That's the Libratarian way. We offer free trade to try and help their econemy (that we ruined) to get back on it's feet. I'll bet a lot more people would like us if we were able to do that.

Unfortunatally, we can't. Bush or Kerry will win. If Bush wins, he will probably continue his crusade for the holy grail of controling the middle east and all of it's delicious oil. If Kerry wins (let's be honest) we will still indirectly control Iraq's oil. Kerry seems to be an okay guy, and I'd probalby vote for him if it was a two party system, but he himslef does not have the power to turn around our Pax Americana march towards domination.

This is, of course, all IMO. I'll be voting Lib. Enjoy your $2.50 a gallon.

Sun Tzu

There are so many problems NOW. Investigate a little deeper into people like Carol Browner's doings outside of the EPA website.

Investigate statistics of pre-OSHA to post you'll notice a trend and the financial loss you probably arent expecting. Rest assure the $$$ is going somewhere, and most of it isnt going to the poor complacent soul it should be going to. Surprising for an entity so small. The answer; make it bigger with more power? No.

Insurance costs sustained from injuries are one of many elements that force a competitive company to regulate itself.

Safety standard inspections can also be privatized. What stops corruption? Simple; uninhibited competition. Unhappy CEOs and stockholders should have had a better product, and nothing should stop them from doing so.

The FDA; its a thread in and of itself. For our own good; its funny how it seems to be limiting my choice on if I want frankenfood or not. Sure there are organic stores out there- so there still is a little FE left in the system. I just find it irritating that the government is stopping private enterprises from providing me with a choice on whether or not I want my green beans spliced with insect killer.


To make a long response somewhat short- free enterprise stimulates innovation and better products. Stockholders want to buy up a company? Well obviously the source didn’t have a problem moving on to other things. Scared of corporate giants . . .have you looked around lately?

If people hate individuals like Bill Gates so much; develop a better product.






www.bls.gov/


http://www.dol.gov/dol/stats.htm

www.nsc.org/

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

SecretMethod70

Since Bill Gates was brought up, I should mention that I am not a fan of Microsoft as most people know. Now, one may say that this is contradictory to my opinions regarding a free market. This is not true. Sun Tzu is right...however, government interference and control, in the name of patents and warped copyright law, is to blame. I fully support a return to transparent creativity and the limited controls we saw up to as late as the first half or so of the 20th century. The same limited controls - or lack of, if you will - that made it possible for Walt Disney to create Mickey Mouse, even though it was based on - and improved upon - an already existing character.

If you're interested in what I mean, check out the following (it's about 30 minutes long, so you may want to bookmark it for later, but it is extremely useful and interesting information - I HIGHLY recommend it)..... http://www.boycott-riaa.com/lessig/ (I recommend watching the flash presentation as it provides audio and visual as well)

So, the problem with Microsoft is not that it is a monopoly per se. It is that improper government interference in the realm of information has created Microsoft. Were Microsoft's creativity to be a transparent technology, as technology and creativity was in the past, it would be quite simple. People could still not re-publish Microsoft's works, but creating tools that can work alongside Microsoft products would be totally and easily possible. In other words, the main barrier to entry for OpenOffice.org - that the .doc format is the de facto standard and that OO.o can't guarantee 100% compatibility with it - would not exist. Just as it was legal to take apart the cotton gin and create a tool to work with the cotton gin, so too should it be legal and possible for competitors such as OpenOffice.org to create a word processor that can "work with" MS Word.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

GMontag

Umm, it *is* perfectly legal for OpenOffice to read and write Word .doc files. File formats are not elligible for copyrights or patents (the exception to this is when file formats require complicated decoding or decompression algorithms to read, e.g. MPEG, and even then the patent is on the algorithm, not on the format itself). The reason that OpenOffice has problems reading .doc files is because the format is not *open*, which means that OpenOffice must reverse engineer the format. This requires a significant amount of work. Compounding that requirement is the fact that Microsoft drastically changes the format with each new release of Word. The only thing that keeps OpenOffice from being fully compatible with .doc (the are mostly compatible already) is the fact that they simply don't have enough manpower to keep up with Microsoft. There is no government regulation that you can remove to rectify this situation.

Dale Kemp

The devil is always in the details. On this question, the devil is in the meaning of "minimal" government regulation.

My view would be that minimal regulation would still have the FDA. It might not prevent unapproved drugs from being sold, but would approve drugs as safe, after rigorous testing. So consumers could choose whether to take anapproved drugs, or not, based on the greater risk, since they hadn't been proven safe.

Some would believe that Microsoft should be broken up, and multiple operating systems forced upon the populace, to prevent monopoly by Microsoft. I believe that in the case of software, anybody, and any time, could offer a better product, and Micorsoft would go broke so fast, you'd envy Standard Oil Corp. during the depression of the thirty's. So it isn't in the public interest to break up Microsoft, because the marketplace can control its operations.

But I would suggest that some monopolies might need breaking up, to protect the public. The way to tell which ones is to watch their pricing behaviour. If they use their market share as a weapon on competitors and then jack up prices to heavy profit levels, then they might need breaking up. Maybe Microsoft has done that?

Anyway, less government is better government, until we need our government to do something for us.

__________________
Trueheart

SecretMethod70

Legal, yes; possible, no. My point is a bit more clear if you watch the relatively short talk by Lawrence Lesig, but in the past all creativity and technology was transparent. For example - and this is ripped directly from Lessig - one did not have to look at the patent to the cotton gin to find out how it worked, one could take apart the cotton gin and figure it out themselves. Likewise, I believe this should continue to apply to all creative works. Reverse-engineering should be legal across the board - not just with something like the APIs. Not to mention that the DMCA is working against even that.

I have no problem with the fact many people choose Microsoft, but the sad state of copyrights makes it difficult for people to have much of a choice in the first place. If you read between the lines of what I'm saying, all software should be open source as all creativity in the past has been "open source" if you will, and the model of "open source" creativity in the past has proven to be the best in terms of innovation, progression, and rights of use. Minimal regulation should be given to creative works - to the extent of ONLY regulating production/publication - again, as it was in the past. To steal another popular point mentioned in the Lesig talk, copyright now is designed so that no one can do to Disney what Disney did to others. Well, I see nothing wrong with what Disney did to others and there should be a return to a society where that kind of free enterprise - building off the work of others - is completely legal and possible.

I suspect most Libertarians would disagree with me on this one, but I do not believe information and knowledge to be a property and, thus, I focus on misplaced government regulation instead.

Because I feel it's so vitally important to understand, and because it provides a far clearer understanding of what I mean than a single textual post on an internet forum can do, here, again, is the link to the Lawrence Lessig talk. Again, it is HIGHLY recommended, and I suggest the flash version since it provides visual as well audio.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/lessig/

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

SecretMethod70

The FDA does not need to be a governmental institution. Take the ADA for example. I do not use non-ADA approved toothpastes. Why can't there be a similar private institution regarding drugs, acting in the same way: it's perfectly legal to sell non-ADA toothpastes, but far fewer people will use them.

In the case of Microsoft, see my above point. I believe with the proper handling of creative works, most of the issues with the Microsoft situation would go away and false regulations would no longer be holding them up.

I'm not entirely sure regarding anti-trust laws personally. I can see where I might support their limited existence, but I first would like to see things set up where the consumer has more power and the stockholders have more responsibility.

I don't think the caveat of "until we need our government to do something for us" is entirely accurate either. I'd like to see a situation where the government doesn't NEED to do something for us because we have the power to do it ourselves.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

skyscan

There is a difference. Our war with Germany was over them using direct military force to dominate and control countries. This is a concrete action. Germany sent forces into countries, we went over to stop that.

Now, the Cold War is different. We fought concepts. We fought because we disagreed with their ideas. Now we are fighting Iraq because (quoting American military press personnel from movie "Control Room") they might give weapons to terrorists groups that might attack us. Why do we go to war for that reason and yet a country commits genocide and we're not sure if we want to send it troops or not? Please, explain this to me.


I don't see the connection any of the World Wars with most of the current wars today. However, like everything stated here, it is merely my view of the world and we're all better off with more views or possible solutions to our problems of today. To me, this carries over to the elections. We need more choices (compare the number of choices for president to the number of choices for paper towel brands.)

My attraction to the Libertarian party is the main idea, more people making decisions instead of government. Especially in this election I see no one in the "two parties" that wants smaller government and more power given to the people. Now, lets get on to repelling that Patriot Act.

Willravel

That's also why I joined. Libratarian for 10 years, here.

madsenj37

A few things to note. First of all, some libertarians do not believe in patents. Patents can create monopolies and control markets. Some libertarians believe in shorter patents than we currently have. Whats important here is that long term patents, issued by our government, are one of the creators of monopolies. In some cases, such as patents, governments actually encourage monopolies.

Second of all, corporations are not as bad as many people make them out to be. My left-liberal economics teacher showed my class a chart of wages and income. Monopolies only take in 9% of the income in the US. Wages that go to individuals make up 55% or more and the rest goes mostly to taxes.

__________________
"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

rukkyg

Our country is supposed to be ruled by the people. The representatives that we put in to office are supposed to be held to our standards because we put them there. They are not, at least not today.

Today, corporations control the government. The food industry alone spends $1,200,000,000 a year lobbying congress. They (fast food, agribusiness, snack food, etc.) spend a lot of our money (all their money comes from us buying their stuff) to control us through our government.

The current system supports itself. Ralph Nader is hardly ever on TV even though people actually know his name. However, very few people actually know what he believes in (incluing a lot on this board arguing for Libertarianism based on civil liberties and anti-corporate powers even though that's the platform of the green party). Who controls the TV and the media in general,and therefore, what the public thinks is true? Corporations.
<hr>
How Corporations Own the Media:

From freepress.net, on the page about Who Owns the Media?, you can read the following:

NewsCorp:
2003 revenues: $17.5 billion
News Corporation's holdings include: FOX Network, DirecTV, 34 TV stations, National Geographic Channel, FX, 20th Century Fox, the New York Post, Harper Collins Publishers, Regan Books, and sports teams.

General Electric (GE)
2003 revenues: $134.2 billion
General Electric holdings include: NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Universal Parks & Resorts, CNBC, Bravo, MSNBC, and vast holdings in numerous other business sectors
GE/NBC recently acquired many of the highest-profile media properties previously held by Vivendi.

Viacom
2003 revenues: $26.6 billion
Viacom holdings include: CBS and UPN networks, over 35 TV stations, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, BET, Paramount Pictures, Blockbuster Video, over 175 radio stations, Simon & Schuster, and vast billboard holdings

TimeWarner
2003 revenues: $39.6 billion
TimeWarner holdings include: Warner Bros, AOL, CNN, HBO, Time Warner Cable, Turner (TNT, TBS), Cartoon Network, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock Entertainment, Atlantic Recordings, Elektra/Sire, Rhino, Time-Life Books, DC Comics, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, People, and Netscape Communications

Walt Disney
2003 revenues: $28.4 billion
The Walt Disney Company holdings include: ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, A&E, History Channel, E!, Buena Vista, Touchstone Pictures, 10 TV stations, 60+ radio stations, ESPN Radio, Miramax Films, Hyperion Books, & theme parks. (click a category for complete details)

2003 revenues: €25.5 billion (roughly $30.1 billion)
Vivendi Universal owns: CANAL+, Cineplex Odeon Theatres (42%), MCA Records, PolyGram Records, Vivendi Telecom, and 26.8 million shares of TimeWarner stock
Vivendi Universal recently sold its cable and movie properties (Universal Pictures, Sci-Fi Channel, and USA Network) to GE/NBC.

2003 revenues: €16.8 billion (roughly $19.8 billion)
Bertelsmann AG's holdings include: 11 TV networks, Random House Publishing (which includes Alfred A. Knopf, Ballantine, Doubleday, among many others), BMG Music, Arista Records and RCA Records
[/quote]
<hr>

Hypothetical: A miracle occurs, the libertarians gain control of congress and the white house. Half the country celebrates in their soon to be near-non-existant government and the free market they will all enjoy.
NewsCorp, GE, Viacom, TimeWarner, Walt Disney, Vivendi, Bertelsmann, McDonald's, Walmart, and all other corporations making billions of dollars a year in net profit, amazed at their successful ad campaigns in favor of Libertarian candidite, Bobby McGee, celebrate the new lack of government regulation by merging all their companies in to WeOwnTheWorld, Inc. Of course, they actually refer to themselves publically by some other, more friendly name in the media, of which they all own. All media begins to celebrate how wonderful the new giant corporation is.
Faced with no government regulation, the corporation cuts wages across the board, decreases safety proceedures, and uses their monopoly on mostly everything to destroy competition, becoming the only supplier of everything within 6 months. The news says how wages have gone up, the work place is safer than ever, and competition is stronger than it has ever been. As a result, the corporation can raise prices, and the people will understand.
A small "watchdog" group says that this is not the case: wages have dropped, safety is at an all-time low, and the monopoly has destroyed all competition. WeOwnTheWorld, Inc. doesn't air their claims, and kills the leaders of the watchdog group. The police investigate, and find an employee of the Corporation guilty. The Corporation doesn't air this on the news. No one cares. The world ends.

Extreme? Yes. Possible? Yes. Likely? Nope, but only because Libertarians will never get in to power, hopefully.