[KLUG Advocacy] Re: "Big media" and the laws they pass that destroys everyone's freedom -- Libertarianism

[Bryan J. Smith]

Quoting "Robert G. Brown" <bob@acm.org>:
> Some people are not content to leave it at that. Some people beleive
> the proper role of governemnt is to break up this control a bit, keep
> things open, even a little. It doesn't have to be a perfectly (break
> out the laser surveying gear,boys!) level playing field, but keeping
> things open is the thrust behond a whole welter of legislation and 
> political movements in American history. 

The problem is that the best of intentions by the government is always clouded
by special interest.

What is special interest?  Basically people who have money to throw at politicians.

Now this is where people get confused.  I mean, they think "only the government
can protect the 'little guy' from the rich, right?"

Nope, it's a catch-22.  Whether it is the rich in capitalism or the rich in
socialism, the rich, regardless how the money moves around, still dictates what
goes on.

The "difference" between the two is that the rich aren't above the law, but
politicians are.  Which is why capitalism guarantees freedom and not socialism.

Neither is fair, but at least capitalism doesn't masquerade as trying to be
fair.  On a personal note, this is what enfuriates me about people who are
pro-socialism -- and why I find them clueless.  ;-P

> No, they're ALSO going to hurt their shareholders, because they do not
> have any long term plans to speak of, only short term return, and to a
> great extent, greed. I wish I could point the finger exclusely at guys
> who run these companies, but I can't. Most of the investment capital
> that drives these corporations comes from other sources. We need
> something a little depper than kicking many of the "top guys" around,
> we need an investing audience with more patience and staying power
> than we have now. 

Consumers need to be vigilant.  While there is the argument of "quality of life"
because of the media, it is still a "want."

Unfortunately, consumers have shown they still want the material, even though
prices have increased while reproduction costs have _actually_decreased_ with
the advent of CD, DVD and other, single, non-mechanical plastic mediums (when
compared to tape/cartridge).

> This is an area where some form of intervention in the public 
> interest would be appropirate. There are many precedents, with
> beneficial outcomes.

Again, the "problem" is that "special interest" takes over.

One only needs to revist the 


> Not bloody likely! :)

Harry Potter is the copyright of those who hold it.  If you don't agree to the
terms to view it, then don't.

You have _no_ right/entitlement to view outside those terms anymore than "Big
Media" has the right to install a chip in your house to guarantee you aren't.

_Think_ about it!

> Is this a trick question? :)

Neither.  The less _you_ choose, the less freedom you have.

I choose to not buy products from such companies.  _I_ choose.  They lose.

> Hell no!!

Not many PC's sold today feature Linux pre-installed.  But remember that Linux
is a community of people that "band together" to ensure software works on the
hardware that is available.

That's how and why socialism works well, when people _choose_ to help each other.

It utterly fails when the government _forces_ people to work together.  I'm in
no mood to see Microsoft _forced_ to release technical specs or government
agencies _forced_ to release GPL.

> It is interesting to note how rehtoric like "freedom" is thrown around
> by people who are really acolytes of folks such as Jamie mentions above.
> A traditional conservative notion is that government governs best when
> it governs least; in reality governing less may mean leaving the market
> open to the forces such men unleash. Thus was born the liberalism of
> the 19th century, and reform movements.

The Jeffersonian Republicans aka the Democrat-Republicans (because of their
later split) and today's modern day Libertarians.

> I belive liberalism's downfall was when it shifted, in many peoples
> eyes, to guaranteeing the outcome of things, er=rather than
> guarenteeing the availability of opportunities for as many as
> possible. It has yet to recover from that.

And it worsens everyday, despite the politicians who recognize the problem.  

Our founding fathers new this.  Not so much because they could predict the
future.  But because they knew of the history of previous republics and
democracies, like the Greeks.  Eventually the people voted in self-interest of
themselves.

Which is why many of us, even though we are registered NOP (no party affliation
-- at least that what they call it in Florida) absolutely _despise_ many
Democratic candidates.  The ones who cater to the unemployed, under-educated
and, most dispectably, illegal aliens -- who all leech off of public services.

Now they will argue in turn that the Republicans cater to "big business" and
their "special interest."  If you look at some of the biggest businesses and
industries, namely defense and lawyers, you will see the Democrats are some of
their biggest beneficiaries.  The #1 contributor to the Democratic party are
lawyers, and the #1 personal contributor (and most of the top 10) is from the
defense industry, often assumed to be a Republican stronghold.

Big business lobbies to all _regardless_ of party.  But I find the fact that the
#1 industry in American, trial law -- even less "productive" than the software
industry, is the #1 funder of the Democrat party.  Here in Florida, two
ambulence chasers ran for seats on Democrat tickets and where utterly destroyed
by Republicans -- and one wasn't an inbumbent either!

> Anyone who picked this one is in good company.

Yes.  The problem is that the DOJ trial became an outlet for competitors and
disgruntled partners, and _not_ the people.  Again, whether it's big government
or small government, the rich rule.

> Many of the Framers of the Constitution would agree that "A
> stage with more actors is a freer place" (Jefferson) 

Despite the "best of intentions," a big bueracracy is an incubator or special
interest for the rich far more than a a small one.  Again, the main issue is
that the rich still have to answer for crimes because they don't make the laws.
 You give the rich more of an avenue to exert their funds on those who do, and
can get away with creating them, then you have a problem.

Which is why federated socialism implodes on itself.

> "I can work my will according to my means, and my ability to convince
> others, in the stead of those who are lifted up high by privilege,
> or even by older accomplishments and writs of fate" (Tom Paine).
> Many of the legal tools of a free young republic were crafted to these
> ends. It is east to make a case for the notion that htese have been
> perverted in recent times.

Ack, they've been preverted forever.

As Bruce Parens said, "Karl Marx did not invent helping your neighbor."  The
problem is that Marx, Lenin and others tried to force people to on a federal
level.  The result is the perversion.

As I always say, "How many pro-affirmative action voters would give their own
money to the United Negro College Fund (UNCF)?"

Yet giving to the UNCF is an order of magnitude more helpful for African
Americans, who were under-privaledged not just because of slavery, but because
they were denied their right to equal education well after its abolishment. 
Hand outs do nothing, but people don't care if its not their money.

Education is the great equalizer, and its the only "social" institution that
actually pays dividens, even though privatiziation is far more efficient (which
is why Libertarians don't believe in it, but its the rare difference with them
where I do).

> It is up to the people to organize in order to prevent this, and roll it
> back into balance. The system only works if we work it.

The problem is that 50% of Americans work for government institutions.

It's ironic because while other people say "we should give socialism a chance
with all the problems we have with capitalism" and fire back "we already have
socialist and socialized industries where capitalism cannot work."

My favorite example, of course, is the healthcare industry.  You are penalized
if you don't get your insurance from your employer, so the majority do.  We
argue about HMOs, pre-existing conditions, etc...  These are all issues
_created_ by government forcing people to get their insurance from their
employer without penalties.

Even the movie JohnQ, who many people saw as a "poster child" for socialized
medicine, revolved around a man who saw his insurance changed by his employer
without his approval.

The _real_ moral?  When you remove the consumer from the equation, everyone loses.

> There's a bill in Congress about allowing copyright holders to assault
> online sites that they beleive are violating their IP rights.

Again, bigger government _not_ only does _not_ help the 'little guy,' but allows
the 'big guy' to do even _more_ harm than he can in the market!

Why oh why don't liberals get this?!?!?!

> I am talking to my Congressman (Fred Upton) about this TOMORROW.
> That's one way to work the system, there are many others.
> He's highly ranked on the House Committee on
> Tellecommunications, so buttonholing him will be doubly effective.

Watch your representatives.  Find out if they are actually "states[wo]men" or
just another "politician."

-- Bryan "still laught at the 'tax cuts for millionares' ads" Smith

-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.            Contact Info:  http://thebs.org
A+/i-Net+/Linux+/Network+/Server+ CCNA CIWA CNA SCSA/SCWSE/SCNA
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are two types of people:  people who fear guns and people
who respect guns.  The latter are not ones to commit violent
crimes, but the former seemingly thinks otherwise to be true.