reply to post by Rockpuck
Hell the internet is a very good example of mankinds tendencies and inherent duality.
Here we have a free market construct where you can by and sell just about anything,
but it is MORE communal then just about anything one could fathom. Its like sharing
one dirty magazine between six thousand blokes, in one stall, at the same time.
While it is also a place where one can create and prosper freely...
This board is a communal venture and it is also a construct of entrepreneurs, advertises, yet TOTALLY depends upon the efforts of a collection of
who create the financial value for FREE.
One could write and record a song and have the intellectual property itself stolen
over and over again. In the physical word this would be considered theft, the founding fathers certainly believed in intellectual property. However
how can we stop this wave
of intellectual thievery? The market place on the internet has created the supply and demand of these goods, yet the act of this redistribution is
also contrary to free marketeers core values of ownership, property and individual merit. I believe this
is a living example of Politics-
Then examine this idea, who could police and limit this theft in theory?
THE GOVERNMENT COULD
THE market would not, because it is impotent in unified objectivity.
The FED could effectively tyrannize the hell out of the internet, to limit the communal
nature inherent in it. This could slow the curtail some of the theft and would be in
conjunction with the founding principles of intellectual property. This would also
interfere with the free market ideas which create the actual marketplace and mechanism for this theft to occur. This over all concept would be in the
spirit of property rights and basis of law, yet it would attack and destroy the communal and free market freedom we have come to know.
It is at this point one can ask- are your principles with the founding principles?
Do you defend those who have worked to create content only to have it stolen away
like INCOME TAX is striped away without compunction? for a song represents work,
investment, time and money - just as valid as the TAX and what it represents, work, time, money...
the free market principles do not work as prescribed, there is no market to protect lawful owners because there is a market, one can chose to find
another source to commit the act. Both serve to maintain the free market and maintain the extreme communism. People enjoy the communal aspect so much,
they turn a blind eye to otherwise strongly principled concepts of capitalism, WORK and REWARD -
The mega corporation depends on the social construct, it milks society thru it.
Yet at the same time they depend on the Individualism to protect the very construct,
that allows the corporation to do as it pleases.
Tax em into submission
Protect them from being punished for their success
I think an honest man could see dualities like this all throughout politics -
One punches the face while the other protects the heart
then they switch off for a while...
the BP oil spill is a breathing example of this cluster $#@#
One protects the business aspect that just murdered the basic foundation of business.
Keep drilling to ensure people having jobs, even though that same process of drilling has effectively wiped out jobs.
I hear a faint
"Don't think about that conundrum folks, we must protect productivity, by endangering the source of that productivity further!!!"
This is a determination of priority where free market ideas are attacking actual free
market interests. Drill baby Drill, but do not consider that the act could put the final
nail in the gulfs coffin, which has been a bastion, exemplifying the hard working get and go spirit many respect.
Further disaster could also serve as a platform for MORE government intervention
and welfare as a matter of necessity.
Yet without some larger FORCE, BP could just sail away and file legal extensions for decades, which would appear proper, in-accordance with
The Left has brought about a healthcare initiative which is said to ENSURE healthcare
for the poor, by taking more of their money. Dash the crocked corporation, by mandating the corporation?
Same things, advocate one thing in theory, but completely undermine the inherent
principle in the next breath.
However the internet embodies it all if you look hard enough, if you willing to take a hard look.
[edit on 24-6-2010 by Janky Red]
[edit on 24-6-2010 by Janky Red]