Like others, this post of mine never came through, so probably was
dropped. My apologies if it comes through again later.
================================
>Chris Russo wrote,
>> No, unless the industry is of vital importance to protecting the
>> lives (and property rights) of the citizens of the country, like the
>> military.
>
>You've pointed to an important service of government. In addition to the
>military industry, what about the banking industry? If the government
>didn't "prop up" banks by providing police protection, gangs of thugs with
>machine guns could take over all the banks. (wait, maybe they already did
>that when I wasn't looking -- Bankster.com ?)
>I don't think that means banks don't deserve to exist. (They may not
>deserve to exist for other reasons, but not particularly because of
>government "propping up" their security.) The same argument applies to
>practically all industries at least to some degree. Without government
>"propping up" Microsoft, bands of well-armed thieves could have taken over
>all Bill's campuses long ago.
Protecting banks (and others) from gangs of thugs is a "property
right" issue, and explicitly falls within the argument that I wrote
above.
>Anyway, you're not going to keep government from propping up industries.
>The primary education industry (public education) would evaporate without
>propping up by government. In this case, I might agree that this
>particular industry does not deserve to exist.
>"Hey, teacher! Leave those kids alone!" --Pink Floyd
Generally, I take a minimalist, mostly-Libertarian view of what
should and shouldn't be propped up by our Government. Public
education, as you imply is arguable. :) It certainly could use a
good swift kick in the ass.
>And don't forget the prison industry. Does it deserve to exist? Probably
>not. But government doesn't need to prop up such a lucrative (and sick and
>wrong and ugly) industry. The privatization of US incarceration stands to
>enslave tens of millions instead of the one million it presently does.
>Investors are not difficult to find.
We could drastically reduce our prison population by removing the
laws we have against victimless crimes (prostitution, casual drug
use, etc.)
After that, once again, prison maintenance is fundamentally an issue
of property protection - so does fall under the job of the
government. Now, whether or not private industry can be allowed to
help out where it makes sense is a much deeper argument than I'm
prepared to have. I'd imagine that you'd need to have a lot of
oversight to prevent abuses. Whether or not the oversight costs more
than having the government maintaining the things outright would have
to be estimated or demonstrated.
>As for Gnutella,
Oh yeah, we're talking about Gnutella. :) I forgot all about those guys.
> I don't think the problem relates to the dearth of
>content, but rather with a lack of vision.
I never did say anything about the dearth of content. Actually, my
original statement merely expressed disdain for those building a
system designed to circumvent the rights of copyright holders.
Ironically, the system is failing because people are selfishly taking
from the system but not contributing to its resources.
It's always a damned shame when greediness of non-contributors
destroys a system designed to help a bunch of greedy non-contributors.
> Someone needs to present an
>outline of what the new economy will do to improve the human condition,
>not just how it will make money for infrastructure and content providers.
Well, if swapping Bittany Spears MP3's doesn't improve the human
condition, I just don't reckon I know what does.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT