-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ye Olde Libertarian Pub
- Thread starter Sojourner1
- Start date
- Status
callmeMurph
BGTF
What does everyone think about the Cato Institute and the Mises Institute? Both good? Like one better than the other? Are there any others you like?
Upvote
0
MacFall
Agorist
- Nov 24, 2007
- 12,726
- 1,170
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I like the Mises Institute much better, as they are far more consistent in their libertarian stance. Not that Cato is completely worthless, but others I support are the Foundation for Economic Education, the Molinari Institute (founded and operated by Roderick Long, a Mises Institute fellow), and (despite its Mutualist leanings) the Center for a Stateless Society.
Upvote
0
callmeMurph
BGTF
How would the free market deal with things like dumping and tariffs on our goods?
Upvote
0
Izdaari Eristikon
Well-Known Member
- Mar 12, 2007
- 6,174
- 448
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Episcopalian
- Marital Status
- Married
I like them both, with a preference for Cato, since I'm more of a pragmatic, utilitarian libertarian (and Libertarian, i.e, LP member).
Upvote
0
- Nov 22, 2002
- 19,570
- 4,622
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
If he runs again, he needs to explain himself better. Most of us that agree with him in general understand where he's going with his statements, but those outside the libertarian train of thought seem to think he's a wacko extremist because (I think) they don't understand what he's getting at.
Upvote
0
MacFall
Agorist
- Nov 24, 2007
- 12,726
- 1,170
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I don't know how he could say it better, to some extent. I think that people often don't understand him because they won't; because they reject the premises of libertarian thought. Things like individualism, for starters. Take the war issue for example. To the average right-wing Republican, we're the good guys because we're America, and they're the bad guys because they're not. There is no separating the Iraqi civilians who get blown up at weddings from the minority of Islamists with murderous intent. It's all about "we" versus "they".
And that's one reason (the pragmatic one) why I'm so staunchly anti-political. The disagreements are so fundamental, the ideas so radical (in its literal term, meaning "at the root") in their differences, that there's no way they can be addressed in 1-minute soundbytes in political debates. And to some extent, I believe that taking the political premise in the first place undermines the libertarian position. Ron Paul can move the margin a bit as an educator, but as a politician, he is prevented from striking the ideological root. But the root is where the political memes that shape our society lie, and it is there that they must be addressed.
And that's one reason (the pragmatic one) why I'm so staunchly anti-political. The disagreements are so fundamental, the ideas so radical (in its literal term, meaning "at the root") in their differences, that there's no way they can be addressed in 1-minute soundbytes in political debates. And to some extent, I believe that taking the political premise in the first place undermines the libertarian position. Ron Paul can move the margin a bit as an educator, but as a politician, he is prevented from striking the ideological root. But the root is where the political memes that shape our society lie, and it is there that they must be addressed.
Upvote
0
- Nov 22, 2002
- 19,570
- 4,622
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I think there is a lot of truth in what you say, but I did hear complaints from people that they thought he was a wacko and it seemed like most of those people just didn't understand him. Perhaps with more interviews and a more thorough presence would help with that.
When I went to the Republican caucus, the people in my group were not opposed to him (few of us though there were), but they preferred other candidates who were better known.
When I went to the Republican caucus, the people in my group were not opposed to him (few of us though there were), but they preferred other candidates who were better known.
Upvote
0
NatalieJF
Newbie
I'm positive he will run again. I'd put money on it.
Also, he is 72 but he is in excellent shape. Both of his parents lived into their nineties.
I do not understand why some people think he is "whacko." There is nothing bizarre about any of his policies. He is a Constitutionalist and a modern day founding father. To say he is whacko is to say you don't believe in the Constitution. I think he talks over a lot of people's heads and they get confused because they don't understand what he is talking about. Most people do not understand the problems caused by the Federal Reserve and problems with our monetary policy. Sadly, when he talks about these issues he sounds like a rambling madman to the average voter, when really he is the only one that makes any sense.
Upvote
0
MacFall
Agorist
- Nov 24, 2007
- 12,726
- 1,170
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
PS - Paul is now the head of the subcommittee on domestic monetary policy. It makes me no less cynical about political activism, but this should still be a lot of fun to watch. I'm making popcorn.
Upvote
0
MacFall
Agorist
- Nov 24, 2007
- 12,726
- 1,170
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Against, for the reason that it contradicts physical property rights. If someone has the just power to control your physical property to prevent you from expressing an idea that they had first (which includes making copies of non-physical things like data), then you don't own your property - they do. However, I also think it's very rude not to compensate people when you enjoy something they created. So I think of it as a moral issue that doesn't extend into legal ethics.
Upvote
0
callmeMurph
BGTF
I feel like I agree, but I have a hard time with it. As a software engineer how would I make money if someone could just copy my software? Is this the same thing? If so, any ideas how I can still make a living from my skills?
Upvote
0
MacFall
Agorist
- Nov 24, 2007
- 12,726
- 1,170
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Well as an author and musician who is using a free distribution model of publishing myself, yeah I do have some ideas.
1. Ask for money up front.
2. Ask for voluntary contributions.
3. Provide extra service (support, for instance) to people who pay.
4. Capitalize on the advantages of free distribution. File sharing is free advertising to people who know how to use it.
5. Make it difficult to copy.
The differences between all of those methods and restrictive copyright models of distribution are primarily that they require you to have a relationship with your customers to a level at which they will willingly compensate you for your work (keeping in mind that it is not only existing product for which they are paying, but the possibility of future product as well); and that it becomes your responsibility to ensure that you are compensated, rather than socializing that cost through government enforcement.
I'm not sure if the sort of work you do is comparable, but have you ever heard of the humble bundle? It was a package of five games released to the public at whatever cost they were willing to pay - as little as one cent. But the average payment, last time I checked, was about eight dollars - and the companies who released the games made, individually, more than twice what they had made from standard, fixed-price sales. The total amount raised is in the millions of dollars.
If people like what you do, they will give you compensation if you're willing to ask for it. If you charge a single rate, then those who think that rate is too high aren't going to pay you anyway - but they will probably still use your product because, like it or not, file sharing is here to stay. Last but not least, you can always call people out for being jerks if they take without giving. I think that in the absence of state-enforced copyright, communities would naturally develop means of ostracizing those who violate their standards of the fair use of creative works. People resent being told what to do under the threat of force, so resisting copyright law (which is acknowledged to be absurd, even by IP advocates) has become a badge of honor in the tech community. If compensating creators were a matter of choice and courtesy, things would be different.
1. Ask for money up front.
2. Ask for voluntary contributions.
3. Provide extra service (support, for instance) to people who pay.
4. Capitalize on the advantages of free distribution. File sharing is free advertising to people who know how to use it.
5. Make it difficult to copy.
The differences between all of those methods and restrictive copyright models of distribution are primarily that they require you to have a relationship with your customers to a level at which they will willingly compensate you for your work (keeping in mind that it is not only existing product for which they are paying, but the possibility of future product as well); and that it becomes your responsibility to ensure that you are compensated, rather than socializing that cost through government enforcement.
I'm not sure if the sort of work you do is comparable, but have you ever heard of the humble bundle? It was a package of five games released to the public at whatever cost they were willing to pay - as little as one cent. But the average payment, last time I checked, was about eight dollars - and the companies who released the games made, individually, more than twice what they had made from standard, fixed-price sales. The total amount raised is in the millions of dollars.
If people like what you do, they will give you compensation if you're willing to ask for it. If you charge a single rate, then those who think that rate is too high aren't going to pay you anyway - but they will probably still use your product because, like it or not, file sharing is here to stay. Last but not least, you can always call people out for being jerks if they take without giving. I think that in the absence of state-enforced copyright, communities would naturally develop means of ostracizing those who violate their standards of the fair use of creative works. People resent being told what to do under the threat of force, so resisting copyright law (which is acknowledged to be absurd, even by IP advocates) has become a badge of honor in the tech community. If compensating creators were a matter of choice and courtesy, things would be different.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
MacFall
Agorist
- Nov 24, 2007
- 12,726
- 1,170
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
By the way, there is an essay written by libertarian patent attorney Stephen Kinsella. (He deals with defensive patents, which protect inventors from having other companies patent their inventions and prevent them from being able to capitalize on their own work, but would prefer that there be no patent system at all.) It's called Against Intellectual Property, and you can get it in audio format here. There are seven mp3 tracks, in order from bottom to top by chapter. The whole thing is about two hours long altogether.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
