5 ms·

The big tech companies are not private; they are public companies that rely on state force to maintain their monopolies. Just as an example, intellectual proper

The big tech companies are not private; they are public companies that rely on state force to maintain their monopolies. Just as an example, intellectual property laws rely on the state for enforcement.

ericmay 3y ago
Idk. I like having property rights and so naturally that will extend to others and their homes and businesses else they won’t respect my property rights. Leveling such a broad criticism against “big tech companies” isn’t helpful, especially when you personally (along with every American) is categorically guilty of the same.
- yterdy 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kenjackson 3y ago
    Didn’t you get to live there? Thats what you paid for I presume? I’ve spent a lot of money at fast food over the years, but no one has given me a franchise.
    - yterdy 3y ago
      Likewise, a society forced to spend 2x or more the cost of a home-cooked meal on fast food is not going to be a healthy one. From a broad economic perspective, rentals that cost so much more than purchases (which are inaccessible in part because so many are only on the market as rentals) aren't sustainable. >Thats what you paid for I presume? I presume I paid for shelter, but also someone's luxury car or home renovation.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    You are (or were) renting your apartment, you never owned it. Those property rights are held by your landlord or otherwise whoever owns that apartment, you were just a tenant. If you want to hold and exercise property rights, you need to own property. Renting a property does not mean you own it. It's as simple as that.
    - yterdy 3y ago
      >The mindless appeal to "property rights" seems to absolve you of the responsibility to consider these complexities, I guess. My argument relies on acknowledging what you've said as the current, horribly dysfunctional reality. You don't need to state it plainly. What happens to a society when a large subset of the population is forced to subsidize a 100% profit margin on the most expensive basic good most will ever put money towards, and it doesn't even buy them stability or predictability in access to that good? I guess we're going to find out.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    If we had the kind of legal system you want (where arguments like the one you just gave sometimes prevailed in court) nothing would ever get done because arguments about who owns what and who owes who (and how much) would abound and go on forever.
    - yterdy 3y ago
      No need to throw out the legal system, just change the law. Currently, failure to adhere to norms can lock you out of the market entirely (thanks to companies like SafeRent). If the spectrum is homelessness -> rental -> homeownership, then the opposite should be true: successful and proactive stewardship of a property should entitle you to it, regardless of the current owner's claim (but especially in the case of practical absenteeism). Note that half of this country was settled this way. The alternative that is the current status quo is real estate corporations in New York and Delaware disrupting community fabric 200, 500, 1000 miles away in the name of quarterly profits. Legality is not the measure of morality.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    > yterdy 1 hour ago | parent | next [–] "Property rights" are laughable, especially in America. Stolen or conned resources abound, and all that matters is that someone from the state recognizes your ownership over someone else's (however crooked that circumstance may have come about or been perpetuated). All humans in the world live, have lived, or will live under the exact same circumstances. It’s a good sounding clip but it’s meaningless, rooted in cynicism, and less than useless since it detracts from the ability to make progress.
    - yterdy 3y ago
      I'm interested in how you might respond if asked to do so in something other than meaningless platitudes.
      - ericmay 3y ago
        You offered surface level commentary that was immature and naive. If I can effectively rebut that commentary with a meaningless platitude you should examine your initial commentary and understand why it was unpersuasive (and not very interesting).
        yterdy 3y ago
        >If I can effectively rebut that commentary with a meaningless platitude Therein lies the rub: you can't. Or, at least, didn't. Each of your statements is falsifiable, particularly the last, which is a confession masquerading as an accusation. There are few worse ways to "make progress" than to dismiss criticism of the status quo out-of-hand.
- injeolmi_love 3y ago
  There’s limits to property rights even among the most extreme voluntaryist political philosophers. Rothbard, a famous anarchocapitalist, wrote extensively about why property rights don’t extend to slaveowners. Unlike private households and businesses, public companies only exist due to licenses from the state. These include limitation on liability, protection for many types of property, and much, much more. The protections even extend to securities regulations; since public companies aren’t privately owned, there is a misalignment between incentives of owners and managers. The state sides with the owners by using force on managers to prevent them from acting in their own self interest, and instead to act on behalf of the shareholder public. The NAP cannot extend to public companies as they are not privately owned and can only exist when granted rights by the state. A lot of work has been done by libertarians on the topic of how monopolies are formed; it’s not due to private markets.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    I don’t think I argued that there weren’t limits to property rights. Did I? > Unlike private households and businesses, public companies only exist due to licenses from the state. There are a few problems with this. To start, private business and private households also exist due to licensure from the state. The distinction between public and private is a matter of technicality, not categorical difference. The monopoly that the state holds on the initiation of violence applies categorically to your ability to purchase a home and pay taxes, and it applies to large tech companies. The second problem is that public businesses were as a matter of fact private before they were public. So instead of offering shares to the public on government regulated, public markets that anyone can participate in, they could just be private instead.
    - injeolmi_love 3y ago
      Humans can be born without a license, and frequently are. Same with private businesses. Public companies cannot exist without a license. Just because birth, household formation, and private business are heavily regulated in some times and places does not mean they always are. We humans were all stateless tribes once, and some of us still are. Regarding your second issue, we’re in agreement. Yes it’s true under capitalism that with the heavy regulation of private individuals and firms, everything becomes the public sphere. Your house becomes a public place where your actions are subject to judgement.
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
Bigtech is not the main threat. They are the new kids on the block. There is no shortage of privately held data brokers that will provide data to intelligence services. They've been doing it since before the Internet existed.

ericmay 3y ago

Idk. I like having property rights and so naturally that will extend to others and their homes and businesses else they won’t respect my property rights. Leveling such a broad criticism against “big tech companies” isn’t helpful, especially when you personally (along with every American) is categorically guilty of the same.

yterdy 3y ago
[flagged]
- kenjackson 3y ago
  Didn’t you get to live there? Thats what you paid for I presume? I’ve spent a lot of money at fast food over the years, but no one has given me a franchise.
  - yterdy 3y ago
    Likewise, a society forced to spend 2x or more the cost of a home-cooked meal on fast food is not going to be a healthy one. From a broad economic perspective, rentals that cost so much more than purchases (which are inaccessible in part because so many are only on the market as rentals) aren't sustainable. >Thats what you paid for I presume? I presume I paid for shelter, but also someone's luxury car or home renovation.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  You are (or were) renting your apartment, you never owned it. Those property rights are held by your landlord or otherwise whoever owns that apartment, you were just a tenant. If you want to hold and exercise property rights, you need to own property. Renting a property does not mean you own it. It's as simple as that.
  - yterdy 3y ago
    >The mindless appeal to "property rights" seems to absolve you of the responsibility to consider these complexities, I guess. My argument relies on acknowledging what you've said as the current, horribly dysfunctional reality. You don't need to state it plainly. What happens to a society when a large subset of the population is forced to subsidize a 100% profit margin on the most expensive basic good most will ever put money towards, and it doesn't even buy them stability or predictability in access to that good? I guess we're going to find out.
- hollerith 3y ago
  If we had the kind of legal system you want (where arguments like the one you just gave sometimes prevailed in court) nothing would ever get done because arguments about who owns what and who owes who (and how much) would abound and go on forever.
  - yterdy 3y ago
    No need to throw out the legal system, just change the law. Currently, failure to adhere to norms can lock you out of the market entirely (thanks to companies like SafeRent). If the spectrum is homelessness -> rental -> homeownership, then the opposite should be true: successful and proactive stewardship of a property should entitle you to it, regardless of the current owner's claim (but especially in the case of practical absenteeism). Note that half of this country was settled this way. The alternative that is the current status quo is real estate corporations in New York and Delaware disrupting community fabric 200, 500, 1000 miles away in the name of quarterly profits. Legality is not the measure of morality.
- ericmay 3y ago
  > yterdy 1 hour ago | parent | next [–] "Property rights" are laughable, especially in America. Stolen or conned resources abound, and all that matters is that someone from the state recognizes your ownership over someone else's (however crooked that circumstance may have come about or been perpetuated). All humans in the world live, have lived, or will live under the exact same circumstances. It’s a good sounding clip but it’s meaningless, rooted in cynicism, and less than useless since it detracts from the ability to make progress.
  - yterdy 3y ago
    I'm interested in how you might respond if asked to do so in something other than meaningless platitudes.
    - ericmay 3y ago
      You offered surface level commentary that was immature and naive. If I can effectively rebut that commentary with a meaningless platitude you should examine your initial commentary and understand why it was unpersuasive (and not very interesting).
      - yterdy 3y ago
        >If I can effectively rebut that commentary with a meaningless platitude Therein lies the rub: you can't. Or, at least, didn't. Each of your statements is falsifiable, particularly the last, which is a confession masquerading as an accusation. There are few worse ways to "make progress" than to dismiss criticism of the status quo out-of-hand.
injeolmi_love 3y ago
There’s limits to property rights even among the most extreme voluntaryist political philosophers. Rothbard, a famous anarchocapitalist, wrote extensively about why property rights don’t extend to slaveowners. Unlike private households and businesses, public companies only exist due to licenses from the state. These include limitation on liability, protection for many types of property, and much, much more. The protections even extend to securities regulations; since public companies aren’t privately owned, there is a misalignment between incentives of owners and managers. The state sides with the owners by using force on managers to prevent them from acting in their own self interest, and instead to act on behalf of the shareholder public. The NAP cannot extend to public companies as they are not privately owned and can only exist when granted rights by the state. A lot of work has been done by libertarians on the topic of how monopolies are formed; it’s not due to private markets.
- ericmay 3y ago
  I don’t think I argued that there weren’t limits to property rights. Did I? > Unlike private households and businesses, public companies only exist due to licenses from the state. There are a few problems with this. To start, private business and private households also exist due to licensure from the state. The distinction between public and private is a matter of technicality, not categorical difference. The monopoly that the state holds on the initiation of violence applies categorically to your ability to purchase a home and pay taxes, and it applies to large tech companies. The second problem is that public businesses were as a matter of fact private before they were public. So instead of offering shares to the public on government regulated, public markets that anyone can participate in, they could just be private instead.
  - injeolmi_love 3y ago
    Humans can be born without a license, and frequently are. Same with private businesses. Public companies cannot exist without a license. Just because birth, household formation, and private business are heavily regulated in some times and places does not mean they always are. We humans were all stateless tribes once, and some of us still are. Regarding your second issue, we’re in agreement. Yes it’s true under capitalism that with the heavy regulation of private individuals and firms, everything becomes the public sphere. Your house becomes a public place where your actions are subject to judgement.

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago

Bigtech is not the main threat. They are the new kids on the block. There is no shortage of privately held data brokers that will provide data to intelligence services. They've been doing it since before the Internet existed.