6 ms·

The "regulated" market (as opposed to the free market) produces what will be consumed. IV is the symptom. The disease is the current implementation of patent l

The "regulated" market (as opposed to the free market) produces what will be consumed. IV is the symptom. The disease is the current implementation of patent law. I'm not claiming that they are guiltless. But they are filling a space created by the "regulated" market.

rayiner 14y ago
The "free market" is an oxymoron. You can't have markets without at least property rights, and property rights are a regulation that take away the most basic freedom of the human animal: the freedom to kill what it can and take what it can. Don't pretend that we are arguing about anything more than the merits of particular kinds of regulations. It's intellectually lazy.
- 1123581321 14y ago
  "Free Market" is a consistent term that refers to a set of laws that allow commerce to happen with as few restrictions as possible. I agree that some people forget that those basic laws, such as property rights, are required. However, those laws are so simple compared to the current state of commercial regulation that the free market is often called regulation-free as shorthand. That said, I personally do not think software patents have a place in either what is conventionally called a free market or in a well-regulated market.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It's not "shorthand" it's "intellectually dishonest." It's an attempt to hide the fact that what you're really asserting isn't that "regulation is bad" but rather "I think these particular regulations are bad, but I'm very much attached to these other regulations." It's a lazy attempt to get out of arguing against the merits of particular regulation through an appeal to the theoretical merits of an "unregulated market."
    - 1123581321 14y ago
      I think it's more like calling someone a good person even though everyone understands a good person has flaws, or calling someone a bad person even though they've done a few good things, if you like. Regardless of your personal feelings, when someone advocates a regulation-free environment, they mean one with those minimal market regulations. This is understood in any conventional( * ), practical discussion as well as most philosophical, legal and economic debates. If all parties understand this, and would prefer to use shorthand in order to quickly arrive at the heart of a particular matter, then I question whether it can be considered dishonest. * By conventional, I mean to exclude, for example, a discussion between two anarchists -- I mean a mainstream discussion taking place in Western civilization. Edit: I need to clarify that while this is all understood, it may be forgotten by someone in any particular moment. However, if reminded they will likely have no objection. This is what I meant when referring to people who forget in my earlier post.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
- frogpelt 14y ago
  You are probably right. If all governments in the world collapsed today markets WOULD still exist with or without regulation. BUT regulation would start to reappear almost as quickly as it disappeared. A healthy marketplace relies upon a foundation of some sort. There has to be trust between producers and consumers. Regulation is a framework to create that trust. I am certainly not against all regulation. I also feel that interference in the market does more to hurt than to help. Places in the world now where anarchy or something similar reigns do not have more of a free market than we do. My larger point is that patent law is part of the regulation in our market that is not being implemented effectively.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > My larger point is that patent law is part of the regulation in our market that is not being implemented effectively. I don't disagree with that at all. But that should be the argument: "this regulation is helping more than it is hurting" not "this regulation is bad because regulation is bad."
- pdonis 14y ago
  property rights are a regulation No, they aren't. They're a voluntary choice by the parties to reap the benefits of specialization and trade instead of trying to kill each other and take each other's stuff. People make that choice because they understand that they are much better off with specialization and trade; for one thing, we wouldn't be having this conversation in this medium if humans had never got beyond the "kill what I can and take what I can" stage. The regulations and legal niceties come later.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    In a democratic society, property rights are no more or less voluntary than any other regulation. Nobody asks you to consent to the property rights regime at birth nor can you opt out of that regime.
    - pdonis 14y ago
      Sure, you can opt out; just start not respecting other people's property rights. Yes, you'll probably end up in jail or dead, since our society treats such behavior as criminal, but that's just a consequence of your choice; it's not preventing you from making the choice. It's true that you don't consent to the regime at birth; but you do consent to it once you're an adult and making your own living, since that means you have chosen not to pursue the alternative I described above. Sure, the choice is a no-brainer (at least for almost everyone), but that doesn't mean it isn't a choice. If your point is that the property rights regime is the only one on offer, that's not true either; just move to, say, Somalia.
      - readymade 14y ago
        By that logic, no law is regulation.
        pdonis 14y ago
        I wasn't arguing that our current "property rights regime" doesn't count as regulation. I was only arguing that that regime is voluntary; you do have a choice to opt out. That choice may not be very attractive, but it's still a choice; choices don't always have to be between equally attractive options. In short: something can be a regulation and still be voluntary. Speeding laws are regulations, but lots of people choose to violate them.

rayiner 14y ago

The "free market" is an oxymoron. You can't have markets without at least property rights, and property rights are a regulation that take away the most basic freedom of the human animal: the freedom to kill what it can and take what it can. Don't pretend that we are arguing about anything more than the merits of particular kinds of regulations. It's intellectually lazy.

1123581321 14y ago
"Free Market" is a consistent term that refers to a set of laws that allow commerce to happen with as few restrictions as possible. I agree that some people forget that those basic laws, such as property rights, are required. However, those laws are so simple compared to the current state of commercial regulation that the free market is often called regulation-free as shorthand. That said, I personally do not think software patents have a place in either what is conventionally called a free market or in a well-regulated market.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It's not "shorthand" it's "intellectually dishonest." It's an attempt to hide the fact that what you're really asserting isn't that "regulation is bad" but rather "I think these particular regulations are bad, but I'm very much attached to these other regulations." It's a lazy attempt to get out of arguing against the merits of particular regulation through an appeal to the theoretical merits of an "unregulated market."
  - 1123581321 14y ago
    I think it's more like calling someone a good person even though everyone understands a good person has flaws, or calling someone a bad person even though they've done a few good things, if you like. Regardless of your personal feelings, when someone advocates a regulation-free environment, they mean one with those minimal market regulations. This is understood in any conventional( * ), practical discussion as well as most philosophical, legal and economic debates. If all parties understand this, and would prefer to use shorthand in order to quickly arrive at the heart of a particular matter, then I question whether it can be considered dishonest. * By conventional, I mean to exclude, for example, a discussion between two anarchists -- I mean a mainstream discussion taking place in Western civilization. Edit: I need to clarify that while this is all understood, it may be forgotten by someone in any particular moment. However, if reminded they will likely have no objection. This is what I meant when referring to people who forget in my earlier post.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
frogpelt 14y ago
You are probably right. If all governments in the world collapsed today markets WOULD still exist with or without regulation. BUT regulation would start to reappear almost as quickly as it disappeared. A healthy marketplace relies upon a foundation of some sort. There has to be trust between producers and consumers. Regulation is a framework to create that trust. I am certainly not against all regulation. I also feel that interference in the market does more to hurt than to help. Places in the world now where anarchy or something similar reigns do not have more of a free market than we do. My larger point is that patent law is part of the regulation in our market that is not being implemented effectively.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > My larger point is that patent law is part of the regulation in our market that is not being implemented effectively. I don't disagree with that at all. But that should be the argument: "this regulation is helping more than it is hurting" not "this regulation is bad because regulation is bad."
pdonis 14y ago
property rights are a regulation No, they aren't. They're a voluntary choice by the parties to reap the benefits of specialization and trade instead of trying to kill each other and take each other's stuff. People make that choice because they understand that they are much better off with specialization and trade; for one thing, we wouldn't be having this conversation in this medium if humans had never got beyond the "kill what I can and take what I can" stage. The regulations and legal niceties come later.
- rayiner 14y ago
  In a democratic society, property rights are no more or less voluntary than any other regulation. Nobody asks you to consent to the property rights regime at birth nor can you opt out of that regime.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    Sure, you can opt out; just start not respecting other people's property rights. Yes, you'll probably end up in jail or dead, since our society treats such behavior as criminal, but that's just a consequence of your choice; it's not preventing you from making the choice. It's true that you don't consent to the regime at birth; but you do consent to it once you're an adult and making your own living, since that means you have chosen not to pursue the alternative I described above. Sure, the choice is a no-brainer (at least for almost everyone), but that doesn't mean it isn't a choice. If your point is that the property rights regime is the only one on offer, that's not true either; just move to, say, Somalia.
    - readymade 14y ago
      By that logic, no law is regulation.
      - pdonis 14y ago
        I wasn't arguing that our current "property rights regime" doesn't count as regulation. I was only arguing that that regime is voluntary; you do have a choice to opt out. That choice may not be very attractive, but it's still a choice; choices don't always have to be between equally attractive options. In short: something can be a regulation and still be voluntary. Speeding laws are regulations, but lots of people choose to violate them.