Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ENIGMA on iPhone - Now legally impossible  (Read 10198 times)
Offline (Male) retep998
Reply #30 Posted on: April 19, 2010, 10:29:20 AM

Member
Location: Where else?
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 248
MSN Messenger - retep998@charter.net AOL Instant Messenger - retep998 Yahoo Instant Messenger - retep998
View Profile Email
Exactly, there is no such thing as a monopoly unless created by the government.
Anyone who wants the government to put more regulations on big business, is an uninformed idiot who is contributing to the death of freedom.
http://capitalism.org/faq/monopolies.htm
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #31 Posted on: April 19, 2010, 11:01:03 AM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 877

View Profile Email
Not quite true. A monopoly can exist independent of government. Two examples are first-to-market, and a company that does its job so well that competition isn't needed, First-to-market is the case in which it's a monopoly only until a competitor figures out how to reproduce the product/service. The second example is practically impossible unless the product/service it's offering only effects a very small user base. A large user base would subject the company to the calculation problem (namely that it can't know all its customers needs, so it couldn't possibly make a product good enough to meet all of their needs that a competitor wouldn't beat them at one aspect). But assuming that such a situation does exist, there's nothing wrong with it. Competition doesn't exist because there's no need for competition - the company is doing its job that well.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) luiscubal
Reply #32 Posted on: April 19, 2010, 12:23:26 PM
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 452

View Profile Email
@IsmAvatar & retep998
Monopoly abuse is, however, harmful.
There must be limits. Freedom does not imply allowing companies to do what they want always.
Having freedom to prevent other people/companies from being free is a notable example of a limitation to freedom that doesn't kill it.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #33 Posted on: April 19, 2010, 03:07:32 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 877

View Profile Email
What is "Monopoly abuse"? One of the qualifying factors of a Free Market company that has become large or otherwise a monopoly is that it has a high reputation and reliability and "trustability" for doing a good job. That it has such a position is a demonstration that people trust it. If people had a hesitation about trusting the company, they might go with a competitor who has a higher reliability/trustability.

But supposing that a company does, for some odd reason, do a total and random flip-flop - the moment a large company does something not in the favor of its customers, it either A) loses its customers to a competitor, or B) becomes a government (such as any company that starts violating negative/property rights).

In the case of A, it was mostly the customer's wrong for trusting it in the first place. If I trust a tiger to not eat me, I'd hardly place the blame on the tiger for the outcome.

The only harm I'm seeing here is governmental harm and minor inconveniences for people who have trust issues. Besides, when you regulate the shit out of everything to make it safer, you're basically telling customers "Ok guys, you can be more forgiving with your trust now. Go ahead and trust everything, because we've made it safe." It's no surprise government spirals out of control and starts regulating every tiny aspect of our lives as a result.

If competition can't be trusted to solve problems, legal monopoly (e.g. government, regulations, etc) should be trusted even less.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 03:10:33 PM by IsmAvatar » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) luiscubal
Reply #34 Posted on: April 19, 2010, 04:39:03 PM
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 452

View Profile Email
I agree that if people were minimally smart, monopolies shouldn't be a problem in theory.
However, people do place tigers around and do expect the government to clean the problems(except for retep who thinks we should let the tiger kill the world population).
And people usually don't think too much about who they should trust in.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #35 Posted on: April 19, 2010, 05:03:39 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 877

View Profile Email
I actually haven't seen much of africa being killed off by tigers, because most people apparently aren't actually stupid enough to trust tigers.

I think if govt weren't around to make people stupid enough to trust anybody with a fancy suit and a slogan, we might actually have a population minimally smart enough to not worry about monopolies becoming a problem.

Besides, if we're fucked one way or the other, what do you care if we just let the companies run lose?
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) luiscubal
Reply #36 Posted on: April 20, 2010, 12:06:15 PM
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 452

View Profile Email
Without government, stupidity is much more dangerous and people will eventually be stupid even if only once.
It makes sense to try and reduce the effects of stupidity. Increasing stupidity is a sad, but perhaps necessary, side effect.

Maybe we're screwed one way or the other, but I'd still like to have some sort of escape pod.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #37 Posted on: April 20, 2010, 12:42:28 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 877

View Profile Email
Government has no incentive for an escape pod. At least with Free Markets, if things run amok (e.g. turn government), you can still run away to some uninhabited land, homestead it, and life free again. With government, every centimeter of earth is occupied by some government, so your "escape pod" is really just "out of the frying pan, into the fire".
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) luiscubal
Reply #38 Posted on: April 20, 2010, 01:39:09 PM
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 452

View Profile Email
So we're screwed up either way, and filled with stupid people who don't realize it, and corporations are able to reach every centimeter of earth(and water, and now apparently space) either way.
How exactly does monopoly help any of this?
Heck, if anything, it's an incentive to socialism, that is, "have the government permanently think on people and prevent things from going out of control".
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #39 Posted on: April 20, 2010, 01:59:00 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 877

View Profile Email
corporation != company/firm. Corporation means there's government involvement, hence why they're able to reach every cm of earth/water/space.

How is government controlling people (if that were even possible) an escape pod? Why do we care enough about what happens enough to implement socialism if we're fucked either way? Why not just leave it up to the people, let them think or not think for themselves. Heaven forbid one of them finally develop a brain and actually make progress in civilization. If we just control people, even that's not possible.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) luiscubal
Reply #40 Posted on: April 20, 2010, 03:58:48 PM
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 452

View Profile Email
Not control brains. Only limit companies.
People face legal restrictions. The same should apply to companies.

I don't think this kind of terms&conditions is essential for the iPhone to be a good product. In fact, I think it's an attempt to damage other brands, rather than improving their own. I hope that it backfires. I won't support Apple's decisions and I won't buy their products but, then again, I'm not an Apple customer nor an iPhone developer so they won't notice any difference.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #41 Posted on: April 20, 2010, 04:08:55 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 877

View Profile Email
You don't think legal restrictions is a way of controlling people's minds? What about the doctor who wants to practice, but can't get a license because his approach is too radical/progressive? What about the guy who wants to make an escape pod but can't because it doesn't pass emissions inspections? What about the poor baker who just wants to make food for people but can't afford it because a) he's being taxed out the wazoo to fund regulation politicians, and b) money's not worth a dime because it's been hyperinflated to senselessness (e.g. Zimbabwe)?

Besides, regulations and "legal restrictions" can naturally occur in a Free Market. Ever heard of Underwriter Laboratories (UL)?
http://mises.org/daily/3440 "The Free Market: What keeps us safe" (a fairly short article)
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) luiscubal
Reply #42 Posted on: April 20, 2010, 04:38:14 PM
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 452

View Profile Email
The problem here is that this is a "silent problem". It your monitor explodes, you can tell everyone that HP sucks or something and they'll think twice before buying. EULA-style issues are quiet - nobody cares except a very small fraction of the population. I'm in that small fraction of the population, and I disagree with Apple's behavior.
As in any reasonable market, I have the right to claim my lack of support for Apple, which is what I'm doing, I also have the right to educate other people about Apple's actions - which is also what I'm trying to do.

I don't think Zimbabwe is a good economy. I actually think it sucks. But I think Zimbabwe's problems do not demonstrate that "Partially regulated markets" are bad. It shows that *their* market works badly.

Total freedom is a contradiction. If I have total freedom, then that includes the right to restrict other people's freedom. Therefore, there must be a some regulations. The "lowest common denominator", if you want. And that lowest common denominator must be defined in law.
Your doctor/escape pod/baker example do not prove regulations are bad, they just prove that badly implemented regulations are bad.

There are a few things I oppose on free markets:
1. Monopoly abuse - exact meaning is left undefined
2. Private Cartels - which, in my opinion, are a flaw in the free market system
3. Lack of a common denomination in key areas such as safety. If the government was as competent as UL labs, then why not have mandatory "UL labs-like" certification for products?

Balance in governments is hard - yet necessary - to find. Sure, too many regulations can be bad but too few regulations can be as disastrous.

What about the poor baker who wants to make food for the people but can't afford it because a) he lost an arm after a disease that could have been prevented if some products were minimally safe, and b) cartels prevent him/her from entering the market by putting him/her in a situation of disadvantage(through price inflation/deflation, etc.) so he/she won't threat their monopolies?
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #43 Posted on: April 20, 2010, 04:57:48 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 877

View Profile Email
Quote
Total freedom is a contradiction. If I have total freedom, then that includes the right to restrict other people's freedom.
I guess you've never heard of libertarianism, or the non-aggression axiom, or Property Rights Theory, or Negative Rights. You have the freedom to do whatever you want with your own stuff. That's total freedom. When we introduce a second party - another person, you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't violate their rights, and vice versa. This is called property rights, non-aggression, and negative rights. If I want to bake a poisoned apple pie, that's my right. If someone wants to buy my poisoned apple pie, that's their right. If I poison a pie and don't inform the customer, then I have a free market lawsuit on my hands (handled by private courts).

At any rate, if you're opposed to monopoly abuse, the last thing I'd expect you to support is a state intervention. The state is the biggest monopoly and the biggest monopoly abuser. They are also the ones who keep setting up monopolies where none would exist. They have absolutely no incentive to act otherwise. They have every incentive to keep abusing that power. Especially when people are idiots, so they decide they need to regulate our own behaviors and our own minds because we can't take care of ourselves.
Private Cartels are the same story as monopolies. They usually form because of government regulations preventing competitors from entering into the market. Take for instance medicine. There is a quote "private cartel" in the medical industry - both in drug companies (subsidization, intellectual property, and FDA regulations) and in medical practice (Doctor Licenses, Certification, Entrance Exams) which keep prices high and competition low.

Quote
If the government was as competent as UL labs, then why not have mandatory "UL labs-like" certification for products?
What incentive does the government have to be as competent as UL labs? Even in the auto industry, another great example. There's government regulations and tests on car safety, but even the redistributors don't trust those regulations, and go with a private regulator (I can't recall its name off the top of my head).

Quote
cartels prevent him/her from entering the market by putting him/her in a situation of disadvantage(through price inflation/deflation, etc.)
Inflation/deflation is a government invention from Fiat currency. In a free market, money would also be printed by private banks or such, and would almost exclusively be backed (meaning you can trade it in for a specific item - e.g. gold/silver). And if you don't trust bank money, you can just use the gold/silver directly, or barter. Your example is another example of government intervention and regulation causing a "market failure".

Quote
I don't think Zimbabwe is a good economy. I actually think it sucks. But I think Zimbabwe's problems do not demonstrate that "Partially regulated markets" are bad. It shows that *their* market works badly.
News report, Zimbabwe was doing fantastic market-wise until Mugabe took over. He put all kinds of market regulations in place, and the economy tanked. Now that he's sharing control with Tsvangirai, and they've been working to cut back on all that regulation, the market is starting to pick up again. You'd be hard pressed to say that that's a market working badly and regulation had nothing to do with the badness of it.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2010, 04:59:53 PM by IsmAvatar » Logged
Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #44 Posted on: April 20, 2010, 06:10:34 PM

Prince of all Goldfish
Developer
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2949

View Profile Email
I Don't see how a private court would work. The two would have to consent to one, or it wouldn't be fair. You'd need a city court or something.
The entire operative mechanism behind civilized government is surrendering the right to enforce your own rights (actively; you retain the right to  self-defense) to the government, who will then use that authority to protect your rights for you. A private court seems more spontaneous; the poison-pie -baker and -eater would each want a court composed of different people. Who would decide that? You can't leave such to the capitalist (and for that matter, federalist) idea of "ambition to defeat ambition;" that system tends to work mostly on the larger scale.

Just my two cents; I would care to hear an explanation.
Logged
"That is the single most cryptic piece of code I have ever seen." -Master PobbleWobble
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »
  Print