shipbuilder

But why should a best selling writer be an indicator of the success of Amazon's business? They are letting the customer decide - what gives them the right or ability to decide to crush the efforts of one writer so that 'approved' limited number of others can do well? Perhaps the central moral question should be - should the production of art be restricted so that a limited number of artists can make a living from their work? Of course this is independent from the technical question - does making all art available dilute the earning potential of 'quality' artists? People are choosing freely to upload their work to Amazon - so perhaps they should judge for themselves (and let the customer judge) whether it is worth their while?

No, Amazon is nothing more than a shop window, a facilitator, a middleman - entirely neutral in the whole process, which is their entire point, hence customer reviews. There is no 'model' other than one where you sell someone else's product - hardly radical. This is like saying that your local bookshop is a parasite, feeding off the efforts of others - ridiculous. Essentially you seem to prefer a form of protectionism in the market, but bizarrely protection from those who you consider to have inferior work. What qualifies you to be part of the 'true artist' inner circle that should be protected from the market and carve up sales of art or books, enabling you to have a bigger slice of the pie?

There's no nice way of saying this and i could well be wrong, but what you're posting makes you sound like a snob. You seem to have two views - the first is that 'hobbyists' have the temerity to call themselves artists or writers and dare to sell their work online - perhaps they haven't been to art college, or 'paid their dues'? The second seems to be that the public simply don't have the taste or the ability to recognise true quality and so, presumably superior, 'gatekeepers' need to filter out the dross for them. Happily you currently sit on the 'approved' side, with galleries selling your work - presumably the mark of quality that marks you out from the hobbyists - but what if your work just didn't 'fit'? Does this ever happen? Perhaps the consumer is in the best position to act as gatekeeper and decide what they like and what they wish to buy? Just maybe they aren't fooled by 'celebrity'? If the 'hobbyists' aren't selling much, they'll disappear, so what's the problem? This sounds like the ongoing horror with which the art establishment view painters like Jack Vettriano, to name the most famous example, because he is popular despite the disdain of the 'tastemakers'. Speaking for myself, I'm quite capable of deciding what I wish to spend my money on and I can make a decision in a second whether something appeals to me or not, so I don't have a problem with 'noise'. In addition, there are people everywhere on the web willing to preview work for me and again, I am quite capable of deciding who's opinion is worth listening to. However concerning your point about spending time marketing - I'm not familiar with the system by which you now sell your work - how much time did you spend on marketing/selling yourself when establishing your reputation and how does it work? Do you approach galleries or have they just stumbled across you? Is the process really that different from promoting yourself on the web?

I wouldn't take a different view because this situation is exactly the same as many skilled crafts and professions such as plumbing and so on - they get round the problem by forming guilds and so on, but actually they get business via good old word of mouth and reputation for quality - which the internet has facilitated greatly. So it is always quality that stands out, in the end. In your example, if accountancy was deregulated, qualified accountants would simply form their own guild or institute (in fact they already have) which would be an indication of a certain standard. As I said, the internet may mean that there are more 'producers', but now there are also more gatekeepers. To be honest it seems like your main problem is that you don't like being subject to competition. What would be your own solution to the problem that you face? Do you think that the gatekeepers that previously operated in the art world did a good job? What were their qualifications, their authority to determine quality? I'm also not sure why you're treating this as a debate about who is right or wrong. You are an artist and I am a consumer of art and I'm telling you, from my own experience and the experience of others, that your 'problem' is not actually a problem at all - what i consider to be quality continues to be easy to find.. So why are you so reluctant to believe me?

£40K? What do you think needs done?

To be honest I think I answered most of this in my first post - you will find the new author because someone else has read him, reviewed him and linked him to other authors they like and you may like, whether that be on Amazon, Wikipedia, a blog or many other ways. This is routinely how I find new music these days and I have discovered many relatively obscure artists who would never have come to my attention otherwise. It doesn't actually matter who the reviewers are - if there are enough, I can see what they've written, compare the reviews to others, see what the consensus is - there are even sites that will do this for me, for whatever genre I am interested in. There are also likely reviewers or sites whose opinions I now trust, because they share a similar taste to me or have made good calls in the past. I find this a very easy and pleasurable way to find stuff I know I will like, but also to discover a wealth of new artists and even educate myself in the process. Like I said, this is very much like how things happened before, but now I have access to many reviews and not just the NME, Q and my mate. Most importantly I can preview the product instantly to make my final decision. I don't think you're giving much credit to the consumer, to be fair - if I'm anything like the average art consumer then the range of artists that I have been exposed to by the internet and whose work I have bought has increased a hundredfold. I can see why you feel the way you do, but to be honest, this isn't something to be debated from my position - I am telling you as a consumer that the internet is your best friend, unless you are already successful enough to see it as a dilution of your established position. The outcome of all this might be unfortunate for anyone who thinks that their art will make them a millionaire, however I think a much greater range of artists will benefit.

Why not? I've always found the idea that “Everybody does have a book in them, but in most cases that's where it should stay.” to be rather patronising. If what these people are producing is of value to people, they will have customers. As a consumer of art, I can say that in my experience the web makes it much easier to find what I like and in much greater volume - 'noise' doesn't really come into it because I know what I am looking for.

I think this is a bit pessimistic. Personally I have found the internet invaluable for discovering new art, mainly music but also other forms. The mechanisms are the same as pre-internet, but much more democratic and accessible (at least for music) - for instance if I like, say, ambient music, I can do a search, see what artists have been mentioned on various blogs that I trust the opinion of, preview their music and buy an album if I like it. Pre-internet, I would have been restricted to what a friend or music magazine might have recommended, or what I might hear on the radio. Now recommendations are still by word of mouth, if you like, but now there are many more mouths - I can pick who I trust and also preview before buying. I don't see why the selling of other types of art could not develop in this way - you say that there is noise, but I think you can rely on the consumer to know what they like and with the internet they can certainly find it, so what people consider to be quality will out. Surely what will make you stand out is the same as it always was - recommendations, people promoting your work - only now these people are online, but there are millions of them - and potentially doing it for free.

4 bed detached £165,000 http://www.propertynews.com/4c8p8 RV £205,000 In a nice area - I grew up around there. Actually looks like a good price, considering many 3 bed semis in good areas (including this one) are still around this price.

Could the main aim of this be to discourage those with the option i.e. the newly graduated middle classes, from going on benefits and keep them at home and funded by Mum and Dad? I loved this quote from a 'source' at the Department of Work and Pensions - "We don't want them waking up at lunchtime and playing computer games all day" . When it gets to the stage that the political classes and their supporters are blatantly taking the p*ss out of young people in the national press, how long before the young do something about it?

The consumerist need for constant growth and economic cycles are incompatible. When is this ever going to be acknowledged? When can we see the end of panic and 'surprise' (and therefore bailouts) when firms post falling profits in a recession?

Straw man. Pages have been spent here arguing about this already. Anarchism doesn't require any special behaviour and this has actually already been acknowledged on this thread. What has been argued is that aggression doesn't actually work. Actually most normal adults already know this, hence the billions of non-violent interactions that happen everyday as opposed to the miniscule amount of violence in comparison. I was under the impression that the discussion had moved on to how the violent minority might be dealt with. Clearly the state isn't a deterrent at the moment.

Like I said you can voluntarily be part of a hierarchy, like anyone who volunteers for a charity, for example. This is not the case with the state. Why did you bother with this post?

It would be a freer society - I guess it is down to what you value in life as to whether it would be better. Some people value freedom more than others.

I'd prefer a society where someone wasn't telling me how to live - however it isn't just this - its the state forcing me to use the services they offer, the state acting as a free security service for people who hold a bit of paper that says they 'own' large sections of the earth. I'm quite happy that I can accept the relatively huge responsibility that a stateless society would require and that I would survive and prosper in such a society, interacting with others as I do today. I don't think that the fear or the unwillingness to accept responsibility for themselves that others might have, or their sense of entitlement, gives them the right to force their way of life onto me. Maybe you can consider that to be my emotional response.

What do you think that the intention is?

This is all fine, but the state makes the situation worse. So the argument is not that these groups or human nature don't exist, but that getting rid of the state lessens their impact. I keep hearing this 'but humans aren't logical' angle - so what? Do you think because some people want to be ruled a particular way then they should be able to enforce that on others?

Not really. I'd just prefer it if people didn't try and enforce their views on others. What do you think?

You can voluntarily be part of a hierarchy. Like when you join a company. This will help with what a corporation is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

This is the case now in many places. The state hasn't solved it, quite the opposite in fact, it has given power to these people. How would you solve this problem as it currently exists? This is what the state does. The state is one group of people telling the rest how to live. So how is this problem solved? In essence, if you perceive that one group enforcing their views on everyone else is a problem, how do you go about solving that problem?

Indeed. I have plenty of ideas on how the state could work better, but the more I got back to basics in my thinking - land ownership, the relationship to labour, what free association means, the more it became clear that actually the state, with its vested interests that are an integral part of its existence and its 'one size fits all' approach, is the problem. To me, any statist approach is simply one group of people deciding what is best for everyone else.

Which is why overthrowing the state with force wouldn't work - I think others have already pointed this out Why? But you might as well say this to Cameron or Milliband - it's not how debates work, is it? People reading the arguments will decide who has made the better point and you or I have no way of knowing how many that is. But as I've pointed out to you before, this is not about my ideas about re-organising society - it's about letting people decide how to organise themselves.

Why not?

At no point have I said that there would or could be no hierarchy, if that's what people want. Which makes most of your post and your smug ad hominems a waste of time, sorry. The defining thing about a state is that it is not voluntary. Hierarchy has nothing to do with it - another straw man, although I'm not sure if it was intentional or you just still can't grasp the idea of voluntary organisation. I mean, thousands of them exist at the moment, in all sorts of forms, functioning perfectly well. Were you not aware of this? Oh and corporations only exist because of the state.

It's unusual to let people decide things for themselves? I don't have a problem with defending property or people, if that's what you mean. I have a problem when threats are used to make me accept a service. What's the point in presenting me with scenarios when i've already said that I don't have the answer?