Does Technology Destroy Jobs?

[shipbuilder]

An author will write a book if they are inspired. If it is rubbish, no-one will read it. If it is good, some people will read it. If it is very good, other people will want to read it. At that point the author can offer copies for sale. If some mean person copies one of the purchased copies and makes their own copies and offers them for sale bypassing the author completely, some people will buy those, but many people will prefer to get the author's copies. If the book is stupendous, the author will sell loads of copies. Lots of other people will sell unauthorised copies. Competition will drive down prices to just above the production cost of the media. The author can ask a premium for their "moral rights", which their supporters will pay. Millions of copies of the book will circulate, and the author will earn thousands of pounds. The practical problem with this scenario is... no-one is controlling anyone else's behavior.

This is what I should have said in my last post.

[Traktion]

the is theft/isnt theft arguement doesnt really matter. its as artificial as any other law.

the key question is does copyright encourage or hinder creativity.

are countries with stronger laws on copying/ ip protection more creative than ones that dont really enforce it?

You may as well have said, "ignore the fact that slaves are not free - do they increase the amount of cotton picked or not?"

The only way you can enforce copyright, is by threatening people with violence, just for the act of passing on information to another.

You are suggesting that threatening people is fine, as long is it means they are more productive. I think threatening people with violence is just wrong, voluntarism is always preferable and it is up to them how productive they want to be.

[Traktion]

Thanks for the sneer. I was suggesting how human needs, desires and habits were formed by our ancestral past, most of which was living close to nature in small communities. Never did I suggest the trite primitivism you instantly assumed. But it is pretty clear as humans we have not changed the basic way we operate inside at an instinctual, emotional, interpersonal level, in the past 2000 years - barely in the past 10,000 years.

New technology is a tool for ordinary people to extend their social networking, and to acquire and share information - a hi-tech equivalent of "gossip", "passing on news" and "culture". Or, for some people, it is an opportunity to control what others do, to restrict their actions, and to profit from that control. You could call these two types of people "ordinary free people", and "rent seeker control freaks".

An author will write a book if they are inspired. If it is rubbish, no-one will read it. If it is good, some people will read it. If it is very good, other people will want to read it. At that point the author can offer copies for sale. If some mean person copies one of the purchased copies and makes their own copies and offers them for sale bypassing the author completely, some people will buy those, but many people will prefer to get the author's copies. If the book is stupendous, the author will sell loads of copies. Lots of other people will sell unauthorised copies. Competition will drive down prices to just above the production cost of the media. The author can ask a premium for their "moral rights", which their supporters will pay. Millions of copies of the book will circulate, and the author will earn thousands of pounds. The practical problem with this scenario is... no-one is controlling anyone else's behavior.

Cracking post! Your last one was great too.

[wonderpup]

You want to use force to either stop people from telling someone something or to force them to tell someone something. I'm just arguing for using no force at all.

No I don't want to use force I simply want my property rights to be respected. If I create data I want the right to determine how that data is used and distributed.

You want to take the data I have laboured to create and use it without my permission.

Force only comes into the picture if people choose to abuse other people's rights. For example- you talk a lot about contracts and seem to place a lot of value on them- but your ability to enforce any contract is ultimately backstopped by the law which is itself backstopped by the police force.

If we were to take take your 'zero force' option to it's endpoint no contract of any sort would be enforceable.

As I said at the beginning of this discussion- when you start giving your work away for free and asking for donations instead from your clients or employers you might be in a position to advocate that everyone else does the same.

But while you hide behind your contracts- which are based on the threat of force- you are hardly in a position to advocate that other people give their work away for free.

The contracts you employ are just as much a manifestation of implied force as any copyright regulation.

The truth is that most of those who advocate that other people's data should be free to copy and use would not for one second consider applying this approach to their own work- they will ensure their work is paid for by demanding a written contract- a contract they can use to set the forces of the law on anyone who failed to pay for their work.

Hypocrites one and all.

[wonderpup]

You are suggesting that threatening people is fine, as long is it means they are more productive. I think threatening people with violence is just wrong,

No you don't- if that were true then you would forgo written contracts and give your work away for nothing, confident in the knowledge that those you do work for will pay you freely without the implied threat of that contract.

What you actually believe is that threatening people is an effective strategy to ensure you get paid- which is why you make them sign a contract.

All legal constructs are implied violence- if you break them a bunch of policemen will arrive to do you harm. So your use of the legal construct called a 'contract' is a threat of violence toward those who would not honour it's terms.

[Injin]

No I don't want to use force I simply want my property rights to be respected. If I create data I want the right to determine how that data is used and distributed.

And i want a pony.

You want to take the data I have laboured to create and use it without my permission.

It's built in to being human. We copy instinctively. You've just read this and made a copy in your head that will be there forever. You might not recall it easily without say hypnosis or drugs to help you, but it's there.

Force only comes into the picture if people choose to abuse other people's rights. For example- you talk a lot about contracts and seem to place a lot of value on them- but your ability to enforce any contract is ultimately backstopped by the law which is itself backstopped by the police force.

Doesn't have to be. Perfectly possible to have contracts with no force. Easy to do in fact.

If we were to take take your 'zero force' option to it's endpoint no contract of any sort would be enforceable.

Daft.

As I said at the beginning of this discussion- when you start giving your work away for free and asking for donations instead from your clients or employers you might be in a position to advocate that everyone else does the same.

But while you hide behind your contracts- which are based on the threat of force- you are hardly in a position to advocate that other people give their work away for free.

The contracts you employ are just as much a manifestation of implied force as any copyright regulation.

The truth is that most of those who advocate that other people's data should be free to copy and use would not for one second consider applying this approach to their own work- they will ensure their work is paid for by demanding a written contract- a contract they can use to set the forces of the law on anyone who failed to pay for their work.

Hypocrites one and all.

Wonderpup, I think you are not realyl understanding that the ability to copy other peoples stuff is now the default position. if you want to alter that, then you need to show how and why. You are basically saying you should have control over my nervous system at a very deep level without backing that up in any real way.

Also, you are now up to about 4 grand owing due to all the times you quoted me since I started charging you (based on your own argument.)

[Injin]

All legal constructs are implied violence- if you break them a bunch of policemen will arrive to do you harm.

Oh good. You now admit that taxes are extortion and the state is an agency of violence.

Took you long enough.

[Traktion]

No I don't want to use force I simply want my property rights to be respected. If I create data I want the right to determine how that data is used and distributed.

You want to take the data I have laboured to create and use it without my permission.

You have a right not to share your data. The alternative is to say that threats of violence are fine, to make someone speak.

You have no right to stop others copying your data. You still have your copy, so there is no theft. The alternative is using threats of violence to gag people, to restrict them sharing their memories.

The default position is to not use force. This means you can keep secrets, but you can't stop other people from sharing memories.

Force only comes into the picture if people choose to abuse other people's rights. For example- you talk a lot about contracts and seem to place a lot of value on them- but your ability to enforce any contract is ultimately backstopped by the law which is itself backstopped by the police force.

If we were to take take your 'zero force' option to it's endpoint no contract of any sort would be enforceable.

As I said at the beginning of this discussion- when you start giving your work away for free and asking for donations instead from your clients or employers you might be in a position to advocate that everyone else does the same.

But while you hide behind your contracts- which are based on the threat of force- you are hardly in a position to advocate that other people give their work away for free.

The contracts you employ are just as much a manifestation of implied force as any copyright regulation.

The truth is that most of those who advocate that other people's data should be free to copy and use would not for one second consider applying this approach to their own work- they will ensure their work is paid for by demanding a written contract- a contract they can use to set the forces of the law on anyone who failed to pay for their work.

Hypocrites one and all.

Contracts don't need force at all, but you know this already, as you have been told umpteen times already.

Me promising something to someone else forms an agreement. We have given one another our words. If one party breaks their word, you can refuse to do any more business with them. You can also tell everyone else that they break their word. They will find it harder to form contracts in the future, which has a negative impact on their welfare.

You could ask a free market arbiter to judge whether a contract has been broken, so your accusations not only have more weight, but also provide the accused with an escape route - they can pay damages to rescue some of their reputation and access to arbiters in future. They don't have to though... it is their choice and no violence is required.

Finally, the data creator has every right to deny others access to it, should they not wish to share it. You can't make someone tell you something, at least without threats of violence. As I oppose the use of violence in preference to voluntarism, it is not for you or I to dictate when or how the data creator shares their work.

[mfp123]

Contracts don't need force at all, but you know this already, as you have been told umpteen times already.

Me promising something to someone else forms an agreement. We have given one another our words. If one party breaks their word, you can refuse to do any more business with them. You can also tell everyone else that they break their word. They will find it harder to form contracts in the future, which has a negative impact on their welfare.

You could ask a free market arbiter to judge whether a contract has been broken, so your accusations not only have more weight, but also provide the accused with an escape route - they can pay damages to rescue some of their reputation and access to arbiters in future. They don't have to though... it is their choice and no violence is required.

all youre doing is describing a system. but its a terrible system, backwards and full of flaws.

even now people can spread the word if you break contracts/agreements, so its not like that is a new idea.

all youd get is lots of scammers operating more freely. yes its bad for them but i dont think they really care about their reputation.

Edited January 20, 2012 by mfp123

[Traktion]

all youre doing is describing a system. but its a terrible system, backwards and full of flaws.

even now people can spread the word if you break contracts/agreements, so its not like that is a new idea.

all youd get is lots of scammers operating more freely. yes its bad for them but i dont think they really care about their reputation.

It's a system which doesn't require institutional violence to resolve disputes.

It isn't what we have now either. Criminals get free houses and benefits, no matter who they steal from or violate. They also get food/water, clothing and shelter for their entire life, free of charge, even if they go around murdering people.

The law makes it illegal for people to do their own policing adequately and it helps convicted criminals, by giving them access to the courts.

Additionally, there are countless arbitrary and unjust laws. These weren't created by the common people, but for the common people.

When your very survival is tied to your reputation, the latter becomes very important indeed. This is completely unlike the current system, if you even gave it more than a moment's thought.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Traktion

[Riedquat]

The law makes it illegal for people to do their own policing adequately and it helps convicted criminals, by giving them access to the courts.

How do people do their own policing adequately without being able to resort to violence?

When your very survival is tied to your reputation, the latter becomes very important indeed. This is completely unlike the current system, if you even gave it more than a moment's thought.

If your reputation is in tatters you can always resort to violence for survival. To think that people won't is very naive.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Riedquat

[SHERWICK]

people, it is an opportunity to control what others do, to restrict their actions, and to profit from that control. You could call these two types of people "ordinary free people", and "rent seeker control freaks".

An author will write a book if they are inspired. If it is rubbish, no-one will read it. If it is good, some people will read it. If it is very good, other people will want to read it. At that point the author can offer copies for sale. If some mean person copies one of the purchased copies and makes their own copies and offers them for sale bypassing the author completely, some people will buy those, but many people will prefer to get the author's copies.

I'm interested why you characterise the person who does this as 'mean' ?

[SHERWICK]

all youre doing is describing a system. but its a terrible system, backwards and full of flaws.

Welcome to the wonderful, whacky world of the Ayn Rand loving libertarian objectivists!

[Traktion]

How do people do their own policing adequately without being able to resort to violence?

Self defence is rather different from institutionalised violence. It's the attacking which is the problem, not the use of force to defend yourself. The state routinely threatens to attack people, just for not doing as it asks.

If your reputation is in tatters you can always resort to violence for survival. To think that people won't is very naive.

If they do, you can defend yourself with violence.

Additionally, if the person attacking has lost the right to arbitration, any damage a person does to them in self defence, is unlikely to resort in arbitration (and a loss of their reputation).

As an outlaw wouldn't have any insurance or sureties, there would also be no one to bring the case before an arbitrator. So, should they be accidentally (or otherwise) be killed by someone defending themselves, the latter wouldn't be liable for damages.

As I have said before, being ostracised can be seriously bad for your health. People don't want to trade with you and your life is worth very little to others. That's very vulnerable position to be in.

[Traktion]

Welcome to the wonderful, whacky world of the Ayn Rand loving libertarian objectivists!

As opposed to a supposedly civilised system, which relies on institutionalised violence, to force people to do whatever it wishes.

FWIW, I've never read any Ayn Rand either.

[mfp123]

As opposed to a supposedly civilised system, which relies on institutionalised violence, to force people to do whatever it wishes.

FWIW, I've never read any Ayn Rand either.

violence isnt exclusive to the state.

violence occurs with or without the state.

simply allowing people to impose their own level of violence with each other doesnt solve the problem of violence itself.

indeed without it, more violence occurs.

[MarkG]

violence isnt exclusive to the state.

violence occurs with or without the state.

But the state _is_ organised theft and violence. You can't have a state without them, whereas two neighbours can get along quite happily without stealing from or murdering each other.

[mfp123]

But the state _is_ organised theft and violence. You can't have a state without them, whereas two neighbours can get along quite happily without stealing from or murdering each other.

no because the stateless argument is that the 2 neighbours wont steal from each other due to the threat of mutual retaliation and violence if one crosses another.

the threat of violence is everywhere. in fact its based on the threat of mutual violence from everyone.

[MarkG]

no because the stateless argument is that the 2 neighbours wont steal from each other due to the threat of mutual retaliation and violence if one crosses another.

So the only reason you don't steal is because you're afraid that someone will shoot you?

I'm glad I'm not your neighbour.

[shipbuilder]

no because the stateless argument is that the 2 neighbours wont steal from each other due to the threat of mutual retaliation and violence if one crosses another.

the threat of violence is everywhere. in fact its based on the threat of mutual violence from everyone.

The stateless argument is that people will co-operate rather than steal because it provides a better outcome for them. Stealing leads to social exclusion, co-operation to social riches. Nothing to do with the threat of violence.

[shipbuilder]

So the only reason you don't steal is because you're afraid that someone will shoot you?

I'm glad I'm not your neighbour.

+1

I keep saying it, but I find it incredible how often posters on here make pronouncements about human behaviour that is completely unrelated to their own lives and behaviour.

[bankfeeder]

+1

I keep saying it, but I find it incredible how often posters on here make pronouncements about human behaviour that is completely unrelated to their own lives and behaviour.

Behaviour might be very different indeed with no state there. I don't like the idea of the state at all, but I don't just assume that everything would be just the same or better without it. I think it's quite possible that we would be reduced to neighbour against neighbour until tribes formed. And they are just micro states.

[Traktion]

Behaviour might be very different indeed with no state there. I don't like the idea of the state at all, but I don't just assume that everything would be just the same or better without it. I think it's quite possible that we would be reduced to neighbour against neighbour until tribes formed. And they are just micro states.

Unless subscription to said micro states isn't optional, they're not really states at all. It is the involuntary taxation and rule making powers which define the state.

If the state does end up getting broken down into distributed, voluntary groups* then I would be happy. I may or may not join some/all/any of the groups, but that is the point - it's voluntary.

EDIT: Just making state citizenship optional will achieve this, with time.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Traktion

[Traktion]

The stateless argument is that people will co-operate rather than steal because it provides a better outcome for them. Stealing leads to social exclusion, co-operation to social riches. Nothing to do with the threat of violence.

Yes, exactly!

I don't eye up my neighbours' houses, cars, TV sets and wonder how I could steal them, if only the state wasn't there to stop me. It's a preposterous assertion.

The idea that without the state police force, there would be no security is daft too. There is always the option to self police, but many may prefer to subscribe to a group providing a professional security service, of which there would likely be many.

Better still, private security which abuses people is likely to lose customers, as they may be the ones getting violated next time. Additionally, you could have service contracts, which if not met, would require damages to be paid.

We have to remember that security is a service provided to the customer. Prohibition is unlikely to be at the top of your list of things that your chosen security provider should be spending your money doing. The same goes for copyright and numerous other exercises in 'policing', supposedly done for our own good.

Insurance is also key to a lot of this stuff. If you have life insurance, the insurer would likely have different tariffs, depending on the services you subscribe to. They may give you a cheaper premium, if you go with a highly professional, reputable, security team for instance. They don't want you to die, leading to a pay out, and you don't want to die either - it's mutually beneficial.

I've reached the conclusion that many people are scared at the idea of a stateless society, just because they haven't thought about it or had the alternatives explained to them properly. Ofc, we can't say for sure how things would work, but we already have concepts which would likely work well as they're extensions of what we already have (where the state permits).

The idea that we will all turn into psychopaths, just because state subscription isn't compulsory, is verging on the ridiculous though.

edit: numerous typos!

Edited January 21, 2012 by Traktion

[thod]

I would work for your private security team. That is until it came to a gun fight with the bad guys. What the heck do I care if they rob your house. You can not pay me enough to lose my life.

Even if I do shoot a baddie for you, I must return to my hovel in the slum. The other gang members know where I live. They will be waiting for me. They know I must exit that door at 8.00 am to go to work. They will have a sniper sight pointed right at it and I can do nothing to defend against them.

Then there is the other problem, you have put a gun in my hand, and my mates hands yet pay me a pittance. I am not a stupid man. I am have the gun, I call the shots and your former property is now mine.

A dictator does not 'own' his soldiers. He cannot move them around like chess pieces. They will continue to side with the dictator only so long as they wish to do so. Thus the battle is for minds. Rich men, drug lords etc do not last long when faced with social movements. The forces that bond men together are way stronger than any payment mechanism.

Your money will not protect you. You shoot my brother, I will find a way to get you, be it bullet, bomb, or poison. The only way you can survive, is prevent that situation coming about.