by liberal japonicus
I wanted to make a post about copyright, patent and IP, though there has already been some discussion. First, a copyright story.
When I first came to Japan, I was based at a high school with a really good band. They are called brass bands here, but they are just like your average high school band. Sort of. I say sort of because the level they play at is head a shoulders above what your average US HS band could do. Click on this to get an idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wOif5OfsL0
The high school I was placed at was trying to break into the top rank and the music teacher, who had studied trumpet and conducting in Germany, had a band transcription by Mark Hindsley of Richard Strauss’ Til Eulenspiegel. The director asked me to get permission to perform for the band to perform it at contest. This was before email and internet, so I tracked down who I needed to contact and called them and made the request. He gave me a figure to transfer, not a huge amount, and I did it and got a letter saying that with that letter, the band was allowed to perform the piece up to 4 times. Yay for me.
About 2 months later, as I was getting ready to move to a new school, I got a panicky call on my answer machine. There had been a huge mistake, the Strauss heirs really didn’t like transcriptions and so could I please tell the band not to play it. I had just transferred to a new high school and so I went back to my old high school. They had already heard about it, as they had gotten a box of music to apologize for the mixup. However, the band was already on their final performance at the all Japan competition, having previously performed it for the prefectural and the block contests.
The solution, which was a very Japanese way of doing things, was that I turned my phone off at night (no cell phones then) and since was ‘the agent’, I would point out that I had been transferred to another school. The band would not record the performance so there would be no record. Which worked out.
I was researching the situation to write this and I don’t know if they relaxed their position on transcriptions, there was a 2014 YouTube video of Michigan State performing it, though all of Strauss’ music went out of copyright only in 2019. This article says that the State Opera had to pay the Strauss copyright holders 15,000 euros each time they performed Der Rosenkavalier.
This is not to make any kind of point except to suggest that I was lucky that screwup happened before the internet, or I might still be paying for the mistake. I think that is true for a lot of other things as well.
Anyway, feel free to post other articles about copyright, patents, etc.
I might still be paying for the mistake.
I’m not a lawyer, especially a Japanese lawyer, but you paid the fee they asked and got a letter saying it was okay for the band to play it four times. Why would you have still been paying now, when it was their mistake?
I might still be paying for the mistake.
I’m not a lawyer, especially a Japanese lawyer, but you paid the fee they asked and got a letter saying it was okay for the band to play it four times. Why would you have still been paying now, when it was their mistake?
They told you that you can do it and then they said “oops, our bad”? Did they at least refund the money? This sounds like a lot of Not Your Fault. They gave you permission and tried to take it back afterwards.
They told you that you can do it and then they said “oops, our bad”? Did they at least refund the money? This sounds like a lot of Not Your Fault. They gave you permission and tried to take it back afterwards.
I might be overly dramatic there, but it seems to me that with the easier access to people, they could have made my life miserable to try and get some money out of me. Or just to make sure that every Japanese band director knew not to do anything like that. Examples must be made. Could I have afforded a lawyer if they wanted to file something against me? Definitely not.
When I was working on my PhD, I had an idea of working with gestures by EFL students to see if they were accessing metaphorical ideas following research by Alan Cienki that I was pretty excited about. The set up was that a student would watch a music video that had metaphoric content and talk about the video while it was playing. So I did one and uploaded it to Youtube, keeping it private and sharing it with my advisor. Shortly after I did that, I got a DMCA notice from Youtube because you could hear the song playing while the student spoke.
To connect those two thoughts, it seems more and more it doesn’t matter if you are in the right, it matters more if you attract their attention.
This may be of interest
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/12/957054009/will-posting-memes-or-pro-wedding-pics-land-you-in-copyright-small-claims-court
I might be overly dramatic there, but it seems to me that with the easier access to people, they could have made my life miserable to try and get some money out of me. Or just to make sure that every Japanese band director knew not to do anything like that. Examples must be made. Could I have afforded a lawyer if they wanted to file something against me? Definitely not.
When I was working on my PhD, I had an idea of working with gestures by EFL students to see if they were accessing metaphorical ideas following research by Alan Cienki that I was pretty excited about. The set up was that a student would watch a music video that had metaphoric content and talk about the video while it was playing. So I did one and uploaded it to Youtube, keeping it private and sharing it with my advisor. Shortly after I did that, I got a DMCA notice from Youtube because you could hear the song playing while the student spoke.
To connect those two thoughts, it seems more and more it doesn’t matter if you are in the right, it matters more if you attract their attention.
This may be of interest
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/12/957054009/will-posting-memes-or-pro-wedding-pics-land-you-in-copyright-small-claims-court
To connect those two thoughts, it seems more and more it doesn’t matter if you are in the right, it matters more if you attract their attention.
This is clearly true, and very scary, but even so, you were acting as an “agent” of the school, so make the school hire the lawyer(s). File a countersuit for harassment. 😉
To connect those two thoughts, it seems more and more it doesn’t matter if you are in the right, it matters more if you attract their attention.
This is clearly true, and very scary, but even so, you were acting as an “agent” of the school, so make the school hire the lawyer(s). File a countersuit for harassment. 😉
Years and years and years ago, when getting up to speed making graphics from CGIs, I created a little program to make a “star field” image.
The stars were placed randomly, with a distribution of size/magnitude and color. Not terribly realistic, but looked nice. IIRC, I even testing ‘watermarking’ the graphics file (copyright statement in a different color index for ‘black’, invisible unless processed). The CGI was on a publicly accessible, but obscure, website.
Much more recently, yet still quite a while back, I found a starfield image that was clearly from my CGI, on someone’s online wedding announcement.
They’re welcome, and all the best.
Years and years and years ago, when getting up to speed making graphics from CGIs, I created a little program to make a “star field” image.
The stars were placed randomly, with a distribution of size/magnitude and color. Not terribly realistic, but looked nice. IIRC, I even testing ‘watermarking’ the graphics file (copyright statement in a different color index for ‘black’, invisible unless processed). The CGI was on a publicly accessible, but obscure, website.
Much more recently, yet still quite a while back, I found a starfield image that was clearly from my CGI, on someone’s online wedding announcement.
They’re welcome, and all the best.
Several years back I put together some software to produce cartograms (regular readers already know this). I used it in a couple of cases for blog postings. A couple of years later I attended a seminar at the University of Denver on the urban/rural divide in Colorado. The opening speaker who was setting the stage put up a slide with a cartogram of Colorado to illustrate how dominant the Front Range urban corridor was in population. A cartogram from one of my blog posts. Properly attributed :^)
I stopped afterwards to tell him I hadn’t expected to see any of my work at the seminar. He was afraid that I was offended that he had used it without explicitly asking. I waved him off and said, “If I didn’t want it to be copied I wouldn’t have put it up on the internet. At least you attributed it.”
If you put it on the internet and it’s useful, it will be copied. Trying to chase down all the people and convincing them to stop is a mug’s game.
Several years back I put together some software to produce cartograms (regular readers already know this). I used it in a couple of cases for blog postings. A couple of years later I attended a seminar at the University of Denver on the urban/rural divide in Colorado. The opening speaker who was setting the stage put up a slide with a cartogram of Colorado to illustrate how dominant the Front Range urban corridor was in population. A cartogram from one of my blog posts. Properly attributed :^)
I stopped afterwards to tell him I hadn’t expected to see any of my work at the seminar. He was afraid that I was offended that he had used it without explicitly asking. I waved him off and said, “If I didn’t want it to be copied I wouldn’t have put it up on the internet. At least you attributed it.”
If you put it on the internet and it’s useful, it will be copied. Trying to chase down all the people and convincing them to stop is a mug’s game.
as mentioned in the other thread, my issue with copyright is exactly this:
if somebody is making money off of somebody else’s creative work, the person who created the work should be getting some of the money.
and ‘some’, in this context, should be more than a laughable amount.
it’s great if people want to make their work available for other people to use for free. more power to you. other people may not want to do that – they might depend on what they produce for their living, and so not have the luxury of giving it away.
the landscape for content creators – composers, songwriters, recording musicians, writers, photographers, filmmakers, graphic artists – has changed dramatically over the last 20 years or so, because most work is now published in digital form, which makes the cost of capturing, reproducing, and distributing it negligible. it has made a professional path that was already fraught with difficulty that much more difficult.
I’m fine with copyright ending at some point, and TBH lifetime plus 70 seems extremely generous to me. the issue is less copyright per se, and more the increasingly monopolistic structure of the industries that have evolved around creative work, and the challenges of enforcing copyright in the digital context.
Here is a piece by David Dayen about the state of the art in the music industry, specifically. Recorded music is increasingly consumed via streaming services – here is an analysis of what streaming services pay artists these days. Briefly, streaming services tend to pay tenths of a cent per stream, which means if your song is streamed 100,000 times, you might get a couple of hundred bucks.
What I find most objectionable is the idea that creative work should just be free for use, by anyone, for any purpose, with no renumeration flowing back to the creator. Creative workers are, far more than most other professions, self-employed. The revenue generated by their work is what they live on.
It’s all well and good to say, “if you put it on the internet and it’s useful, it will be copied”. But the author of the work is quite often not the person putting the work on the internet. And regardless of who puts it out there, copying it without permission actually is stealing from the person who created it.
If you want to give your stuff away, that’s fine. But you need to respect the wishes of people who *don’t* want to give their stuff away, and who actually make their livelihood from the work that you think you are, somehow, entitled to for free.
People deserve to be paid for their work.
as mentioned in the other thread, my issue with copyright is exactly this:
if somebody is making money off of somebody else’s creative work, the person who created the work should be getting some of the money.
and ‘some’, in this context, should be more than a laughable amount.
it’s great if people want to make their work available for other people to use for free. more power to you. other people may not want to do that – they might depend on what they produce for their living, and so not have the luxury of giving it away.
the landscape for content creators – composers, songwriters, recording musicians, writers, photographers, filmmakers, graphic artists – has changed dramatically over the last 20 years or so, because most work is now published in digital form, which makes the cost of capturing, reproducing, and distributing it negligible. it has made a professional path that was already fraught with difficulty that much more difficult.
I’m fine with copyright ending at some point, and TBH lifetime plus 70 seems extremely generous to me. the issue is less copyright per se, and more the increasingly monopolistic structure of the industries that have evolved around creative work, and the challenges of enforcing copyright in the digital context.
Here is a piece by David Dayen about the state of the art in the music industry, specifically. Recorded music is increasingly consumed via streaming services – here is an analysis of what streaming services pay artists these days. Briefly, streaming services tend to pay tenths of a cent per stream, which means if your song is streamed 100,000 times, you might get a couple of hundred bucks.
What I find most objectionable is the idea that creative work should just be free for use, by anyone, for any purpose, with no renumeration flowing back to the creator. Creative workers are, far more than most other professions, self-employed. The revenue generated by their work is what they live on.
It’s all well and good to say, “if you put it on the internet and it’s useful, it will be copied”. But the author of the work is quite often not the person putting the work on the internet. And regardless of who puts it out there, copying it without permission actually is stealing from the person who created it.
If you want to give your stuff away, that’s fine. But you need to respect the wishes of people who *don’t* want to give their stuff away, and who actually make their livelihood from the work that you think you are, somehow, entitled to for free.
People deserve to be paid for their work.
It’s all well and good to say, “if you put it on the internet and it’s useful, it will be copied”. But the author of the work is quite often not the person putting the work on the internet. And regardless of who puts it out there, copying it without permission actually is stealing from the person who created it.
However, it must be noted that frequently the copyright holder is someone who bought (extorted) it from the person who created it — for peanuts. It may be true that you are stealing it. But probably not from the artist.
It’s all well and good to say, “if you put it on the internet and it’s useful, it will be copied”. But the author of the work is quite often not the person putting the work on the internet. And regardless of who puts it out there, copying it without permission actually is stealing from the person who created it.
However, it must be noted that frequently the copyright holder is someone who bought (extorted) it from the person who created it — for peanuts. It may be true that you are stealing it. But probably not from the artist.
It may be true that you are stealing it. But probably not from the artist.
hard to say if the actual odds fall in the “probably” category or not.
In any case, the idea that work published in a form that makes it trivially easy to steal therefore makes it fair game seems, to me, to be weak beer.
Do you like music? Movies? Beautiful pictures? Books? If the folks who make those things can’t make a living, they will have to stop making them.
It may be true that you are stealing it. But probably not from the artist.
hard to say if the actual odds fall in the “probably” category or not.
In any case, the idea that work published in a form that makes it trivially easy to steal therefore makes it fair game seems, to me, to be weak beer.
Do you like music? Movies? Beautiful pictures? Books? If the folks who make those things can’t make a living, they will have to stop making them.
David Byrne’s recent book (“How To Write One Song”) has a chapter about what record company contracts actually look like and what they mean for songwriters. it’s horrifying. very few people are getting rich off making music.
he broke down costs and income on one of his recent records – $218K to make it, total of $276K in sales. so $58K… over six years.
David Byrne’s recent book (“How To Write One Song”) has a chapter about what record company contracts actually look like and what they mean for songwriters. it’s horrifying. very few people are getting rich off making music.
he broke down costs and income on one of his recent records – $218K to make it, total of $276K in sales. so $58K… over six years.
I’m not arguing that it should be fair game. Just about whether the artist is the one getting ripped off.
I’m not arguing that it should be fair game. Just about whether the artist is the one getting ripped off.
Quick aside to pimp Bandcamp again. As online music stores and streaming platforms go, it seems to be one of the more artist oriented places, and there is a real community of music fans there who give back to artists and communities.
It’s also a great place to find non-mainstream and indy music. I’ve discovered a ton of great music I would not otherwise ever have heard of.
Quick aside to pimp Bandcamp again. As online music stores and streaming platforms go, it seems to be one of the more artist oriented places, and there is a real community of music fans there who give back to artists and communities.
It’s also a great place to find non-mainstream and indy music. I’ve discovered a ton of great music I would not otherwise ever have heard of.
David Byrne’s recent book (“How To Write One Song”)
A small correction:
The Byrne book is “How Music Works”.
“How To Write One Song” is by Jeff Tweedy.
Both are recommended.
Also – Bandcamp is a much better channel from the artist’s point of view than most (or probably all) of the more well known streaming services or other online music platforms.
If you like music – or movies, or theater, or visual arts, or reading – support the people who create that stuff. Most of them aren’t getting rich off it, they’re just trying to make a living.
David Byrne’s recent book (“How To Write One Song”)
A small correction:
The Byrne book is “How Music Works”.
“How To Write One Song” is by Jeff Tweedy.
Both are recommended.
Also – Bandcamp is a much better channel from the artist’s point of view than most (or probably all) of the more well known streaming services or other online music platforms.
If you like music – or movies, or theater, or visual arts, or reading – support the people who create that stuff. Most of them aren’t getting rich off it, they’re just trying to make a living.
A small correction:
heh.
started out thinking it was Tweedy who did that bit. then looked it up… forgot to change the title.
A small correction:
heh.
started out thinking it was Tweedy who did that bit. then looked it up… forgot to change the title.
This is interesting. I would suggest that no one would question the right to apainting, the original work. Starting there the question for art in all forms is whether the ease of replicating it diminishes the ownership right. I think not.
I also believe that if you create something your ownership never ends. The government is the protector of your right to what you have created, not the grantor of that right. Therefore, the government can’t remove the right, it can only stop defending it.
That right, like any ownership, is inheritable. But I am a simple man.
This is interesting. I would suggest that no one would question the right to apainting, the original work. Starting there the question for art in all forms is whether the ease of replicating it diminishes the ownership right. I think not.
I also believe that if you create something your ownership never ends. The government is the protector of your right to what you have created, not the grantor of that right. Therefore, the government can’t remove the right, it can only stop defending it.
That right, like any ownership, is inheritable. But I am a simple man.
? If the folks who make those things can’t make a living, they will have to stop making them.
Gillian Welch has thoughts:
? If the folks who make those things can’t make a living, they will have to stop making them.
Gillian Welch has thoughts:
I also believe that if you create something your ownership never ends.
“Work for hire.”
You can sell/assign all of your ownership rights. I was paid handsomely to do things that included creating software to solve particular problems. Part of the deal was that I gave up all ownership rights. Ditto for patents, other than my name being on the application because the PTO says only humans can invent something. Patent applications include specific fields identifying which legal entity (me, an LLC of mine, the corporation employing me, whatever) holds the patent rights when they’re granted.
I also believe that if you create something your ownership never ends.
“Work for hire.”
You can sell/assign all of your ownership rights. I was paid handsomely to do things that included creating software to solve particular problems. Part of the deal was that I gave up all ownership rights. Ditto for patents, other than my name being on the application because the PTO says only humans can invent something. Patent applications include specific fields identifying which legal entity (me, an LLC of mine, the corporation employing me, whatever) holds the patent rights when they’re granted.
Adding to my 06:35 comment, Russell has an excellent point in that few creators are in a position to negotiate a good deal for the IP rights.
Adding to my 06:35 comment, Russell has an excellent point in that few creators are in a position to negotiate a good deal for the IP rights.
everything is free now
Welch won’t have something until that includes a) food, b) clothing, and c) shelter. Just to hit the three biggest critical necessities. Until then, it’s nonsense.
everything is free now
Welch won’t have something until that includes a) food, b) clothing, and c) shelter. Just to hit the three biggest critical necessities. Until then, it’s nonsense.
Until then, it’s nonsense.
i assure you, it’s not.
(there are more verses than that one)
Until then, it’s nonsense.
i assure you, it’s not.
(there are more verses than that one)
That Dayen piece skates around the fact that almost all of the revenue paid out by Spotify goes to a small set of the most popular artists, because that’s who the customers want to listen to. It’s not so much that Galaxy500 is getting cheated as their fan base is microscopic in the greater market, and the few majors left have total control over all major platforms.
Copyrights and patents are revenue streams, and as such are going to be captured just like every other revenue stream. Extending the length of copyright ensures marketable IP profit stays in the hands of the ones who can access the platforms. The “artists” who create the IP are bound to the platforms. Making a living in any artistic medium is about access to the platform, whether a stage, a gallery, or a web site. And every platform has a gatekeeper. Some are nice,some not so nice.
That Dayen piece skates around the fact that almost all of the revenue paid out by Spotify goes to a small set of the most popular artists, because that’s who the customers want to listen to. It’s not so much that Galaxy500 is getting cheated as their fan base is microscopic in the greater market, and the few majors left have total control over all major platforms.
Copyrights and patents are revenue streams, and as such are going to be captured just like every other revenue stream. Extending the length of copyright ensures marketable IP profit stays in the hands of the ones who can access the platforms. The “artists” who create the IP are bound to the platforms. Making a living in any artistic medium is about access to the platform, whether a stage, a gallery, or a web site. And every platform has a gatekeeper. Some are nice,some not so nice.
That Dayen piece skates around the fact that almost all of the revenue paid out by Spotify goes to a small set of the most popular artists, because that’s who the customers want to listen to.
Perhaps more true to say that this small set of artists are who the algorithms steer people towards in an effort to maximize streams. Probably closer to say that those artists are the ones that either listeners least want to not listen to (excluding those that are just exploiting the algorithm to inflate play counts and maximize their revenue that way).
That Dayen piece skates around the fact that almost all of the revenue paid out by Spotify goes to a small set of the most popular artists, because that’s who the customers want to listen to.
Perhaps more true to say that this small set of artists are who the algorithms steer people towards in an effort to maximize streams. Probably closer to say that those artists are the ones that either listeners least want to not listen to (excluding those that are just exploiting the algorithm to inflate play counts and maximize their revenue that way).
I agree that if there’s money to be made out of creative work, the creators should get a good part of it.
The other side of the argument is that granting monopolies, and enforcing them, imposes a cost on society. This evening I looked up, for free, James Clerk Maxwell’s A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field and Albert Einstein’s On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. In a world of perpetual copyright, advocated by some commentators here, this would not be possible. (To be exact, I could do it, using an academic affiliation, but most people could not.)
Ideally, knowledge should be freely available to all. Art should be freely available to all. It should not be forgotten that copyright restrictions are restrictions on access to truth and beauty.
What I want is an intelligently designed copyright system which allows creators to make money, but also recognises the value of allowing everyone to enjoy their work.
What we have is a copyright system designed to enrich corporations.
I have no sympathy for John Scalzi’s polemic, which seems to me to say little more than that having been given a unicorn, he wants to keep it.
I agree that if there’s money to be made out of creative work, the creators should get a good part of it.
The other side of the argument is that granting monopolies, and enforcing them, imposes a cost on society. This evening I looked up, for free, James Clerk Maxwell’s A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field and Albert Einstein’s On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. In a world of perpetual copyright, advocated by some commentators here, this would not be possible. (To be exact, I could do it, using an academic affiliation, but most people could not.)
Ideally, knowledge should be freely available to all. Art should be freely available to all. It should not be forgotten that copyright restrictions are restrictions on access to truth and beauty.
What I want is an intelligently designed copyright system which allows creators to make money, but also recognises the value of allowing everyone to enjoy their work.
What we have is a copyright system designed to enrich corporations.
I have no sympathy for John Scalzi’s polemic, which seems to me to say little more than that having been given a unicorn, he wants to keep it.
Here’s a thought…give everyone a UBI and then we can negotiate about what to do with unicorns and how much more one should be rewarded for producing beauty and knowledge for others.
As it stands, however, there are very few writers able to make a living from their writing despite there being a large market for said writing. Scalzi knows he’s a unicorn. He’s not so much worried about his own unicorn as he is the state of the unicorn population worldwide, which is decidedly malnourished despite the work that goes into raising them.
russell is speaking for the musicians. Let me just say that I am saying the same for my wife and other writers who work a lot of time to produce novels that earn them less than minimum wage, or for the fine artists I know that do the same.
Here’s a thought…give everyone a UBI and then we can negotiate about what to do with unicorns and how much more one should be rewarded for producing beauty and knowledge for others.
As it stands, however, there are very few writers able to make a living from their writing despite there being a large market for said writing. Scalzi knows he’s a unicorn. He’s not so much worried about his own unicorn as he is the state of the unicorn population worldwide, which is decidedly malnourished despite the work that goes into raising them.
russell is speaking for the musicians. Let me just say that I am saying the same for my wife and other writers who work a lot of time to produce novels that earn them less than minimum wage, or for the fine artists I know that do the same.
Ideally, knowledge should be freely available to all. Art should be freely available to all. It should not be forgotten that copyright restrictions are restrictions on access to truth and beauty.
What I want is an intelligently designed copyright system which allows creators to make money, but also recognises the value of allowing everyone to enjoy their work.
Lofty sentiments. I wonder if the same goes for the “creations” of the captains of industry, or the titans of finance, or the inventors of machines that save labor and put millions out of work, while sending obscene profits to a few.
Or, to put it a different way, it should not be forgotten that drug company profits and exorbitant doctor’s salaries and government subsidies to huge agribusiness corporations are restrictions on access to food and health care.
Or yet again, if the results of the labor of artists and writers should be freely available to all, why not the results of the labor of farmers, manufacturers, and Wall Street tycoons?
Ideally, knowledge should be freely available to all. Art should be freely available to all. It should not be forgotten that copyright restrictions are restrictions on access to truth and beauty.
What I want is an intelligently designed copyright system which allows creators to make money, but also recognises the value of allowing everyone to enjoy their work.
Lofty sentiments. I wonder if the same goes for the “creations” of the captains of industry, or the titans of finance, or the inventors of machines that save labor and put millions out of work, while sending obscene profits to a few.
Or, to put it a different way, it should not be forgotten that drug company profits and exorbitant doctor’s salaries and government subsidies to huge agribusiness corporations are restrictions on access to food and health care.
Or yet again, if the results of the labor of artists and writers should be freely available to all, why not the results of the labor of farmers, manufacturers, and Wall Street tycoons?
“Truth and beauty.”
It has been a day for laughter, but not the happy kind.
“Truth and beauty.”
It has been a day for laughter, but not the happy kind.
Hadn’t seen nous’s when I wrote mine. Thanks. (And also to russell, hsh, cleek, and others.)
Hadn’t seen nous’s when I wrote mine. Thanks. (And also to russell, hsh, cleek, and others.)
And let me not forget the right to have access to the results of the labor of lawyers….
And let me not forget the right to have access to the results of the labor of lawyers….
A few observations,
Let me be clear: Artists should be paid for their work! With that off my chest, let’s dive in.
if somebody is making money off of somebody else’s creative work, the person who created the work should be getting some of the money.
Nobody here is arguing that artists should get nothing.
I also believe that if you create something your ownership never ends.
Interesting. In my youth I placed a lot of concrete, and pounded a lot of nails. I was part of creating structures, most of which are still in use. I get nothing today in the way of remuneration from that effort.
The other side of the argument is that granting monopolies, and enforcing them, imposes a cost on society.
Given our current technology, this is an obvious truism that is simply ignored by Scalzi, et. al. So, who should pick up this cost, and how?
In any case, the idea that work published in a form that makes it trivially easy to steal therefore makes it fair game seems, to me, to be weak beer.
An observation is not the same thing as a justification.
he broke down costs and income on one of his recent records – $218K to make it, total of $276K in sales. so $58K… over six years.
How many records per year? Was making recordings their full time avocation? There is likely a problem here of a disconnect as between productivity and income. Could use a bit more elaboration.
Or yet again, if the results of the labor of artists and writers should be freely available to all, why not the results of the labor of farmers, manufacturers, and Wall Street tycoons?
Countme in. 🙂
The issue here is one of coming up with an effective public policy to blunt the near costless ramifications of copying and distribution of written and musical artistic work (paintings, anybody?), and unchecked shameless market power (you may have noticed there is a lot of that going around). On the other thread, I brought up Dean Baker’s proposal. Nobody has taken the time to even remark on it. I believe it sets a baseline for a different tack on this matter.
Back in the way olden days….(say prior to the Industrial Revolution) there was art, there was music, there was song. A great deal of it is still enjoyed today. There was no copyright back then. So how did that happen? Discuss.
A few observations,
Let me be clear: Artists should be paid for their work! With that off my chest, let’s dive in.
if somebody is making money off of somebody else’s creative work, the person who created the work should be getting some of the money.
Nobody here is arguing that artists should get nothing.
I also believe that if you create something your ownership never ends.
Interesting. In my youth I placed a lot of concrete, and pounded a lot of nails. I was part of creating structures, most of which are still in use. I get nothing today in the way of remuneration from that effort.
The other side of the argument is that granting monopolies, and enforcing them, imposes a cost on society.
Given our current technology, this is an obvious truism that is simply ignored by Scalzi, et. al. So, who should pick up this cost, and how?
In any case, the idea that work published in a form that makes it trivially easy to steal therefore makes it fair game seems, to me, to be weak beer.
An observation is not the same thing as a justification.
he broke down costs and income on one of his recent records – $218K to make it, total of $276K in sales. so $58K… over six years.
How many records per year? Was making recordings their full time avocation? There is likely a problem here of a disconnect as between productivity and income. Could use a bit more elaboration.
Or yet again, if the results of the labor of artists and writers should be freely available to all, why not the results of the labor of farmers, manufacturers, and Wall Street tycoons?
Countme in. 🙂
The issue here is one of coming up with an effective public policy to blunt the near costless ramifications of copying and distribution of written and musical artistic work (paintings, anybody?), and unchecked shameless market power (you may have noticed there is a lot of that going around). On the other thread, I brought up Dean Baker’s proposal. Nobody has taken the time to even remark on it. I believe it sets a baseline for a different tack on this matter.
Back in the way olden days….(say prior to the Industrial Revolution) there was art, there was music, there was song. A great deal of it is still enjoyed today. There was no copyright back then. So how did that happen? Discuss.
an effective public policy to blunt the near costless ramifications of
good lord…that should read: “an effective public policy to blunt the ramifications of the near costless….”
I really need a good editor, but they all want money.
an effective public policy to blunt the near costless ramifications of
good lord…that should read: “an effective public policy to blunt the ramifications of the near costless….”
I really need a good editor, but they all want money.
knowledge should be freely available to all. Art should be freely available to all.
Why not food? Why not shoes? Why not eyeglasses or dental fillings or houses?
Why is it legitimate for people to have to buy those things, but art should be free?
Copyright means that if a song is used to sell toothpaste, or as background music on a TV show, or is popular enough that 10 different people decide to record it, the person that wrote the song gets a check. How that ‘imposes a cost on society’ is unclear to me.
LJ’s high school band had to pay a licensing fee to perform Strauss, but they also have to buy instruments and pay for heat and light in their rehearsal space. Who knows, maybe they even have uniforms. If they had to travel to perform in the all-Japan band contest, they probably had to hire a bus to get there.
It’s cool for everybody involved in all of that to get paid, *except* the composer? Because truth and beauty?
Vegetables are beautiful, too, especially if you’re hungry. But the grocery store doesn’t give them away.
knowledge should be freely available to all. Art should be freely available to all.
Why not food? Why not shoes? Why not eyeglasses or dental fillings or houses?
Why is it legitimate for people to have to buy those things, but art should be free?
Copyright means that if a song is used to sell toothpaste, or as background music on a TV show, or is popular enough that 10 different people decide to record it, the person that wrote the song gets a check. How that ‘imposes a cost on society’ is unclear to me.
LJ’s high school band had to pay a licensing fee to perform Strauss, but they also have to buy instruments and pay for heat and light in their rehearsal space. Who knows, maybe they even have uniforms. If they had to travel to perform in the all-Japan band contest, they probably had to hire a bus to get there.
It’s cool for everybody involved in all of that to get paid, *except* the composer? Because truth and beauty?
Vegetables are beautiful, too, especially if you’re hungry. But the grocery store doesn’t give them away.
Back in the way olden days….(say prior to the Industrial Revolution) there was art, there was music, there was song. A great deal of it is still enjoyed today. There was no copyright back then. So how did that happen? Discuss.
Hmmm. Is this a trick question? Some people had wealthy patrons. Some people tilled the fields and then came home and played the fiddle at the barn dance aftah suppah.
I dunno, how did it happen?
Back in the way olden days….(say prior to the Industrial Revolution) there was art, there was music, there was song. A great deal of it is still enjoyed today. There was no copyright back then. So how did that happen? Discuss.
Hmmm. Is this a trick question? Some people had wealthy patrons. Some people tilled the fields and then came home and played the fiddle at the barn dance aftah suppah.
I dunno, how did it happen?
There was no copyright back then. So how did that happen?
Patronage.
There was no copyright back then. So how did that happen?
Patronage.
Dean Baker’s proposal
Dean Baker’s proposal will pay 500K artists $40K a year.
There are way more than 500K people who do the kind of work we’re talking about. And $40K a year is not enough money to live on in most places in this country, especially if you have kids or other dependents.
Baker also asserts:
Why? If their work generates revenue more than once, why should they only be compensated the first time? Who gets the money the rest of the times?
Dean Baker’s proposal
Dean Baker’s proposal will pay 500K artists $40K a year.
There are way more than 500K people who do the kind of work we’re talking about. And $40K a year is not enough money to live on in most places in this country, especially if you have kids or other dependents.
Baker also asserts:
Why? If their work generates revenue more than once, why should they only be compensated the first time? Who gets the money the rest of the times?
More about “the olden days” — besides people with patrons and people who had proverbial “day jobs,” art [broadly speaking] was also produced by people wealthy enough *not* to have to have a day job.
So?
Seriously, I’m totally missing the point of the question about the olden days. Should we go back to the times of feudal lords and hereditary aristocracies?
More about “the olden days” — besides people with patrons and people who had proverbial “day jobs,” art [broadly speaking] was also produced by people wealthy enough *not* to have to have a day job.
So?
Seriously, I’m totally missing the point of the question about the olden days. Should we go back to the times of feudal lords and hereditary aristocracies?
the ramifications near the costlessness of copying and distribution of written and musical artistic work (paintings, anybody?) [as amended]
Not entirely a new problem. I can remember when, while paintings (especially by good artists) were expensive. But prints of those same paintings were dirt cheap. Starving college student cheap. And if the original artists were getting much of anything from the prints, I’d be surprised.
the ramifications near the costlessness of copying and distribution of written and musical artistic work (paintings, anybody?) [as amended]
Not entirely a new problem. I can remember when, while paintings (especially by good artists) were expensive. But prints of those same paintings were dirt cheap. Starving college student cheap. And if the original artists were getting much of anything from the prints, I’d be surprised.
Why? If their work generates revenue more than once, why should they only be compensated the first time? Who gets the money the rest of the times?
Compare a rented apartment. Where the work (building it) is done once, but it generates ongoing revenue. Why is an apartment building more worthy than a song?
Why? If their work generates revenue more than once, why should they only be compensated the first time? Who gets the money the rest of the times?
Compare a rented apartment. Where the work (building it) is done once, but it generates ongoing revenue. Why is an apartment building more worthy than a song?
Should we go back to the times of feudal lords and hereditary aristocracies?
Those who think so (whether they admit to being of that opinion or not) inevitably imagine themselves as part of said aristocracy. Which is statistically unlikely, to say the least.
Not to mention that they generally lack the skills to survive as an aristocrat.
Should we go back to the times of feudal lords and hereditary aristocracies?
Those who think so (whether they admit to being of that opinion or not) inevitably imagine themselves as part of said aristocracy. Which is statistically unlikely, to say the least.
Not to mention that they generally lack the skills to survive as an aristocrat.
Is the creative worker more like the carpenter or the developer/owner/landlord?
Where does profit fit in this discussion?
And russell’s question deserves repeating:
Who gets the money the rest of the times?
Even supposing the artist got an ample UBI, who deserves money “the rest of the times” if not the artist? Or to put it the other way around, if the artist isn’t “entitled” to the money the second time around, why is anyone else? Art wants to be free, is that it? So there is no “rest of the times”?
Is the creative worker more like the carpenter or the developer/owner/landlord?
Where does profit fit in this discussion?
And russell’s question deserves repeating:
Who gets the money the rest of the times?
Even supposing the artist got an ample UBI, who deserves money “the rest of the times” if not the artist? Or to put it the other way around, if the artist isn’t “entitled” to the money the second time around, why is anyone else? Art wants to be free, is that it? So there is no “rest of the times”?
Seriously, I’m totally missing the point of the question about the olden days. Should we go back to the times of feudal lords and hereditary aristocracies?
Well, no. And we cannot. But we are dealing here with claims that without “copyright protection” creative artistic production would simply cease, and that is simply not true.
Societies and their relations change. I believe Marx had some insights about that.
Seriously, I’m totally missing the point of the question about the olden days. Should we go back to the times of feudal lords and hereditary aristocracies?
Well, no. And we cannot. But we are dealing here with claims that without “copyright protection” creative artistic production would simply cease, and that is simply not true.
Societies and their relations change. I believe Marx had some insights about that.
But we are dealing here with claims that without “copyright protection” creative artistic production would simply cease, and that is simply not true.
I’m super-tired, plus distracted with multi-tasking, plus upset over yet another mass shooting.
So maybe I missed it. But where has anyone claimed that artistic production would simply cease?
But we are dealing here with claims that without “copyright protection” creative artistic production would simply cease, and that is simply not true.
I’m super-tired, plus distracted with multi-tasking, plus upset over yet another mass shooting.
So maybe I missed it. But where has anyone claimed that artistic production would simply cease?
where has anyone claimed that artistic production would simply cease?
I mean where here…? Not in general.
where has anyone claimed that artistic production would simply cease?
I mean where here…? Not in general.
Dean Baker’s proposal will pay 500K artists $40K a year.
That is an average and does not accurately reflect the nature of the proposed policy. Some performers/artists would get less. Some more. I don’t think you are saying that there is no such thing as “worthless” (i.e., bad) art.
Baker’s proposal should be seen as an opening to a different way of looking at this matter.
There are way more than 500K people who do the kind of work we’re talking about. And $40K a year is not enough money to live on in most places in this country, especially if you have kids or other dependents.
Everybody should be able to reasonably make a good living.
I am not arguing that creators should go penniless. I am arguing against a social construct that relies on heavy handed state enforcement that has been twisted so much as to be socially destructive (Microsoft, Google, which see). If you will excuse me, what I am seeing here is special pleading insofar as a defense of perpetual copyright/patent protection for a special class of artists must necessarily be extended (how do you distinguish otherwise?) to all those seeking similar state protection (ahem, corporations) and an opening to collect economic rents (i.e., royalties are obviously something that fits neatly, if at all, into a neoclassical microeconomic framework with indifference and supply and demand curves where profit is competed away).
The “twice” thing. I dunno’. If the school district pays for some sheet music to give to the band to play a song, why should the band then have to pay yet again for the privilege of “playing” it?
Dean Baker’s proposal will pay 500K artists $40K a year.
That is an average and does not accurately reflect the nature of the proposed policy. Some performers/artists would get less. Some more. I don’t think you are saying that there is no such thing as “worthless” (i.e., bad) art.
Baker’s proposal should be seen as an opening to a different way of looking at this matter.
There are way more than 500K people who do the kind of work we’re talking about. And $40K a year is not enough money to live on in most places in this country, especially if you have kids or other dependents.
Everybody should be able to reasonably make a good living.
I am not arguing that creators should go penniless. I am arguing against a social construct that relies on heavy handed state enforcement that has been twisted so much as to be socially destructive (Microsoft, Google, which see). If you will excuse me, what I am seeing here is special pleading insofar as a defense of perpetual copyright/patent protection for a special class of artists must necessarily be extended (how do you distinguish otherwise?) to all those seeking similar state protection (ahem, corporations) and an opening to collect economic rents (i.e., royalties are obviously something that fits neatly, if at all, into a neoclassical microeconomic framework with indifference and supply and demand curves where profit is competed away).
The “twice” thing. I dunno’. If the school district pays for some sheet music to give to the band to play a song, why should the band then have to pay yet again for the privilege of “playing” it?
well, my damned free editor let me down again. You get what you pay for.
“royalties are obviously NOT something….”
sheesh.
well, my damned free editor let me down again. You get what you pay for.
“royalties are obviously NOT something….”
sheesh.
where has anyone claimed that artistic production would simply cease?
Well….see Russell above:
“Do you like music? Movies? Beautiful pictures? Books? If the folks who make those things can’t make a living, they will have to stop making them.”
I feel this comes pretty close to making that case, no? The implication seems to be that without copyright protection (because otherwise artists could not make a living) creative work would cease.
This is a very strong claim.
where has anyone claimed that artistic production would simply cease?
Well….see Russell above:
“Do you like music? Movies? Beautiful pictures? Books? If the folks who make those things can’t make a living, they will have to stop making them.”
I feel this comes pretty close to making that case, no? The implication seems to be that without copyright protection (because otherwise artists could not make a living) creative work would cease.
This is a very strong claim.
guns….damn them to hell.
guns….damn them to hell.
There are 2 arguments being conflated, that artists should be able to “make a living” through their art, and that artists “should get paid for the use of their art”. The more specific pay for use model is the copyright argument. For example, musicians who were not composers or famous enough to say make movies or be paid to endorse products made a living as performers. Big band musicians were tradesmen on a par with plumbers or auto mechanics, with a union and everything. That model was killed by the Beatles, though it was possible to raise a family by playing in a band up through the 80’s in the US.
Copyright is more specific than that. I’m surprised no one has mentioned that copyright is enshrined in the US Constitution “to promote for a limited time”. The Founders have spoken. The idea was that invention and creation must be rewarded, but eventually that knowledge should be freely/widely available. The idea of perpetual ownership leads us to a nation of software patent trolls.
There are 2 arguments being conflated, that artists should be able to “make a living” through their art, and that artists “should get paid for the use of their art”. The more specific pay for use model is the copyright argument. For example, musicians who were not composers or famous enough to say make movies or be paid to endorse products made a living as performers. Big band musicians were tradesmen on a par with plumbers or auto mechanics, with a union and everything. That model was killed by the Beatles, though it was possible to raise a family by playing in a band up through the 80’s in the US.
Copyright is more specific than that. I’m surprised no one has mentioned that copyright is enshrined in the US Constitution “to promote for a limited time”. The Founders have spoken. The idea was that invention and creation must be rewarded, but eventually that knowledge should be freely/widely available. The idea of perpetual ownership leads us to a nation of software patent trolls.
There are 2 arguments being conflated, that artists should be able to “make a living” through their art, and that artists “should get paid for the use of their art”.
I agree that these two aspects shouldn’t be conflated, but they are very interconnected. If copyright as whole is questioned or undermined, this has an effect on those workers who are not original content creators as well – simply because there’s less money to go around.
What we shouldn’t conflate is artistic creation, software development and the construction work.
There are 2 arguments being conflated, that artists should be able to “make a living” through their art, and that artists “should get paid for the use of their art”.
I agree that these two aspects shouldn’t be conflated, but they are very interconnected. If copyright as whole is questioned or undermined, this has an effect on those workers who are not original content creators as well – simply because there’s less money to go around.
What we shouldn’t conflate is artistic creation, software development and the construction work.
sorry for the writing mistakes, too early…
sorry for the writing mistakes, too early…
There was no copyright back then. So how did that happen?
“To every cow belongs her calf, therefore to every book belongs its copy.”
6thC Ireland.
You copy my book, it’s mine.
copying painting or sculpture requires huge amounts of talent and time. hand-copying a book, likewise. folk tunes were just out there in the world, while things like symphonies couldn’t really be copied from just listening.
so you don’t get copyright laws until copying becomes economically feasible – 16thC for printed books, 20thC for sheet music.
There was no copyright back then. So how did that happen?
“To every cow belongs her calf, therefore to every book belongs its copy.”
6thC Ireland.
You copy my book, it’s mine.
copying painting or sculpture requires huge amounts of talent and time. hand-copying a book, likewise. folk tunes were just out there in the world, while things like symphonies couldn’t really be copied from just listening.
so you don’t get copyright laws until copying becomes economically feasible – 16thC for printed books, 20thC for sheet music.
The implication seems to be that without copyright protection (because otherwise artists could not make a living) creative work would cease.
it would change things a lot.
people would still write songs. but the companies that promote and distribute music would go away; so would the companies who promote the creation of music by loaning musicians money by which to make recordings (aka ‘advances’). no more anticipated revenue = no more loans made in expectation of that revenue. back to the world of authorless folk songs for the masses; the wealthy can use patronage schemes to buy more elaborate pieces (as tributes to themselves, of course).
film studios of all sizes would vanish. without copyright protection, nobody would invest in something as expensive as a movie or a TV show. maybe some wealthy vanity projects would get made.
likewise, the software companies that make the software used to record music and produce video would go away. open source could replace some of it. but let’s be honest: open source applications generally look to commercial software for inspiration (aka rip-off), not the other way around.
ideally, copyright gives small artists hope that they can make a living at it, which broadens the amount of art available and increases the quality because people will spend time on their craft. without that hope, those people might write a song or two in their spare time, but the result is probably not going to be the same as if they had spent all their time on it.
The implication seems to be that without copyright protection (because otherwise artists could not make a living) creative work would cease.
it would change things a lot.
people would still write songs. but the companies that promote and distribute music would go away; so would the companies who promote the creation of music by loaning musicians money by which to make recordings (aka ‘advances’). no more anticipated revenue = no more loans made in expectation of that revenue. back to the world of authorless folk songs for the masses; the wealthy can use patronage schemes to buy more elaborate pieces (as tributes to themselves, of course).
film studios of all sizes would vanish. without copyright protection, nobody would invest in something as expensive as a movie or a TV show. maybe some wealthy vanity projects would get made.
likewise, the software companies that make the software used to record music and produce video would go away. open source could replace some of it. but let’s be honest: open source applications generally look to commercial software for inspiration (aka rip-off), not the other way around.
ideally, copyright gives small artists hope that they can make a living at it, which broadens the amount of art available and increases the quality because people will spend time on their craft. without that hope, those people might write a song or two in their spare time, but the result is probably not going to be the same as if they had spent all their time on it.
Copying (polyphonic music) by just listening is a special talent. Mozart famously used it to get around a very special copyright (threat of excommunication). Some film music scores have been resconstructed that way too after the original score got lost.
So, it is not impossible but a wee bit more difficult than copying a book by hand (unless we are talking about facsimiles of books of high artistic value).
Copying (polyphonic music) by just listening is a special talent. Mozart famously used it to get around a very special copyright (threat of excommunication). Some film music scores have been resconstructed that way too after the original score got lost.
So, it is not impossible but a wee bit more difficult than copying a book by hand (unless we are talking about facsimiles of books of high artistic value).
“This comic lays out 2000 years of musical history. A neglected part of musical history. Again and again, there have been attempts to police music; to restrict borrowing, and cultural cross-fertilization. But music builds on itself. To those who think that mash-ups and sampling started with YouTube or the DJ’s turntables, it might be shocking to find that musicians have been borrowing—extensively borrowing—from each other since music began. Then why try to stop that process? The reasons varied. Philosophy, religion, politics, race—again and again, race—and law. And because music affects us so deeply, those struggles were passionate ones. They still are.”
Theft! A History of Music: is a graphic novel laying out a 2000-year long history of musical borrowing from Plato to rap.
“This comic lays out 2000 years of musical history. A neglected part of musical history. Again and again, there have been attempts to police music; to restrict borrowing, and cultural cross-fertilization. But music builds on itself. To those who think that mash-ups and sampling started with YouTube or the DJ’s turntables, it might be shocking to find that musicians have been borrowing—extensively borrowing—from each other since music began. Then why try to stop that process? The reasons varied. Philosophy, religion, politics, race—again and again, race—and law. And because music affects us so deeply, those struggles were passionate ones. They still are.”
Theft! A History of Music: is a graphic novel laying out a 2000-year long history of musical borrowing from Plato to rap.
Everybody should be able to reasonably make a good living.
But whether every would-be artist should be able to make a living from said art is a different story. Granted, good (but not superstar) artists mostly get far less than they deserve. But there are those who obviously (to everyone but themselves) have far more enthusiasm than talent. No reason why they should get a living wage for it. (Unless you want to go with UBI. But that’s a different discussion.)
For example, I really enjoy singing. Unfortunately, while I can hear if someone else misses a note, I can’t carry a tune and can’t hear when I miss. So, unless it’s the Sign it Yourself Messiah and the Hallelujah Chorous, I keep it to myself. Nobody should have to listen to my attempts, let alone pay to do so.
Everybody should be able to reasonably make a good living.
But whether every would-be artist should be able to make a living from said art is a different story. Granted, good (but not superstar) artists mostly get far less than they deserve. But there are those who obviously (to everyone but themselves) have far more enthusiasm than talent. No reason why they should get a living wage for it. (Unless you want to go with UBI. But that’s a different discussion.)
For example, I really enjoy singing. Unfortunately, while I can hear if someone else misses a note, I can’t carry a tune and can’t hear when I miss. So, unless it’s the Sign it Yourself Messiah and the Hallelujah Chorous, I keep it to myself. Nobody should have to listen to my attempts, let alone pay to do so.
But there are those who obviously (to everyone but themselves) have far more enthusiasm than talent. No reason why they should get a living wage for it.
Sorry, but I really don’t get why creative people are looked upon with suspicion like this.
The musicians that russell mentioned above seem to be very talented and industrious and yet have a hard time making a living.
And I could give you the names of dozens of people like that in film and TV.
But there are those who obviously (to everyone but themselves) have far more enthusiasm than talent. No reason why they should get a living wage for it.
Sorry, but I really don’t get why creative people are looked upon with suspicion like this.
The musicians that russell mentioned above seem to be very talented and industrious and yet have a hard time making a living.
And I could give you the names of dozens of people like that in film and TV.
This is a very strong claim.
Cleek at 8:12 covers the main points.
People will still do creative work, even if they can’t make a living at it. There will just be less of it, and a lot of it won’t be as good, and it will be a lot harder for you to have access to it.
There are 2 arguments being conflated, that artists should be able to “make a living” through their art, and that artists “should get paid for the use of their art”.
Getting paid for the use of their art is one of the ways that artists make a living. The primary way, for many of them.
Why shouldn’t people get paid for the use of their work? How is society damaged by a songwriter getting paid when somebody records one their songs? Or by a photographer getting paid if one of their photographs is used as a screen saver, or in a magazine ad?
The counter-argument to copyright here seems to be that once a work is realized, in whatever form, it should be free for anyone to use, for any purpose, including renumerative ones, and the creator of the work is not entitled to any income that flows from any of those uses.
Clearly, the work is of some use, because people are using it. Clearly it has some value – some tangible, quantifiable value – because its use is generating revenue.
So – who is entitled to that revenue? Why is the person who created the thing that is generating (in whole or part) that revenue not entitled to that revenue (in whole or part)?
There is a practical issue, which is that a lot of creative work exists in forms that are trivially easy to duplicate. Nobody is arguing that that is not a challenging problem.
But there is an equally practical issue, which is that being able to make a living from your work is what makes it possible for the work to exist at all, at least in any way that makes it accessible to most people and/or with the level of quality that it is available now.
The answer to “how did it work before” is that creative work either took the form of folk or hobbyist work, or it was a luxury good available to a tiny number of people, or it was something provided to the public only through the sponsorship of wealthy sponsors, mostly government or the church.
If you didn’t attend the church where Bach was the music minister, you probably never got to hear Bach cantatas. If you weren’t a Norman royal, you never saw the Bayreuth tapestry. If you weren’t a personal friend of the Barnes family, there were a lot of impressionist paintings you would never see.
Still works that way for a lot of fine art, because the physical object is not reproducible the same way that digital recordings or photographs or videos are. Maybe some rich person will donate the work to a museum, and you will be able to look at it for a few minutes if you have $5 for admission.
That’s how truth and beauty made it’s way to the public in the old days. Via public institutions sponsored by wealthy actors like rich people, the government, or the church, or else not at all.
To me, the issue is that people want stuff for free, and technology has made it difficult to prevent them from having it for free. That has made it that much more challenging for lots of other people – the people who create the stuff – to make a living.
People – especially creative artists – are resilient and, well, creative, so they will figure out ways to deal with it all. But their lives would be a hell of a lot easier if they could reliably get paid a non-laughable amount of money for the use of their work.
Copyright is the lever that makes that even remotely possible. Other suggestions are welcome, but they need to work at least as well as copyright does now. I appreciate the link to Baker’s proposal, but TBH I don’t see it as a practical alternative to what we do now.
This is a very strong claim.
Cleek at 8:12 covers the main points.
People will still do creative work, even if they can’t make a living at it. There will just be less of it, and a lot of it won’t be as good, and it will be a lot harder for you to have access to it.
There are 2 arguments being conflated, that artists should be able to “make a living” through their art, and that artists “should get paid for the use of their art”.
Getting paid for the use of their art is one of the ways that artists make a living. The primary way, for many of them.
Why shouldn’t people get paid for the use of their work? How is society damaged by a songwriter getting paid when somebody records one their songs? Or by a photographer getting paid if one of their photographs is used as a screen saver, or in a magazine ad?
The counter-argument to copyright here seems to be that once a work is realized, in whatever form, it should be free for anyone to use, for any purpose, including renumerative ones, and the creator of the work is not entitled to any income that flows from any of those uses.
Clearly, the work is of some use, because people are using it. Clearly it has some value – some tangible, quantifiable value – because its use is generating revenue.
So – who is entitled to that revenue? Why is the person who created the thing that is generating (in whole or part) that revenue not entitled to that revenue (in whole or part)?
There is a practical issue, which is that a lot of creative work exists in forms that are trivially easy to duplicate. Nobody is arguing that that is not a challenging problem.
But there is an equally practical issue, which is that being able to make a living from your work is what makes it possible for the work to exist at all, at least in any way that makes it accessible to most people and/or with the level of quality that it is available now.
The answer to “how did it work before” is that creative work either took the form of folk or hobbyist work, or it was a luxury good available to a tiny number of people, or it was something provided to the public only through the sponsorship of wealthy sponsors, mostly government or the church.
If you didn’t attend the church where Bach was the music minister, you probably never got to hear Bach cantatas. If you weren’t a Norman royal, you never saw the Bayreuth tapestry. If you weren’t a personal friend of the Barnes family, there were a lot of impressionist paintings you would never see.
Still works that way for a lot of fine art, because the physical object is not reproducible the same way that digital recordings or photographs or videos are. Maybe some rich person will donate the work to a museum, and you will be able to look at it for a few minutes if you have $5 for admission.
That’s how truth and beauty made it’s way to the public in the old days. Via public institutions sponsored by wealthy actors like rich people, the government, or the church, or else not at all.
To me, the issue is that people want stuff for free, and technology has made it difficult to prevent them from having it for free. That has made it that much more challenging for lots of other people – the people who create the stuff – to make a living.
People – especially creative artists – are resilient and, well, creative, so they will figure out ways to deal with it all. But their lives would be a hell of a lot easier if they could reliably get paid a non-laughable amount of money for the use of their work.
Copyright is the lever that makes that even remotely possible. Other suggestions are welcome, but they need to work at least as well as copyright does now. I appreciate the link to Baker’s proposal, but TBH I don’t see it as a practical alternative to what we do now.
Sorry, but I really don’t get why creative people are looked upon with suspicion like this.
It was not my intention to view anyone with suspicion. Just to point out that not everybody who thinks they are an artist actually is. At least in the view of anybody else.
Heaven knows I know enough musicians who are extremely talented, but struggle to make a living. Or necessarily hold a day job to make ends meet.
Sorry, but I really don’t get why creative people are looked upon with suspicion like this.
It was not my intention to view anyone with suspicion. Just to point out that not everybody who thinks they are an artist actually is. At least in the view of anybody else.
Heaven knows I know enough musicians who are extremely talented, but struggle to make a living. Or necessarily hold a day job to make ends meet.
I’m in the same “good singing” boat as wj.
Pro tip: only do covers of Sex Pistols.
I’m in the same “good singing” boat as wj.
Pro tip: only do covers of Sex Pistols.
Just to point out that not everybody who thinks they are an artist actually is. At least in the view of anybody else.
everyone who makes something they consider art is an artist. being popular or making money from it is a different matter.
on the whole, i think anyone who makes something is entitled to make money from it – just like all work – if someone is willing to pay the asking price.
still, i don’t think being an artist should entitle anyone to make a living at it. if you want money from your art, you’ve got to make something people want to pay for. and if you want to make a living, you’ve got to make something a lot of people want to pay for (or something a few are willing to pay a lot for, ex. if you’re making physical art where reproduction is not easy). but still, it should be possible to make a living at it. copyright is fundamental to making it possible.
until Patreon takes over the world and we all fund our own artists directly and continuously, that it.
Just to point out that not everybody who thinks they are an artist actually is. At least in the view of anybody else.
everyone who makes something they consider art is an artist. being popular or making money from it is a different matter.
on the whole, i think anyone who makes something is entitled to make money from it – just like all work – if someone is willing to pay the asking price.
still, i don’t think being an artist should entitle anyone to make a living at it. if you want money from your art, you’ve got to make something people want to pay for. and if you want to make a living, you’ve got to make something a lot of people want to pay for (or something a few are willing to pay a lot for, ex. if you’re making physical art where reproduction is not easy). but still, it should be possible to make a living at it. copyright is fundamental to making it possible.
until Patreon takes over the world and we all fund our own artists directly and continuously, that it.
Copyright is the lever that makes that even remotely possible.
Simply put, this is the crux of my disagreement. There are and there have been other ways of approaching this issue.
The insistence of strong copyright in the internet age has costly social and economic effects (the strong, maybe too strong, case can be found here), and the Baker proposal is eminently feasible.
Stay safe, all.
Copyright is the lever that makes that even remotely possible.
Simply put, this is the crux of my disagreement. There are and there have been other ways of approaching this issue.
The insistence of strong copyright in the internet age has costly social and economic effects (the strong, maybe too strong, case can be found here), and the Baker proposal is eminently feasible.
Stay safe, all.
If you’re really that sucky as an artist, no one is making money off your work, so the point of who is making the money is moot.
To me, the issue is that people want stuff for free, and technology has made it difficult to prevent them from having it for free. That has made it that much more challenging for lots of other people – the people who create the stuff – to make a living.
Even when it’s not “free,” paid streaming services, as already noted, often pay the artists peanuts. So there’s both stealing by end users and short-changing by paid providers.
One thing I find interesting is how willing people were to pay 99 cents for songs on iTunes when it was still possible to get pirated music. Without googling, I don’t know if Napster was still a big thing when iTunes started getting big.
If you’re really that sucky as an artist, no one is making money off your work, so the point of who is making the money is moot.
To me, the issue is that people want stuff for free, and technology has made it difficult to prevent them from having it for free. That has made it that much more challenging for lots of other people – the people who create the stuff – to make a living.
Even when it’s not “free,” paid streaming services, as already noted, often pay the artists peanuts. So there’s both stealing by end users and short-changing by paid providers.
One thing I find interesting is how willing people were to pay 99 cents for songs on iTunes when it was still possible to get pirated music. Without googling, I don’t know if Napster was still a big thing when iTunes started getting big.
i don’t think being an artist should entitle anyone to make a living at it.
Nor do I.
There are 10,000 reasons people do creative work, other than to make a living at it.
Some folks choose to try to make a living at it. If their work is good enough to generate some kind of tangible value, they should get some of that value.
In a nutshell, that’s my assertion. Or, at least, opinion.
copyright is the way we make that happen at the moment. I appreciate bobbyp’s counter-argument here, I just don’t think Baker’s proposal would actually work that well.
i don’t think being an artist should entitle anyone to make a living at it.
Nor do I.
There are 10,000 reasons people do creative work, other than to make a living at it.
Some folks choose to try to make a living at it. If their work is good enough to generate some kind of tangible value, they should get some of that value.
In a nutshell, that’s my assertion. Or, at least, opinion.
copyright is the way we make that happen at the moment. I appreciate bobbyp’s counter-argument here, I just don’t think Baker’s proposal would actually work that well.
A walk down Memory Lane:
https://themusicnetwork.com/forget-napster-it-was-itunes-that-held-the-record-industry-to-ransom/
A walk down Memory Lane:
https://themusicnetwork.com/forget-napster-it-was-itunes-that-held-the-record-industry-to-ransom/
There are and there have been other ways of approaching this issue.
No question, the WPA turned out some great art. But have there been any other such efforts? (Not counting straight-out propaganda efforts, of course.)
Serious question. I don’t know of any, but am willing to be educated on the subject.
There are and there have been other ways of approaching this issue.
No question, the WPA turned out some great art. But have there been any other such efforts? (Not counting straight-out propaganda efforts, of course.)
Serious question. I don’t know of any, but am willing to be educated on the subject.
there’s the National Endowment for the Arts, which “conservatives” hate because it doesn’t always produce politically-correct art.
public art often gets funded through various other levels of govt directly. politics gets involved there, too.
there’s the National Endowment for the Arts, which “conservatives” hate because it doesn’t always produce politically-correct art.
public art often gets funded through various other levels of govt directly. politics gets involved there, too.
if the results of the labor of artists and writers should be freely available to all, why not the results of the labor of farmers, manufacturers, and Wall Street tycoons?
Goods are rivalrous if they can be enjoyed by only one user at a time, non-rivalrous if their consumption can be simultaneous, implying that the marginal cost of an additional consumer is zero. (In practice this is not binary: there’s a continuum of marginal cost.)
The reason why an apple, lovingly grown by a farmer, should not be free is that resources are needed to produce an additional apple for you to eat. We use money as a mechanism to assign resources to production.
The reason why a pdf of Einstein’s paper on Special Relativity should be free is that (effectively) no resources are needed to create an additional copy for you to read.
Goods can be excludable or non-excludable. For example, a seat in a cinema is excludable – the operator of the theatre can exclude non-paying customers. A pdf is non-excludable, barring government intervention. (Again, in practice there’s a continuum.)
Copyright is a legal mechanism for making goods excludable which would otherwise be non-excludable, so that people who want them can be obliged to pay for them.
Making non-rivalrous goods excludable carries a cost to humanity. Suppose reading Einstein’s paper on Special Relativity is worth $5 to me. Suppose copyright on the paper is owned by some corporation which wishes to maximise its revenues, and has determined $6 to be the revenue-maximising price. Then I will not read the paper, and humanity as a whole will be $5 worse off.
OK, it doesn’t matter very much whether I get to read the paper. Let’s talk about patented drugs instead. Many drugs have a low marginal cost of production, so that they are largely non-rivalrous, but regulation of drug manufacture (which is in general a good thing) makes them readily excludable. The consequence is that patent holders price drugs at a level which stops some people being able to afford them. So drug patents cost lives. We need a mechanism to reward companies who create valuable new drugs, but the one we have now is inhuman.
I’m asking readers to see the costs as well as the benefits of legal excludability, and to consider proposals which will bring the two sides into line. Copyright for life plus 70 years is far too long.
if the results of the labor of artists and writers should be freely available to all, why not the results of the labor of farmers, manufacturers, and Wall Street tycoons?
Goods are rivalrous if they can be enjoyed by only one user at a time, non-rivalrous if their consumption can be simultaneous, implying that the marginal cost of an additional consumer is zero. (In practice this is not binary: there’s a continuum of marginal cost.)
The reason why an apple, lovingly grown by a farmer, should not be free is that resources are needed to produce an additional apple for you to eat. We use money as a mechanism to assign resources to production.
The reason why a pdf of Einstein’s paper on Special Relativity should be free is that (effectively) no resources are needed to create an additional copy for you to read.
Goods can be excludable or non-excludable. For example, a seat in a cinema is excludable – the operator of the theatre can exclude non-paying customers. A pdf is non-excludable, barring government intervention. (Again, in practice there’s a continuum.)
Copyright is a legal mechanism for making goods excludable which would otherwise be non-excludable, so that people who want them can be obliged to pay for them.
Making non-rivalrous goods excludable carries a cost to humanity. Suppose reading Einstein’s paper on Special Relativity is worth $5 to me. Suppose copyright on the paper is owned by some corporation which wishes to maximise its revenues, and has determined $6 to be the revenue-maximising price. Then I will not read the paper, and humanity as a whole will be $5 worse off.
OK, it doesn’t matter very much whether I get to read the paper. Let’s talk about patented drugs instead. Many drugs have a low marginal cost of production, so that they are largely non-rivalrous, but regulation of drug manufacture (which is in general a good thing) makes them readily excludable. The consequence is that patent holders price drugs at a level which stops some people being able to afford them. So drug patents cost lives. We need a mechanism to reward companies who create valuable new drugs, but the one we have now is inhuman.
I’m asking readers to see the costs as well as the benefits of legal excludability, and to consider proposals which will bring the two sides into line. Copyright for life plus 70 years is far too long.
Copyright for life plus 70 years is far too long.
definitely.
it’s what we get when Congress (literally) lets industry lawyers write laws it doesn’t have the expertise to understand, and doesn’t listen to public feedback when it says No.
Copyright for life plus 70 years is far too long.
definitely.
it’s what we get when Congress (literally) lets industry lawyers write laws it doesn’t have the expertise to understand, and doesn’t listen to public feedback when it says No.
If you weren’t a Norman royal, you never saw the Bayreuth tapestry.
Or got to hear Richard Wagner’s grand opera “Wilhelm der Eroberer” 😉
If you weren’t a Norman royal, you never saw the Bayreuth tapestry.
Or got to hear Richard Wagner’s grand opera “Wilhelm der Eroberer” 😉
Copyright for life plus 70 years is far too long.
I don’t disagree.
No copyright at all is not the solution to that.
As a practical matter, there are and have been lots of ways for people to have access to copyrighted (not patented) material for non-commercial purposes. Libraries, exemptions to copyright for educational purposes or for use as examples in other work. Use of excerpts of recorded material.
The cost of things like rehearsal scores for high school bands is in general not prohibitive. If you want to perform pop songs or broadway musical scores, it can be a reach. If you want to perform Mozart, not so much. A piano score and vocal parts for something like a church choir might cost you $20. Your own personal copy of a very high quality recording of a pop song will generally cost you a buck.
As a practical matter, the cost to humanity of the copyright regime for creative work is IMO more than outweighed by the benefit to humanity, which is that it makes it possible for the people who create the stuff to eat.
It actually is what some people do for a living, and in general it’s actually a hell of a lot of work to be good enough at it to even think about doing it for a living. I guess the folks involved could do something else, but it’s highly likely they won’t be as good at whatever ‘something else’ is as they are as creative workers. And so society would bear the cost of having a few million mediocre store clerks or middle managers or roofing contractors or whatever, instead of people creating truth and beauty for all of the rest of us to enjoy.
Nothing against store clerks or middle managers or roofing contractors, we need all of those people. But the people who do those things should be people who are actually good at them and interested in doing them, rather than folks who’d create a lot more value doing something else.
Copyright for life plus 70 years is far too long.
I don’t disagree.
No copyright at all is not the solution to that.
As a practical matter, there are and have been lots of ways for people to have access to copyrighted (not patented) material for non-commercial purposes. Libraries, exemptions to copyright for educational purposes or for use as examples in other work. Use of excerpts of recorded material.
The cost of things like rehearsal scores for high school bands is in general not prohibitive. If you want to perform pop songs or broadway musical scores, it can be a reach. If you want to perform Mozart, not so much. A piano score and vocal parts for something like a church choir might cost you $20. Your own personal copy of a very high quality recording of a pop song will generally cost you a buck.
As a practical matter, the cost to humanity of the copyright regime for creative work is IMO more than outweighed by the benefit to humanity, which is that it makes it possible for the people who create the stuff to eat.
It actually is what some people do for a living, and in general it’s actually a hell of a lot of work to be good enough at it to even think about doing it for a living. I guess the folks involved could do something else, but it’s highly likely they won’t be as good at whatever ‘something else’ is as they are as creative workers. And so society would bear the cost of having a few million mediocre store clerks or middle managers or roofing contractors or whatever, instead of people creating truth and beauty for all of the rest of us to enjoy.
Nothing against store clerks or middle managers or roofing contractors, we need all of those people. But the people who do those things should be people who are actually good at them and interested in doing them, rather than folks who’d create a lot more value doing something else.
Here’s the flip side of all the “copyright harms the public” arguments about how innovation should be freely accessible. If someone invents something that makes some sort of profitable production more efficient and there are no IP protections, then people are not going to stop innovating or producing, they are just going to stop telling others about their IP. The practical alternative to IP protections is trade secrets for things protected by patents and limited, private art for the rich or well-connected. And none of these proposals even begin to deal with the issues of trademark.
I grok the urge to take Disney down a few orders of magnitude, or to nuke the ink jet printer people into radioactive slag for the way that they abuse IP regulation. But the changes suggested here to take those entities down a peg would mean that 90% of the bands I listen to would no longer be able to do what they do. They would all have to find other work (which is something that has happened a lot already with the extended shutdown of live music venues taking away the one decent revenue stream left to them). My wife would not stop writing, but she would likely stop writing for the public or would have to retreat into some sort of patreon arrangement whereby she asks people to pay her a private UBI in order to get access to her written work.
It will not free mass culture, it will impoverish mass culture and move a great deal of that dynamism behind well defended walls or into hiding.
Here’s the flip side of all the “copyright harms the public” arguments about how innovation should be freely accessible. If someone invents something that makes some sort of profitable production more efficient and there are no IP protections, then people are not going to stop innovating or producing, they are just going to stop telling others about their IP. The practical alternative to IP protections is trade secrets for things protected by patents and limited, private art for the rich or well-connected. And none of these proposals even begin to deal with the issues of trademark.
I grok the urge to take Disney down a few orders of magnitude, or to nuke the ink jet printer people into radioactive slag for the way that they abuse IP regulation. But the changes suggested here to take those entities down a peg would mean that 90% of the bands I listen to would no longer be able to do what they do. They would all have to find other work (which is something that has happened a lot already with the extended shutdown of live music venues taking away the one decent revenue stream left to them). My wife would not stop writing, but she would likely stop writing for the public or would have to retreat into some sort of patreon arrangement whereby she asks people to pay her a private UBI in order to get access to her written work.
It will not free mass culture, it will impoverish mass culture and move a great deal of that dynamism behind well defended walls or into hiding.
Making non-rivalrous goods excludable carries a cost to humanity.
This reminds me of something Mary Catherine Bateson, daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, wrote in her memoir With a Daughter’s Eye. She was writing about her wedding, and IIRC there was some tension between mother and daughter about the size and visibility of the wedding. MCB wrote something to the effect that Margaret (an anthropologist, after all) believed that people “owed meaning to the community” — and went on through a meditation about the lifelong memories a child might take away from a big fancy wedding.
This book was published in 1984, at which time I, as a gay person, was not only not allowed to have a wedding (of whatever degree of spendour, which would be minimal in my case) where I married the partner of my choice, but still pretty much had to hide in the closet 24/7 if I didn’t want to risk dire consequences in all aspects of my life.
So the lofty-sounding notion of what I might “owe” a community that preferred to keep me in the closet, or throw me off a bridge if I got out of line, was, for me, a vexing one at best.
This discussion around copyright reminds me of that. It’s all well and good to say that my artistic productions should be available to anyone who wants them at more or less the price of making a PDF, but until you couple that with a discussion about fair play to me in terms of getting paid for my efforts, I don’t care all that much about the alleged right of “humanity” to have the fruits of my labor. I’ll listen more closely when it’s more explicitly framed as a two-way street.
I firmly believe that I “owe [something] [quite a lot, in fact] to the community” — but the community also owes something to me, and to everyone else as well, in terms of underwriting lives of safety, health, and dignity to the extent that that’s ensurable by our collective efforts.
At the far end of the spectrum, JKR shouldn’t be a billionaire because people love Harry Potter. But I’m not interested in discussing that separately from the idea that Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk or the Waltons or the Sacklers or the Kochs or the Mercers et hoc genus omne shouldn’t be billionaires either.
Making non-rivalrous goods excludable carries a cost to humanity.
This reminds me of something Mary Catherine Bateson, daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, wrote in her memoir With a Daughter’s Eye. She was writing about her wedding, and IIRC there was some tension between mother and daughter about the size and visibility of the wedding. MCB wrote something to the effect that Margaret (an anthropologist, after all) believed that people “owed meaning to the community” — and went on through a meditation about the lifelong memories a child might take away from a big fancy wedding.
This book was published in 1984, at which time I, as a gay person, was not only not allowed to have a wedding (of whatever degree of spendour, which would be minimal in my case) where I married the partner of my choice, but still pretty much had to hide in the closet 24/7 if I didn’t want to risk dire consequences in all aspects of my life.
So the lofty-sounding notion of what I might “owe” a community that preferred to keep me in the closet, or throw me off a bridge if I got out of line, was, for me, a vexing one at best.
This discussion around copyright reminds me of that. It’s all well and good to say that my artistic productions should be available to anyone who wants them at more or less the price of making a PDF, but until you couple that with a discussion about fair play to me in terms of getting paid for my efforts, I don’t care all that much about the alleged right of “humanity” to have the fruits of my labor. I’ll listen more closely when it’s more explicitly framed as a two-way street.
I firmly believe that I “owe [something] [quite a lot, in fact] to the community” — but the community also owes something to me, and to everyone else as well, in terms of underwriting lives of safety, health, and dignity to the extent that that’s ensurable by our collective efforts.
At the far end of the spectrum, JKR shouldn’t be a billionaire because people love Harry Potter. But I’m not interested in discussing that separately from the idea that Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk or the Waltons or the Sacklers or the Kochs or the Mercers et hoc genus omne shouldn’t be billionaires either.
cross-posted with russell and nous, going outside now to watch the ice melt
cross-posted with russell and nous, going outside now to watch the ice melt
Copyright is a revenue stream, so naturally it has been corrupted by the economic system that values “efficiency” above all else and rewards the most ruthless players in the game. Arguing in favor of copyright is taken as arguing in favor of corruption, in favor of corporations extracting their rent from the work of others.
There’s just something about profiting from the creation of art that bothers some people,and something about limiting the ability to profit from art that bothers other people. The conflict seems to be around the system that implements copyright enforcement, and almost no one seems to like that.
And that system is corrupt, because it rewards and favors ruthless efficiency, power, and immortal corporations. Ironically, technology handed the record companies their age-old dream of charging a customer every time they listen to a song, after decades of fighting them tooth-and-nail because it would (and did) destroy their old business model of shipping physical containers of songs.
Copyright is valuable only if it can be enforced, and in this streaming world you need the resources of a corporation to enforce it effectively. So you wind up either arguing in favor of corporations, or arguing there is no difference between a binary file of a scientific paper and a binary file of a love song.
Copyright is a revenue stream, so naturally it has been corrupted by the economic system that values “efficiency” above all else and rewards the most ruthless players in the game. Arguing in favor of copyright is taken as arguing in favor of corruption, in favor of corporations extracting their rent from the work of others.
There’s just something about profiting from the creation of art that bothers some people,and something about limiting the ability to profit from art that bothers other people. The conflict seems to be around the system that implements copyright enforcement, and almost no one seems to like that.
And that system is corrupt, because it rewards and favors ruthless efficiency, power, and immortal corporations. Ironically, technology handed the record companies their age-old dream of charging a customer every time they listen to a song, after decades of fighting them tooth-and-nail because it would (and did) destroy their old business model of shipping physical containers of songs.
Copyright is valuable only if it can be enforced, and in this streaming world you need the resources of a corporation to enforce it effectively. So you wind up either arguing in favor of corporations, or arguing there is no difference between a binary file of a scientific paper and a binary file of a love song.
Copyright is valuable only if it can be enforced, and in this streaming world you need the resources of a corporation to enforce it effectively.
we also have a culture of generally respecting copyright. we look down on those who try to pass off other’s work as their own. that helps, too.
Copyright is valuable only if it can be enforced, and in this streaming world you need the resources of a corporation to enforce it effectively.
we also have a culture of generally respecting copyright. we look down on those who try to pass off other’s work as their own. that helps, too.
About that age-old dream: the collateral damage was the careers of mid-level artists like the ones in Dayen’s article. The logic of micro-payments made it unprofitable for a record company to put resources into them, so they are left to their own devices, which are not much. I believe the music business of the 20th century was an anomaly for several reasons, and the culture of the ecosystem created by records, radio, and rock ‘n roll will not survive. Copyright will not help them, let alone save them, whether it is enforced or not.
About that age-old dream: the collateral damage was the careers of mid-level artists like the ones in Dayen’s article. The logic of micro-payments made it unprofitable for a record company to put resources into them, so they are left to their own devices, which are not much. I believe the music business of the 20th century was an anomaly for several reasons, and the culture of the ecosystem created by records, radio, and rock ‘n roll will not survive. Copyright will not help them, let alone save them, whether it is enforced or not.
Footnote to my 12:50: The people I’ve known IRL who talk most about what I “owe” to the “community” are usually people who have appointed themselves to be “the community’s” interpreter and mouthpiece. Somehow they have the magic…
Kinda like those RCC prelates who are sure that they speak for God.
Footnote to my 12:50: The people I’ve known IRL who talk most about what I “owe” to the “community” are usually people who have appointed themselves to be “the community’s” interpreter and mouthpiece. Somehow they have the magic…
Kinda like those RCC prelates who are sure that they speak for God.
I believe the music business of the 20th century was an anomaly for several reasons
This is a good point.
As noted here and elsewhere, people have made a living from creative work via all kinds of business models over the centuries. There is nothing that says the way folks did it in the 20th C has to persist beyond the 20th C. Especially when changes in technology make that model increasingly untenable.
Different models will emerge, and folks will figure it out.
In the meantime, a lot of people finding it challenging to make a living from their work. Especially over the last year, when COVID has made live performance much more difficult.
It may be that recordings simply go away as a primary revenue stream. I’m not sure what replaces them, but if it costs somebody tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to make something and they can’t recoup that in one way or other, they’re gonna stop making that thing.
Or, people will stop making their stuff available for streaming, and find other ways to distribute it.
Bottom line from my point of view is, if anybody’s making money off of somebody’s creative work, the person who made the work should be getting some of that. Because it’s their work.
I don’t really care what mechanism makes that happen.
I believe the music business of the 20th century was an anomaly for several reasons
This is a good point.
As noted here and elsewhere, people have made a living from creative work via all kinds of business models over the centuries. There is nothing that says the way folks did it in the 20th C has to persist beyond the 20th C. Especially when changes in technology make that model increasingly untenable.
Different models will emerge, and folks will figure it out.
In the meantime, a lot of people finding it challenging to make a living from their work. Especially over the last year, when COVID has made live performance much more difficult.
It may be that recordings simply go away as a primary revenue stream. I’m not sure what replaces them, but if it costs somebody tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to make something and they can’t recoup that in one way or other, they’re gonna stop making that thing.
Or, people will stop making their stuff available for streaming, and find other ways to distribute it.
Bottom line from my point of view is, if anybody’s making money off of somebody’s creative work, the person who made the work should be getting some of that. Because it’s their work.
I don’t really care what mechanism makes that happen.
The Dayen article is very good. This lept out at me:
The music industry was once sprawling enough to accommodate a wide spectrum of artists. But artists today are beset on all sides by monopolists and oligopolists. Like so many sectors of our economy, government inaction has allowed the music business to consolidate, with devastating effects on musicians.
Perhaps copyright is a distraction from the real problem.
The Dayen article is very good. This lept out at me:
The music industry was once sprawling enough to accommodate a wide spectrum of artists. But artists today are beset on all sides by monopolists and oligopolists. Like so many sectors of our economy, government inaction has allowed the music business to consolidate, with devastating effects on musicians.
Perhaps copyright is a distraction from the real problem.
Bottom line from my point of view is, if anybody’s making money off of somebody’s creative work, the person who made the work should be getting some of that. Because it’s their work.
Over the years I’ve been more interested in this for books and such than for music. The “print” industry is only now getting to the point music reached much earlier: all the new stuff is digital, hence trivially easy to copy. The thing propping the print industry up so far is that there are still tens of millions of people who want to hold a book with paper pages, not read on a screen. Note that digital is much broader than ebook sales. A friend of mine published an academic textbook. Very narrow focus. Never sold in ebook form. Yet some weeks after it was released, a copy showed up at Library Genesis. With some work, we determined it was a bit-perfect copy of the PDF file that was transmitted from the publishing house to the printer. To this day, no one knows where the file leaked.
My specific interest is out-of-print works. It seems to me that the obvious hole in the market is a service that handles scanning, OCR, and a proofing pass, then makes the books available at a price that creates sufficient demand, say $1 per book. I have toyed with the idea of creating a service for authors and readers. I’ll handle getting the book from paper to e-book form and provide the download service. Priced at, say, $1 per volume, split evenly between the author (or whoever holds the copyright) and myself. The price has to hit a sweet spot. In particular, it has to be low enough that people will pay it rather than wait for a library network to loan them a paper copy, or go to the effort of finding if there’s some sort of pirate copy out there.
A number of SFF writers comment at Charlie Stross’ blog. They are remarkably consistent in what they see as the future for novels in the genre: a small number of unicorns who can get advances and make a living at it, and a much larger number of authors who have some other means of support (eg, a spouse).
Bottom line from my point of view is, if anybody’s making money off of somebody’s creative work, the person who made the work should be getting some of that. Because it’s their work.
Over the years I’ve been more interested in this for books and such than for music. The “print” industry is only now getting to the point music reached much earlier: all the new stuff is digital, hence trivially easy to copy. The thing propping the print industry up so far is that there are still tens of millions of people who want to hold a book with paper pages, not read on a screen. Note that digital is much broader than ebook sales. A friend of mine published an academic textbook. Very narrow focus. Never sold in ebook form. Yet some weeks after it was released, a copy showed up at Library Genesis. With some work, we determined it was a bit-perfect copy of the PDF file that was transmitted from the publishing house to the printer. To this day, no one knows where the file leaked.
My specific interest is out-of-print works. It seems to me that the obvious hole in the market is a service that handles scanning, OCR, and a proofing pass, then makes the books available at a price that creates sufficient demand, say $1 per book. I have toyed with the idea of creating a service for authors and readers. I’ll handle getting the book from paper to e-book form and provide the download service. Priced at, say, $1 per volume, split evenly between the author (or whoever holds the copyright) and myself. The price has to hit a sweet spot. In particular, it has to be low enough that people will pay it rather than wait for a library network to loan them a paper copy, or go to the effort of finding if there’s some sort of pirate copy out there.
A number of SFF writers comment at Charlie Stross’ blog. They are remarkably consistent in what they see as the future for novels in the genre: a small number of unicorns who can get advances and make a living at it, and a much larger number of authors who have some other means of support (eg, a spouse).
A lot of interesting stuff here, thanks all. My own frustration with copyright is teaching with students and having to deal with the question of whether I should try and educate them about they shouldn’t use, say, a copyrighted picture in their presentation or spend time actually getting them to improve their presentation skills. I know some teachers who have made this their mission in life to rag on students for not understanding this and it seems like some of them substitute being cranky about copyright for being cranky about grammar and errors, i.e. it’s a ploy to remain above the students.
There is also a template that seems to have too much in common with Randian idiocies of ‘makers’ and ‘takers’. The elevation of creation as the ultimate skill has everyone feel they have to monetize their creative ability. I understand that the perfect fill or the just right doodled image might have a huge amount of work behind it, but the act of monetizing smaller and smaller pieces of what people do ends up having us think that creation is something best done by people with the best PR.
A lot of interesting stuff here, thanks all. My own frustration with copyright is teaching with students and having to deal with the question of whether I should try and educate them about they shouldn’t use, say, a copyrighted picture in their presentation or spend time actually getting them to improve their presentation skills. I know some teachers who have made this their mission in life to rag on students for not understanding this and it seems like some of them substitute being cranky about copyright for being cranky about grammar and errors, i.e. it’s a ploy to remain above the students.
There is also a template that seems to have too much in common with Randian idiocies of ‘makers’ and ‘takers’. The elevation of creation as the ultimate skill has everyone feel they have to monetize their creative ability. I understand that the perfect fill or the just right doodled image might have a huge amount of work behind it, but the act of monetizing smaller and smaller pieces of what people do ends up having us think that creation is something best done by people with the best PR.
If you have an agent and are published by a mass market SFF publisher, then you should get an advance. The problem is that the average advance on a SFF novel for a new writer with no sales history is about $5k, and that novel likely represents three or four “trunk novels” to get to the point where the writer could write something good enough to secure an agent and then another two years of shopping that manuscript and going through the pre-print process (editor, copy editor, layout, cover art, audio book narrator selection, promo work). That’s a lot of work besides the creation of the text that’s covered by those advances. And then the book has to pay for all ten or so people involved in that work along with earning back that $5k before the writer makes a penny of royalties.
The advance isn’t the tricky part (though that by itself already puts you in the top 2% of writers when looking at rejection rates), it’s selling enough beyond the advance to get the publisher to pick up a third book and build enough of a successful backlist to keep yourself in print.
It took winning a Hugo Award before NK Jemisin could afford to write full time.
Scalzi is a unicorn. More power to him.
If you have an agent and are published by a mass market SFF publisher, then you should get an advance. The problem is that the average advance on a SFF novel for a new writer with no sales history is about $5k, and that novel likely represents three or four “trunk novels” to get to the point where the writer could write something good enough to secure an agent and then another two years of shopping that manuscript and going through the pre-print process (editor, copy editor, layout, cover art, audio book narrator selection, promo work). That’s a lot of work besides the creation of the text that’s covered by those advances. And then the book has to pay for all ten or so people involved in that work along with earning back that $5k before the writer makes a penny of royalties.
The advance isn’t the tricky part (though that by itself already puts you in the top 2% of writers when looking at rejection rates), it’s selling enough beyond the advance to get the publisher to pick up a third book and build enough of a successful backlist to keep yourself in print.
It took winning a Hugo Award before NK Jemisin could afford to write full time.
Scalzi is a unicorn. More power to him.
The elevation of creation as the ultimate skill has everyone feel they have to monetize their creative ability.
The vast majority of people who do creative work do so because they love it, and neither expect nor receive any compensation.
The majority of people who do creative work professionally also do other things, which may or may not be related to their creative pursuit, to round out their household income stream.
There’s nothing magic or privileged about creative work. It’s even weird to call it “creative work”, as if work not involving art forms or technical research isn’t just as creative.
FWIW, I don’t argue for treating the stuff that musicians and painters and writers and actors do as some special kind of work. I argue for treating as work.
The elevation of creation as the ultimate skill has everyone feel they have to monetize their creative ability.
The vast majority of people who do creative work do so because they love it, and neither expect nor receive any compensation.
The majority of people who do creative work professionally also do other things, which may or may not be related to their creative pursuit, to round out their household income stream.
There’s nothing magic or privileged about creative work. It’s even weird to call it “creative work”, as if work not involving art forms or technical research isn’t just as creative.
FWIW, I don’t argue for treating the stuff that musicians and painters and writers and actors do as some special kind of work. I argue for treating as work.
The vast majority of people who do creative work do so because they love it, and neither expect nor receive any compensation.
This prompts another thread, in classical music, you go from Haydn, who was basically a servant of the Esterhazy, to Mozart, who perhaps wanted to be like that, but didn’t really have the temperament, to Beethoven. The story about Goethe and Beethoven is here
https://www.classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/guides/johann-von-goethe-1749-1832/
On one occasion the two men were walking in the park immediately behind the castle in the centre of Teplitz. Goethe suddenly noticed that the Empress was walking with her retinue on the other side of the park. He hurried over, insisting Beethoven come with him.
Goethe positioned himself in front of the Empress and as she passed executed a deep bow. Beethoven pushed his top hat firmly on the back of his head, crossed his arms and strode past the Empress, intentionally snubbing her. Goethe was appalled, and their friendship was irretrievably damaged.
One thread of the Enlightenment is to argue that artistic genius resides in all men (and later women) and that elevation of genius to be the sine qua non gets you some kick-ass art, but also gets you the artist going over the edge for their art. Classical music doesn’t have as many as other art forms (Smetna, and Schumann are two that come to mind, with Tchaikovsky a possible third) though every other art form has tons.
I do agree with Russell that calling stuff ‘creative’ is a trap, figuring out a bullet proof logistical chain or setting up a curriculum that works to educate seems to be just as creative to me as painting a picture or writing a symphony. But if we elevate the individual over the collective (as the West tends to do), it seems unavoidable to think that way.
The vast majority of people who do creative work do so because they love it, and neither expect nor receive any compensation.
This prompts another thread, in classical music, you go from Haydn, who was basically a servant of the Esterhazy, to Mozart, who perhaps wanted to be like that, but didn’t really have the temperament, to Beethoven. The story about Goethe and Beethoven is here
https://www.classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/guides/johann-von-goethe-1749-1832/
On one occasion the two men were walking in the park immediately behind the castle in the centre of Teplitz. Goethe suddenly noticed that the Empress was walking with her retinue on the other side of the park. He hurried over, insisting Beethoven come with him.
Goethe positioned himself in front of the Empress and as she passed executed a deep bow. Beethoven pushed his top hat firmly on the back of his head, crossed his arms and strode past the Empress, intentionally snubbing her. Goethe was appalled, and their friendship was irretrievably damaged.
One thread of the Enlightenment is to argue that artistic genius resides in all men (and later women) and that elevation of genius to be the sine qua non gets you some kick-ass art, but also gets you the artist going over the edge for their art. Classical music doesn’t have as many as other art forms (Smetna, and Schumann are two that come to mind, with Tchaikovsky a possible third) though every other art form has tons.
I do agree with Russell that calling stuff ‘creative’ is a trap, figuring out a bullet proof logistical chain or setting up a curriculum that works to educate seems to be just as creative to me as painting a picture or writing a symphony. But if we elevate the individual over the collective (as the West tends to do), it seems unavoidable to think that way.
Funny you should mention genius. I had occasion to quote this poem elsewhere just the other day. The last stanza is one of my favorite statements about writing:
My Irish girlfriend back in the day hated it, because the fact that I liked it suggested to her that there might be something more important to me than she was. Well, there was, but it wasn’t writing. Heh.
Funny you should mention genius. I had occasion to quote this poem elsewhere just the other day. The last stanza is one of my favorite statements about writing:
My Irish girlfriend back in the day hated it, because the fact that I liked it suggested to her that there might be something more important to me than she was. Well, there was, but it wasn’t writing. Heh.
Double checking wikipedia on Tchaikovsky and read this
Regardless of talent, the only musical careers available in Russia at that time—except for the affluent aristocracy—were as a teacher in an academy or as an instrumentalist in one of the Imperial Theaters. Both were considered on the lowest rank of the social ladder, with individuals in them enjoying no more rights than peasants.
Musical peasants sounds like a great band name
Double checking wikipedia on Tchaikovsky and read this
Regardless of talent, the only musical careers available in Russia at that time—except for the affluent aristocracy—were as a teacher in an academy or as an instrumentalist in one of the Imperial Theaters. Both were considered on the lowest rank of the social ladder, with individuals in them enjoying no more rights than peasants.
Musical peasants sounds like a great band name
Serf Guitar?
Serf Guitar?
Many Russian aristocrats had whole serf orchestras. A specialty was the ‘horn music’ with each serf with a horn suited for just one note. That way they did not need talent just a memory for the sequence (so each serf would know at what point he had to blow into his own horn).
Of the Mighty Handful Cui and Borodin had true careers and treated their musical activities as a hobby. Rimsky-Korsakov formally kept his rank as a naval officer and got at times some sinecures (e.g. as chief inspector of naval bands and orchestras or the tsar’s own chapel choir). Later he got sponsorships from rich industrialists, who ran their own opera theatres. Balakirev and Mussorgsky had to work as (extremly ineffective) bureaucrats (we have complaints from both about how they hated their jobs).
Many Russian aristocrats had whole serf orchestras. A specialty was the ‘horn music’ with each serf with a horn suited for just one note. That way they did not need talent just a memory for the sequence (so each serf would know at what point he had to blow into his own horn).
Of the Mighty Handful Cui and Borodin had true careers and treated their musical activities as a hobby. Rimsky-Korsakov formally kept his rank as a naval officer and got at times some sinecures (e.g. as chief inspector of naval bands and orchestras or the tsar’s own chapel choir). Later he got sponsorships from rich industrialists, who ran their own opera theatres. Balakirev and Mussorgsky had to work as (extremly ineffective) bureaucrats (we have complaints from both about how they hated their jobs).
Mussorgsky and Rimsky also display two ver different ways of approaching their art. For Rimsky it was hard and meticulous work by the book (although he had to write the book himself as an academy teacher after being a mere self-taught dilettant before [his own opinion]). He repeatedly reworked his earlier works to get them up to standard (sometimes to their detriment). Mussorgsky on the other hand never saw the need to read a book on musical theory (let alone write one) and even cursed his friend for his sudden turn to orderly wasy of composing (‘Now he is writing fugues. Oh for his ink to dry up in the bottle!’). His own work was ‘pure genius’ but always an immense struggle*. He also tended to abandon work on one project to start a new one, so a lot was left as a torso for his friends and successors to make ready for (public) performance.
I truly love the work of both composers and it’s fascinating how their different approach shaped the final products.
*in some cases he delegated the work of orchestration to Rimsky (e.g the ‘Dance of the Persian slave girls’ in the Khovanshchina), since his friend was not for naught known as ‘the wizard of the orchestra’.
Mussorgsky and Rimsky also display two ver different ways of approaching their art. For Rimsky it was hard and meticulous work by the book (although he had to write the book himself as an academy teacher after being a mere self-taught dilettant before [his own opinion]). He repeatedly reworked his earlier works to get them up to standard (sometimes to their detriment). Mussorgsky on the other hand never saw the need to read a book on musical theory (let alone write one) and even cursed his friend for his sudden turn to orderly wasy of composing (‘Now he is writing fugues. Oh for his ink to dry up in the bottle!’). His own work was ‘pure genius’ but always an immense struggle*. He also tended to abandon work on one project to start a new one, so a lot was left as a torso for his friends and successors to make ready for (public) performance.
I truly love the work of both composers and it’s fascinating how their different approach shaped the final products.
*in some cases he delegated the work of orchestration to Rimsky (e.g the ‘Dance of the Persian slave girls’ in the Khovanshchina), since his friend was not for naught known as ‘the wizard of the orchestra’.
Janie, thank you for the Marge Piercy. I can’t overstate how exactly correct it seems to me.
There are a handful of gifts you must bring to the table if you want to work as an artist, of whatever kind.
The first is the ability to be alone, by yourself, in a room, for hours and hours and hours and days and days and years and years.
The next is the ability to be brutally honest with yourself about the quality of your work and the progress you are or are not making.
The next is the ability to fail and fail and fail, over and over again, until, finally, you don’t. And then maybe you have to start that cycle all over again.
But maybe most important is to simply be completely fascinated by the material you are working with. Words, sounds, colors, shapes, textures, whatever. If nothing is more interesting to you then, for example, and in Auden’s words, “the way that words taste”, or the shimmer of fat colors on top of lean ones, or the odd melancholy of a minor 6th interval, you may have some good work in you.
Talent, in the sense of some brilliant spark of genius, is less important, and in fact can work against you. It can make the first steps too easy, and prevent you from building the resilience you will need for the long haul.
You have to love doing the work. So much that outcomes are, not unimportant, but not a make or break thing.
As far as genius, Thelonious Monk said “the genius is the one who is most like themself”. That seems about right, to me.
Janie, thank you for the Marge Piercy. I can’t overstate how exactly correct it seems to me.
There are a handful of gifts you must bring to the table if you want to work as an artist, of whatever kind.
The first is the ability to be alone, by yourself, in a room, for hours and hours and hours and days and days and years and years.
The next is the ability to be brutally honest with yourself about the quality of your work and the progress you are or are not making.
The next is the ability to fail and fail and fail, over and over again, until, finally, you don’t. And then maybe you have to start that cycle all over again.
But maybe most important is to simply be completely fascinated by the material you are working with. Words, sounds, colors, shapes, textures, whatever. If nothing is more interesting to you then, for example, and in Auden’s words, “the way that words taste”, or the shimmer of fat colors on top of lean ones, or the odd melancholy of a minor 6th interval, you may have some good work in you.
Talent, in the sense of some brilliant spark of genius, is less important, and in fact can work against you. It can make the first steps too easy, and prevent you from building the resilience you will need for the long haul.
You have to love doing the work. So much that outcomes are, not unimportant, but not a make or break thing.
As far as genius, Thelonious Monk said “the genius is the one who is most like themself”. That seems about right, to me.
Musical peasants sounds like a great band name
I saw a punk band named “Peasants with Pitchforks” at Abe’s Steaks on South Street when I was in high school. I just found some of their stuff. You can buy it, which I suppose makes it relevant to this post. Bandcamp was mentioned on this thread, right?
https://maceistheplace.bandcamp.com/album/peasants-with-pitchforks-1985-demo
Musical peasants sounds like a great band name
I saw a punk band named “Peasants with Pitchforks” at Abe’s Steaks on South Street when I was in high school. I just found some of their stuff. You can buy it, which I suppose makes it relevant to this post. Bandcamp was mentioned on this thread, right?
https://maceistheplace.bandcamp.com/album/peasants-with-pitchforks-1985-demo
Thanks back atcha, russell. I will save your comment along with the Piercy poem, because it’s an eloquent statement of the case.
I especially note the part about how talent can work against you. I think talent worked against me in a number of ways (not that making excuses is worth anything, however), and I saw precisely that phenomenon with quite a few little kids when I coached youth/rec basketball. Some of the kids who were quite talented athletically not only didn’t develop resilience, they didn’t think there was anything they needed to learn, and so were eventually beaten out by kids who worked harder and were more willing to learn. That’s a talent too, after all.
Thelonious Monk’s take on it reminds me of this Martin Buber quote: Before his death, Rabbi Zusya said “In the coming world, they will not ask me: ‘Why were you not Moses?’ They will ask me: ‘Why were you not Zusya?'”
And I shouldn’t have been so snarky about my Irishwoman. It was complicated. As they say.
Thanks back atcha, russell. I will save your comment along with the Piercy poem, because it’s an eloquent statement of the case.
I especially note the part about how talent can work against you. I think talent worked against me in a number of ways (not that making excuses is worth anything, however), and I saw precisely that phenomenon with quite a few little kids when I coached youth/rec basketball. Some of the kids who were quite talented athletically not only didn’t develop resilience, they didn’t think there was anything they needed to learn, and so were eventually beaten out by kids who worked harder and were more willing to learn. That’s a talent too, after all.
Thelonious Monk’s take on it reminds me of this Martin Buber quote: Before his death, Rabbi Zusya said “In the coming world, they will not ask me: ‘Why were you not Moses?’ They will ask me: ‘Why were you not Zusya?'”
And I shouldn’t have been so snarky about my Irishwoman. It was complicated. As they say.
At the risk of being very boring: I think the discussion of copyright would really benefit if more people were able or willing to differentiate a little bit:
Someone composing a song or writing a novel with the aim, amongst other objectives, of getting some money or eventually making a living has nothing whatsoever to do with a pharma giant patenting life-saving drugs.
Someone making a documentary who wants to get royalties so he/she can live, pay people and maybe make another documentary has nothing whatsoever to do with Disney, Marvel or Banijay – they might as well live on different planets.
At the risk of being very boring: I think the discussion of copyright would really benefit if more people were able or willing to differentiate a little bit:
Someone composing a song or writing a novel with the aim, amongst other objectives, of getting some money or eventually making a living has nothing whatsoever to do with a pharma giant patenting life-saving drugs.
Someone making a documentary who wants to get royalties so he/she can live, pay people and maybe make another documentary has nothing whatsoever to do with Disney, Marvel or Banijay – they might as well live on different planets.
nit…
not all drugs are produced or developed by “pharma giants”.
there are countless small research shops out there doing real innovation. yes, a lot of them get gobbled-up by the giants once they come up with something useful. but that doesn’t change the fact that real people, working in the cheapest office park they could find, came up with the idea. and they deserve to profit from it.
nit…
not all drugs are produced or developed by “pharma giants”.
there are countless small research shops out there doing real innovation. yes, a lot of them get gobbled-up by the giants once they come up with something useful. but that doesn’t change the fact that real people, working in the cheapest office park they could find, came up with the idea. and they deserve to profit from it.
…worked harder and were more willing to learn. That’s a talent too, after all.
That’s something I ponder occasionally. I try to disentangle natural ability from effort as a distinction between aptitude and inclination. I was good at writing code in college, both in the sense of not making many errors and coming up with efficient logic. But I hated doing it. I had the aptitude, but not the inclination. I would never progress beyond what I had to do to get through whatever class I had to take.
It’s not exactly the same thing as wanting to do something, but being so naturally talented that you do well long enough without much effort that you lose the drive to work at getting better. But the result is more or less the same. You peter out at some point. You’re just not as disappointed about it if it’s not something you liked doing in the first place.
The really exceptional ones are those who have an abundance of natural talent combined with the drive to get better, regardless of how good they might be compared to others around them. They compete with themselves. (Michael Jordan?) Not that it’s always about competition in the way that applies to sports, though I’d guess artists (especially musicians?) and scientists might be more competitive than they’d like to admit.
What might also be exceptional is someone who lacks natural ability but their drive is so strong that they still reach elite status in whatever pursuit. I don’t know how much that happens, if at all. I’d love to know of any examples if anyone has them.
…worked harder and were more willing to learn. That’s a talent too, after all.
That’s something I ponder occasionally. I try to disentangle natural ability from effort as a distinction between aptitude and inclination. I was good at writing code in college, both in the sense of not making many errors and coming up with efficient logic. But I hated doing it. I had the aptitude, but not the inclination. I would never progress beyond what I had to do to get through whatever class I had to take.
It’s not exactly the same thing as wanting to do something, but being so naturally talented that you do well long enough without much effort that you lose the drive to work at getting better. But the result is more or less the same. You peter out at some point. You’re just not as disappointed about it if it’s not something you liked doing in the first place.
The really exceptional ones are those who have an abundance of natural talent combined with the drive to get better, regardless of how good they might be compared to others around them. They compete with themselves. (Michael Jordan?) Not that it’s always about competition in the way that applies to sports, though I’d guess artists (especially musicians?) and scientists might be more competitive than they’d like to admit.
What might also be exceptional is someone who lacks natural ability but their drive is so strong that they still reach elite status in whatever pursuit. I don’t know how much that happens, if at all. I’d love to know of any examples if anyone has them.
I’d love to know of any examples if anyone has them.
the entire elected GOP.
I’d love to know of any examples if anyone has them.
the entire elected GOP.
Someone composing a song or writing a novel with the aim, amongst other objectives, of getting some money or eventually making a living has nothing whatsoever to do with a pharma giant patenting life-saving drugs.
“nothing whatsoever”? It seems like both are deciding whether to put time and resources into creating something new in order to produce income.
Someone composing a song or writing a novel with the aim, amongst other objectives, of getting some money or eventually making a living has nothing whatsoever to do with a pharma giant patenting life-saving drugs.
“nothing whatsoever”? It seems like both are deciding whether to put time and resources into creating something new in order to produce income.
What might also be exceptional is someone who lacks natural ability but their drive is so strong that they still reach elite status in whatever pursuit. I don’t know how much that happens, if at all. I’d love to know of any examples if anyone has them.
It would be interesting to have some examples to ponder. It’s a difficult framing, because by the time we know someone has reached elite status, the backward look at whether they started with any natural ability is going to be … complicated. Their own word would count for something, I guess, and the word early teachers or coaches. Or ups and downs along the way, though very talented people have those, too.
But it reminds me of another angle, which is that the work of an artist (speaking broadly) might be retrospectively reevaluated, even after the death of the creator, and seen as much greater works than they were thought to be earlier. Whereas with athletes…well, if you don’t make the NBA in this lifetime, you never will. (Presumably.) Although even there you hear serious fans talking about might-have-beens, like Len Bias, or some guy who was the best player anyone ever saw on some playground in NYC.
What might also be exceptional is someone who lacks natural ability but their drive is so strong that they still reach elite status in whatever pursuit. I don’t know how much that happens, if at all. I’d love to know of any examples if anyone has them.
It would be interesting to have some examples to ponder. It’s a difficult framing, because by the time we know someone has reached elite status, the backward look at whether they started with any natural ability is going to be … complicated. Their own word would count for something, I guess, and the word early teachers or coaches. Or ups and downs along the way, though very talented people have those, too.
But it reminds me of another angle, which is that the work of an artist (speaking broadly) might be retrospectively reevaluated, even after the death of the creator, and seen as much greater works than they were thought to be earlier. Whereas with athletes…well, if you don’t make the NBA in this lifetime, you never will. (Presumably.) Although even there you hear serious fans talking about might-have-beens, like Len Bias, or some guy who was the best player anyone ever saw on some playground in NYC.
The Russian composer Vasily Kalinnikov was not very successful selling his works while alive.
After Kalinnikov’s death Jurgenson (Tchaikovsky’s publisher) purchased the Symphony No. 2 in A major and other works from his widow for a high sum, commenting that his death “had multiplied the value of his works by ten”
The Russian composer Vasily Kalinnikov was not very successful selling his works while alive.
After Kalinnikov’s death Jurgenson (Tchaikovsky’s publisher) purchased the Symphony No. 2 in A major and other works from his widow for a high sum, commenting that his death “had multiplied the value of his works by ten”
…someone who lacks natural ability but their drive is so strong that they still reach elite status in whatever pursuit…
Matthew Syed, formerly a highly ranked table-tennis player, wrote a book, Bounce, about “The myth of talent and the power of practice”.
I don’t believe that talent is a myth, but I’ve not read the book.
…someone who lacks natural ability but their drive is so strong that they still reach elite status in whatever pursuit…
Matthew Syed, formerly a highly ranked table-tennis player, wrote a book, Bounce, about “The myth of talent and the power of practice”.
I don’t believe that talent is a myth, but I’ve not read the book.
For many things, practice is more important than talent. BUT, you have to start out with some talent — without that, no amount of practice will get you anywhere.
For many things, practice is more important than talent. BUT, you have to start out with some talent — without that, no amount of practice will get you anywhere.
…no amount of practice will get you anywhere.
I don’t know about anywhere. Perhaps not to elite status, depending on how you define having no talent. (Is it possible to lack talent so entirely that you don’t even have enough to practice in a meaningful sense?)
…no amount of practice will get you anywhere.
I don’t know about anywhere. Perhaps not to elite status, depending on how you define having no talent. (Is it possible to lack talent so entirely that you don’t even have enough to practice in a meaningful sense?)
OK, “anywhere” was a bit of an overstatement. I should have said, it won’t get you good enough to produce something that much of anybody will be willing to pay for.
OK, “anywhere” was a bit of an overstatement. I should have said, it won’t get you good enough to produce something that much of anybody will be willing to pay for.
I think that “talent” is the wrong word from a teaching/learning standpoint. It connotes something special and out of the ordinary. I think that “ability” or “capacity” is closer to the right connotation. No fairy dust required.
Ability. Inclination. Curiosity. Mindful practice.
Garnish with good fortune.
I think that “talent” is the wrong word from a teaching/learning standpoint. It connotes something special and out of the ordinary. I think that “ability” or “capacity” is closer to the right connotation. No fairy dust required.
Ability. Inclination. Curiosity. Mindful practice.
Garnish with good fortune.
I’m not really sure exactly what you mean, nous, like, “ability” doesn’t require fairy dust but “talent” does? It seems to me that certain levels of “ability” or “talent” are out of the ordinary.
It makes me think of something a high school friend of mine said a few years ago. He married another of our classmates, and we were all reminiscing one night, and he told me that the summer after freshman year he had done remedial math — I hadn’t known that. What he said was that his wife and I seemed to just know the math (which was true at that level — Algebra I in those days), whereas he had to work hard at it, and get extra help, and still struggled.
So from a teaching standpoint, I would think a teacher would deal with us differently — and in fact, that had been true. Our algebra teacher had let several of us go off in a corner and work ahead on our own while she tried to get the rest of the class to understand the distributive law.
Turn that around, and I would have struggled at sports (if there had been any for girls) the way my friend struggled with algebra.
I’m not sure I care whether you call it talent or ability … but we were certainly quite different in how we learned and progressed.
Or I can leave my friends out of it and just observe my own mix of abilities (talents?) and struggles. Up to a certain point, yes, I just seemed to *know* the math I was supposed to learn. I did hit a wall eventually, and that’s where the topic of the earlier exchange came into play: I didn’t really know how to work hard at it, or how to approach material that didn’t come easily.
Whereas I was always gawky and clumsy at sports, from a very young age. (I know this because my cousins of roughly the same age were “talented” at sports, one of them dazzlingly so.) I’m sure I could have gotten somewhat better with determination and good teaching/coaching, but that wasn’t on offer.
“Garnish with good fortune” — with that I agree absolutely.
I’m not really sure exactly what you mean, nous, like, “ability” doesn’t require fairy dust but “talent” does? It seems to me that certain levels of “ability” or “talent” are out of the ordinary.
It makes me think of something a high school friend of mine said a few years ago. He married another of our classmates, and we were all reminiscing one night, and he told me that the summer after freshman year he had done remedial math — I hadn’t known that. What he said was that his wife and I seemed to just know the math (which was true at that level — Algebra I in those days), whereas he had to work hard at it, and get extra help, and still struggled.
So from a teaching standpoint, I would think a teacher would deal with us differently — and in fact, that had been true. Our algebra teacher had let several of us go off in a corner and work ahead on our own while she tried to get the rest of the class to understand the distributive law.
Turn that around, and I would have struggled at sports (if there had been any for girls) the way my friend struggled with algebra.
I’m not sure I care whether you call it talent or ability … but we were certainly quite different in how we learned and progressed.
Or I can leave my friends out of it and just observe my own mix of abilities (talents?) and struggles. Up to a certain point, yes, I just seemed to *know* the math I was supposed to learn. I did hit a wall eventually, and that’s where the topic of the earlier exchange came into play: I didn’t really know how to work hard at it, or how to approach material that didn’t come easily.
Whereas I was always gawky and clumsy at sports, from a very young age. (I know this because my cousins of roughly the same age were “talented” at sports, one of them dazzlingly so.) I’m sure I could have gotten somewhat better with determination and good teaching/coaching, but that wasn’t on offer.
“Garnish with good fortune” — with that I agree absolutely.
I think talent or innate ability is a real thing, and makes it much easier to be good at stuff. IMO the problem arises when some kind of value judgement is placed on it. Pretty much everybody is good at something, and most folks are good at a few things. We just seem to value some things more than others.
I think there’s also a self-selection effect involved in there somewhere. People tend to be attracted to things that they have some aptitude for, it seems to me. Not always, but often.
Except for hairshirt, that guy is always making trouble… 🙂
I think talent or innate ability is a real thing, and makes it much easier to be good at stuff. IMO the problem arises when some kind of value judgement is placed on it. Pretty much everybody is good at something, and most folks are good at a few things. We just seem to value some things more than others.
I think there’s also a self-selection effect involved in there somewhere. People tend to be attracted to things that they have some aptitude for, it seems to me. Not always, but often.
Except for hairshirt, that guy is always making trouble… 🙂
I’d much rather do a sucky job at playing the guitar than masterfully writing code, so guilty as charged.
I’d much rather do a sucky job at playing the guitar than masterfully writing code, so guilty as charged.
People tend to be attracted to things that they have some aptitude for, it seems to me. Not always, but often.
Yes, appropriately hedged. 😉
I *loved* math. I still like to play around with logic problems for “fun,” and Excel is my favorite app.
But I also wanted to play sports. I have no idea what would have happened if there had actually been sports for me to play, like there are for girls now, and it had turned out that I would have had to work very, very hard just to be a scrub on some team. That, we never got to find out.
I did play on a city rec women’s softball team when I was 13 and 14. I was the youngest player on the team (probably in the league) by several years. Most of the players were adults; you really did have to love it, and be determined, to find sports to play as a girl when/where I grew up. None of my friends were interested.
I really wasn’t very good at throwing *or* hitting *or* running — but they didn’t have an oversupply of players, either, so they made me the catcher. It was probably because no one else wanted to be catcher — it’s hell on the knees. 😉
People tend to be attracted to things that they have some aptitude for, it seems to me. Not always, but often.
Yes, appropriately hedged. 😉
I *loved* math. I still like to play around with logic problems for “fun,” and Excel is my favorite app.
But I also wanted to play sports. I have no idea what would have happened if there had actually been sports for me to play, like there are for girls now, and it had turned out that I would have had to work very, very hard just to be a scrub on some team. That, we never got to find out.
I did play on a city rec women’s softball team when I was 13 and 14. I was the youngest player on the team (probably in the league) by several years. Most of the players were adults; you really did have to love it, and be determined, to find sports to play as a girl when/where I grew up. None of my friends were interested.
I really wasn’t very good at throwing *or* hitting *or* running — but they didn’t have an oversupply of players, either, so they made me the catcher. It was probably because no one else wanted to be catcher — it’s hell on the knees. 😉
Oh, on ability versus talent:
To me talent has more to do with quickly acquiring skill (or innately being able to do things that other people need to practice before being able to do them). Ability I would say covers that and other things, like speed or strength, that can only be acquired to a certain point (that point possibly depending on your ability, as does your baseline) and that aren’t skills in the sense that playing the trumpet or consistently making free throws are.
Some abilities might depend on the fundamental structures of your body. Taking it to the most basic extreme, if you’re tall, you have the ability to reach things that a short person can’t. That’s an ability that doesn’t relate at all to talent.
Oh, on ability versus talent:
To me talent has more to do with quickly acquiring skill (or innately being able to do things that other people need to practice before being able to do them). Ability I would say covers that and other things, like speed or strength, that can only be acquired to a certain point (that point possibly depending on your ability, as does your baseline) and that aren’t skills in the sense that playing the trumpet or consistently making free throws are.
Some abilities might depend on the fundamental structures of your body. Taking it to the most basic extreme, if you’re tall, you have the ability to reach things that a short person can’t. That’s an ability that doesn’t relate at all to talent.
I didn’t really know how to work hard at it, or how to approach material that didn’t come easily.
I’m with you there. I had never had to study; then, as a freshman in high school, I hit German I. Turns out you (at least I) can’t learn a language just by listening in class, and reading the text once — which was how I “studied” up until then. The D that first semester was a serious wake-up call: I had to figure out how to study. Which I did, ending up with A’s by the time I got to German IV as a senior.
And then I got to college, and discovered that I had to learn how to study for things that were not a foreign language. Again, took me a year or more to get my grades back up to something acceptable.
I didn’t really know how to work hard at it, or how to approach material that didn’t come easily.
I’m with you there. I had never had to study; then, as a freshman in high school, I hit German I. Turns out you (at least I) can’t learn a language just by listening in class, and reading the text once — which was how I “studied” up until then. The D that first semester was a serious wake-up call: I had to figure out how to study. Which I did, ending up with A’s by the time I got to German IV as a senior.
And then I got to college, and discovered that I had to learn how to study for things that were not a foreign language. Again, took me a year or more to get my grades back up to something acceptable.
What, being tall isn’t a talent? 😉
Out of all the things high-level basketball players do well, the thing I most envied when I was a dedicated fan was hang time. When I was about thirty I decided to look for exercises that would help me jump higher.
Ha ha.
A “friend” of mine told me that I would never be able to dunk on a 9 foot basket even if the fate of the world depended on it. Hey, I was the same height and weight as Spud Webb at the time…
(For those who pay no attention to b-ball: the standard rim is 10 feet off the ground/floor. Spud Webb was 5’6″ and won the NBA Slam Dunk contest in 1986.)
What, being tall isn’t a talent? 😉
Out of all the things high-level basketball players do well, the thing I most envied when I was a dedicated fan was hang time. When I was about thirty I decided to look for exercises that would help me jump higher.
Ha ha.
A “friend” of mine told me that I would never be able to dunk on a 9 foot basket even if the fate of the world depended on it. Hey, I was the same height and weight as Spud Webb at the time…
(For those who pay no attention to b-ball: the standard rim is 10 feet off the ground/floor. Spud Webb was 5’6″ and won the NBA Slam Dunk contest in 1986.)
As a basic writing teacher (what used to be called “remedial”) I hear a lot of students say that they thought they had no talent for writing and were more math people. What they think of as “talent,” though, is mostly a matter of awareness and habits of mind that can be practiced and taught. I do believe, like JanieM and russell, that there are certainly varying degrees of capacity and that there are limits to what individuals can do, but I think that a lot of what we attribute to talent is not a matter of talent, but of the other things I mentioned. It’s not a lack of talent that limits most of my students from reaching their capacity, it’s a lack of understanding and that idea that JanieM mentions of other people “just knowing” things that take them hard work.
It’s amazing how many people “discover a talent” for something when they learn a new habit of mind or practice that gets them past a roadblock that they once accepted as an impossible obstacle.
Which is not to say that talent or genius does not exist, just that it rules far less than we think it does.
As a basic writing teacher (what used to be called “remedial”) I hear a lot of students say that they thought they had no talent for writing and were more math people. What they think of as “talent,” though, is mostly a matter of awareness and habits of mind that can be practiced and taught. I do believe, like JanieM and russell, that there are certainly varying degrees of capacity and that there are limits to what individuals can do, but I think that a lot of what we attribute to talent is not a matter of talent, but of the other things I mentioned. It’s not a lack of talent that limits most of my students from reaching their capacity, it’s a lack of understanding and that idea that JanieM mentions of other people “just knowing” things that take them hard work.
It’s amazing how many people “discover a talent” for something when they learn a new habit of mind or practice that gets them past a roadblock that they once accepted as an impossible obstacle.
Which is not to say that talent or genius does not exist, just that it rules far less than we think it does.
It was probably because no one else wanted to be catcher — it’s hell on the knees.
Well typically the catcher is the smartest guy on the team. Because he has to know the opposing players and what their strengths and weaknesses are at the plate. And what the pitchers’ various abilities are. Or so my Dad (who played catcher in the Cubs farm system back in the day) told me.
So perhaps not the only reason you got that position. 😉
It was probably because no one else wanted to be catcher — it’s hell on the knees.
Well typically the catcher is the smartest guy on the team. Because he has to know the opposing players and what their strengths and weaknesses are at the plate. And what the pitchers’ various abilities are. Or so my Dad (who played catcher in the Cubs farm system back in the day) told me.
So perhaps not the only reason you got that position. 😉
I was just discussing Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues with my wife last night. For the life of me, I can’t remember what prompted me to bring them up, but there was some point to it (something beyond the obvious “Not all NBA players are tall”).
I was just discussing Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues with my wife last night. For the life of me, I can’t remember what prompted me to bring them up, but there was some point to it (something beyond the obvious “Not all NBA players are tall”).
@wj — LOL. I appreciate the thought, and your dad was probably right about catchers at his level of play. (Not that I’m a big baseball expert, mind you.)
But I was a rookie, and the pitcher was a badass and a real tough cookie, and ancient at twice my age. She gave the orders and I obeyed. 🙂
@nous — all that makes sense to me.
@hsh — You were talking about famous short basketball players of the 80s and 90s? Google “shortest NBA players” and look at the picture of Muggsy with Manute Bol. Wow.
@wj — LOL. I appreciate the thought, and your dad was probably right about catchers at his level of play. (Not that I’m a big baseball expert, mind you.)
But I was a rookie, and the pitcher was a badass and a real tough cookie, and ancient at twice my age. She gave the orders and I obeyed. 🙂
@nous — all that makes sense to me.
@hsh — You were talking about famous short basketball players of the 80s and 90s? Google “shortest NBA players” and look at the picture of Muggsy with Manute Bol. Wow.
ahh, another subject close to my heart, the whole talent conundrum. I don’t want to speak for others, but I have to think that a whole swathe of people pulled into music would disagree about the no talent thesis.
I studied music and there were several people who wanted it but no amount of practice was going to get them there. I would put myself in that category, but I acknowledge a lazy streak in me that probably makes my membership in the group a bit iffy.
Though nous’ commment about garnish with good fortune to be closer. I’m convinced that if I had either 1) chosen a different instrument or 2) been able to do a lip trill, my life would have been very different. I hear the scoffing from here, but talent, when it works (and a lot of times it doesn’t) is more like yeast, and it makes everything else rise, but you definitely don’t want to have everything be simply talent.
Another thought, perhaps the talent is to be able to do something in such a single minded way for such a long time that you don’t notice yourself getting better. I tend to think a lot of drummers are in this category (sorry Russell)
Which obviously leads to sports. I love sports, but that is where structural differences make the biggest difference. I wouldn’t have thought that Janie and I shared the painful longing to be able to dunk a basketball and we also know that it’s not going to happen. The other thing in basketball that isn’t often mentioned is that you really need huge hands.
Still, my community orchestra is starting practices again for our yearly concert (Eroica!) and after a 2 year layoff, I’ve started practice again. 30 minutes a day of scales and Jesu, joy of man’s desiring in every key and I think geez, if I had just done all this as a teenager, I might have been a contenda…
ahh, another subject close to my heart, the whole talent conundrum. I don’t want to speak for others, but I have to think that a whole swathe of people pulled into music would disagree about the no talent thesis.
I studied music and there were several people who wanted it but no amount of practice was going to get them there. I would put myself in that category, but I acknowledge a lazy streak in me that probably makes my membership in the group a bit iffy.
Though nous’ commment about garnish with good fortune to be closer. I’m convinced that if I had either 1) chosen a different instrument or 2) been able to do a lip trill, my life would have been very different. I hear the scoffing from here, but talent, when it works (and a lot of times it doesn’t) is more like yeast, and it makes everything else rise, but you definitely don’t want to have everything be simply talent.
Another thought, perhaps the talent is to be able to do something in such a single minded way for such a long time that you don’t notice yourself getting better. I tend to think a lot of drummers are in this category (sorry Russell)
Which obviously leads to sports. I love sports, but that is where structural differences make the biggest difference. I wouldn’t have thought that Janie and I shared the painful longing to be able to dunk a basketball and we also know that it’s not going to happen. The other thing in basketball that isn’t often mentioned is that you really need huge hands.
Still, my community orchestra is starting practices again for our yearly concert (Eroica!) and after a 2 year layoff, I’ve started practice again. 30 minutes a day of scales and Jesu, joy of man’s desiring in every key and I think geez, if I had just done all this as a teenager, I might have been a contenda…
How talent/ability matters. In high school PE classes (mandatory for everybody back then), we started off every day with calisthenics followed by “a lap” — run from the gym to the far fence and back. The runners would be in two clumps: in front, the athletic boys pushing themselves a bit, but not much; in back, the non-athletes, just going thru the motions. And about half way in between: me, with no athletic ability, but willing to try hard anyway.
Hard work could get me well ahead of those who weren’t interested enough to try. But nowhere near those with ability.
How talent/ability matters. In high school PE classes (mandatory for everybody back then), we started off every day with calisthenics followed by “a lap” — run from the gym to the far fence and back. The runners would be in two clumps: in front, the athletic boys pushing themselves a bit, but not much; in back, the non-athletes, just going thru the motions. And about half way in between: me, with no athletic ability, but willing to try hard anyway.
Hard work could get me well ahead of those who weren’t interested enough to try. But nowhere near those with ability.
Another thought, perhaps the talent is to be able to do something in such a single minded way for such a long time that you don’t notice yourself getting better.
True in so many different kinds of effort. I recall getting recognized for putting together a nifty piece of research software and telling someone afterwards that it seemed like a lot of fuss over something so obvious. And got a response like, “You spent three years solving that problem. Was it obvious when you started?” And of course it wasn’t.
Another thought, perhaps the talent is to be able to do something in such a single minded way for such a long time that you don’t notice yourself getting better.
True in so many different kinds of effort. I recall getting recognized for putting together a nifty piece of research software and telling someone afterwards that it seemed like a lot of fuss over something so obvious. And got a response like, “You spent three years solving that problem. Was it obvious when you started?” And of course it wasn’t.
I figure talent gives you more or less equipment to work with. Then you have to do the work.
There are some levels you can probably get to with a big gift but not a lot of work. But you won’t get past those levels.
As far as professional success, luck is a big part of it. But if you’re not ready when the opportunity comes, luck alone won’t get you there.
A bigger component to professional success seems to be whether you are somebody that other people want to deal with and be around. There is some leeway for jerks who are brilliant, but you really have to be bringing some pretty amazing other stuff to the table to pull that off.
Do your homework, be prepared, show up on time, don’t be a jerk, and be willing to help load the gear in and out. And most of all, make the band (not yourself) sound good. Do that, and your phone will ring.
So, true story. One time I had to sub out a gig. This was a meat and potatoes local club gig, playing classic rock. The only guy I could find who was free was a guy whose resume includes recording sessions with actual freaking legends. I’m not gonna name-drop but let your imagination run wild and you’re probably right.
I figured he’d never take a crap club gig, but I was desperate, so I called him. Sure, he says, I’m free, no problem. He asked for the set list and some recordings to work with.
The guy showed up *with a freaking notebook* that he put together, with charts for all the tunes. For a crap one-off local rock club gig. I think I paid him $200 to fill in for me.
That’s how the pros roll.
I figure talent gives you more or less equipment to work with. Then you have to do the work.
There are some levels you can probably get to with a big gift but not a lot of work. But you won’t get past those levels.
As far as professional success, luck is a big part of it. But if you’re not ready when the opportunity comes, luck alone won’t get you there.
A bigger component to professional success seems to be whether you are somebody that other people want to deal with and be around. There is some leeway for jerks who are brilliant, but you really have to be bringing some pretty amazing other stuff to the table to pull that off.
Do your homework, be prepared, show up on time, don’t be a jerk, and be willing to help load the gear in and out. And most of all, make the band (not yourself) sound good. Do that, and your phone will ring.
So, true story. One time I had to sub out a gig. This was a meat and potatoes local club gig, playing classic rock. The only guy I could find who was free was a guy whose resume includes recording sessions with actual freaking legends. I’m not gonna name-drop but let your imagination run wild and you’re probably right.
I figured he’d never take a crap club gig, but I was desperate, so I called him. Sure, he says, I’m free, no problem. He asked for the set list and some recordings to work with.
The guy showed up *with a freaking notebook* that he put together, with charts for all the tunes. For a crap one-off local rock club gig. I think I paid him $200 to fill in for me.
That’s how the pros roll.
Similarly, I’ve got a friend who has managed to make a decent career as a musician. When his friends are doing local club gigs, he plays with them, helps haul gear, etc. That’s indeed how pros roll.
How pro? Much of his career was accompanying Etta James. (Unlike russell, I’ll name drop.) His main gig these days (outside the pandemic, of course) is being the keyboard guy for Santana. So, not a marginal talent.
Similarly, I’ve got a friend who has managed to make a decent career as a musician. When his friends are doing local club gigs, he plays with them, helps haul gear, etc. That’s indeed how pros roll.
How pro? Much of his career was accompanying Etta James. (Unlike russell, I’ll name drop.) His main gig these days (outside the pandemic, of course) is being the keyboard guy for Santana. So, not a marginal talent.
At last, after yet a long absence, in walks me.
I have a couple of things to address here on the question of copyrights. About a year ago, I started a comic strip which I have uploaded on my personal Facebook page. I had – and still have questions about how much I have – no strong illusions about leveraging it to make a living at it, but I nonetheless applied to have it copyrighted in the U.S. I applied for the paperwork, filled it out, and sent it off. I’ve still yet to hear back whether it was approved.
I’ve enjoyed doing this strip, not because I think I’m the next Chuck Schulz, Berke Breathed, or Bill Watterson, but because it’s the current me. I think it’s good, and the “likes” and occasional “loves” I get on it keep me going. I started it out of a minor epiphany I had that is too long to go into details here over, and because I needed to do something else besides teach – my life has been immersed in ELT, and I wanted to be able to do something to turn my brain off from it when it is possible.
So question for the communitariat – am I wasting my time waiting for a reply? Does anybody know how copyright application really works?
At last, after yet a long absence, in walks me.
I have a couple of things to address here on the question of copyrights. About a year ago, I started a comic strip which I have uploaded on my personal Facebook page. I had – and still have questions about how much I have – no strong illusions about leveraging it to make a living at it, but I nonetheless applied to have it copyrighted in the U.S. I applied for the paperwork, filled it out, and sent it off. I’ve still yet to hear back whether it was approved.
I’ve enjoyed doing this strip, not because I think I’m the next Chuck Schulz, Berke Breathed, or Bill Watterson, but because it’s the current me. I think it’s good, and the “likes” and occasional “loves” I get on it keep me going. I started it out of a minor epiphany I had that is too long to go into details here over, and because I needed to do something else besides teach – my life has been immersed in ELT, and I wanted to be able to do something to turn my brain off from it when it is possible.
So question for the communitariat – am I wasting my time waiting for a reply? Does anybody know how copyright application really works?
On the question of talent, the artists (in the widest possible sense of that term) I have gravitated to were/are not “geniuses” in the sense of having a god-given gift. But to narrow the scope to musicians: There were a number of trumpeters more technically gifted than Miles Davis – but he had something they didn’t, which is a conceptual imagination that elongated jazz and enabled him to change styles. Coltrane as well – his technical prowess on the tenor and later, soprano saxes came about through compulsive practice. Hendrix could’t read music – yet had the nous to do differently with the guitar, which set rock on a different course. Frank Zappa flunked out of classes and never picked up the guitar until he was 21 – yet he brought the avant-garde to rock and rock to the avant-garde.
Mind you, this doesn’t downplay Miles’ ability on the trumpet – he was damn good. But there have been others hailed as better that didn’t have his daring. FZ is still an underrated guitarist – but he always regarded it as secondary, or as a necessary nuisance, to what he regarded as the real deal – his work as a composer and social-political gadfly. (He actually started out as a drummer, which adds up when you consider how percussion has a major seat in a number of his compositions.)
What they, and others like them I admire, is what I regard as something that supersedes talent: They dared to think and do differently, which made them misunderstood, but that they were willing to brave to realize their visions.
On the question of talent, the artists (in the widest possible sense of that term) I have gravitated to were/are not “geniuses” in the sense of having a god-given gift. But to narrow the scope to musicians: There were a number of trumpeters more technically gifted than Miles Davis – but he had something they didn’t, which is a conceptual imagination that elongated jazz and enabled him to change styles. Coltrane as well – his technical prowess on the tenor and later, soprano saxes came about through compulsive practice. Hendrix could’t read music – yet had the nous to do differently with the guitar, which set rock on a different course. Frank Zappa flunked out of classes and never picked up the guitar until he was 21 – yet he brought the avant-garde to rock and rock to the avant-garde.
Mind you, this doesn’t downplay Miles’ ability on the trumpet – he was damn good. But there have been others hailed as better that didn’t have his daring. FZ is still an underrated guitarist – but he always regarded it as secondary, or as a necessary nuisance, to what he regarded as the real deal – his work as a composer and social-political gadfly. (He actually started out as a drummer, which adds up when you consider how percussion has a major seat in a number of his compositions.)
What they, and others like them I admire, is what I regard as something that supersedes talent: They dared to think and do differently, which made them misunderstood, but that they were willing to brave to realize their visions.
Another ingredient in the mix is the willingness to make the leap, especially to be a musician in the US, with the absence of any kind of safety net. The community orchestra I play in, we have a different conductor who we bring in each year who comes down and does rehearsals (we also have a few practice conductors who rehearse us as well) I’m not precisely sure on how they do it, but they all seem to have a range of gigs and organize their schedules. They are really consummate educators, coming in and getting the orchestra up to speed and identifying things for people to work on outside of the practices and we have all levels of people playing. That ability to make the leap has to be somewhere in there.
I’ve never really had the courage to go out and do something that was not really set up as a regular job, so even if I did have that critical dollop of talent, I’d not be able to make the leap.
Another ingredient in the mix is the willingness to make the leap, especially to be a musician in the US, with the absence of any kind of safety net. The community orchestra I play in, we have a different conductor who we bring in each year who comes down and does rehearsals (we also have a few practice conductors who rehearse us as well) I’m not precisely sure on how they do it, but they all seem to have a range of gigs and organize their schedules. They are really consummate educators, coming in and getting the orchestra up to speed and identifying things for people to work on outside of the practices and we have all levels of people playing. That ability to make the leap has to be somewhere in there.
I’ve never really had the courage to go out and do something that was not really set up as a regular job, so even if I did have that critical dollop of talent, I’d not be able to make the leap.
oh man… i remember the first time they made us run any kind of distance in gym class. it was probably a 1/4 mile, nothing crazy. but the coach said ‘go run around the baseball field and down the fence to the tree, and then back here’. and i took off like a rabbit, and i beat everybody by what seemed like a mile.
because, it turned out, i LOVE to run.
i’m not really fast and i don’t have great endurance, but i just love running. so i ran!
i love it just below an all-out sprinting especially. moving fast, the wind, getting my stride just right to find that sweet spot where i’m turning over steps as quickly and lightly as i can, tweaking my posture, adjusting which muscles are doing the driving to get everything moving as fast as possible, while keeping everything else as relaxed as possible.
one of my favorite things to do is to sprint down an empty hallway because the close walls make it feel even faster.
i’m like a kid when it comes to running.
still.
but again, not fast enough to be competitive and i don’t have the endurance to wear them down. so i don’t compete. i don’t even run with other people. but, it’s my thing.
oh man… i remember the first time they made us run any kind of distance in gym class. it was probably a 1/4 mile, nothing crazy. but the coach said ‘go run around the baseball field and down the fence to the tree, and then back here’. and i took off like a rabbit, and i beat everybody by what seemed like a mile.
because, it turned out, i LOVE to run.
i’m not really fast and i don’t have great endurance, but i just love running. so i ran!
i love it just below an all-out sprinting especially. moving fast, the wind, getting my stride just right to find that sweet spot where i’m turning over steps as quickly and lightly as i can, tweaking my posture, adjusting which muscles are doing the driving to get everything moving as fast as possible, while keeping everything else as relaxed as possible.
one of my favorite things to do is to sprint down an empty hallway because the close walls make it feel even faster.
i’m like a kid when it comes to running.
still.
but again, not fast enough to be competitive and i don’t have the endurance to wear them down. so i don’t compete. i don’t even run with other people. but, it’s my thing.
I applied for the paperwork, filled it out, and sent it off. I’ve still yet to hear back whether it was approved….So question for the communitariat – am I wasting my time waiting for a reply? Does anybody know how copyright application really works?
Try this page.
Also this, since it sounds like you’re not in the US.
You do know that you don’t have to register to have a copyright, right? Unless you think it’s likely you’ll want to sue someone over it, I wouldn’t bother. (I work with a self-published author and her cover artist…they simply put a copyright notice in the books. No application, no registration. My impression is that that’s very common.)
I applied for the paperwork, filled it out, and sent it off. I’ve still yet to hear back whether it was approved….So question for the communitariat – am I wasting my time waiting for a reply? Does anybody know how copyright application really works?
Try this page.
Also this, since it sounds like you’re not in the US.
You do know that you don’t have to register to have a copyright, right? Unless you think it’s likely you’ll want to sue someone over it, I wouldn’t bother. (I work with a self-published author and her cover artist…they simply put a copyright notice in the books. No application, no registration. My impression is that that’s very common.)
Sorry about the formatting….I need caffeine.
Sorry about the formatting….I need caffeine.
cleek on running: I found that joyous!
cleek on running: I found that joyous!
About a year ago, I started a comic strip which I have uploaded on my personal Facebook page.
This may make it tricky. I know that off and on some of the social media companies’ terms of service included language that said by posting you were assigning certain IP rights to the company.
About a year ago, I started a comic strip which I have uploaded on my personal Facebook page.
This may make it tricky. I know that off and on some of the social media companies’ terms of service included language that said by posting you were assigning certain IP rights to the company.
because, it turned out, i LOVE to run.
It’s funny how these conversations turn. I was just thinking yesterday (not for the first time – by which I mean thinking on this particular thing, not thinking in general ;^)) about how I force myself to run for exercise. I don’t like it, but it’s just too good and convenient of way to get some quick cario that I can’t forego it.
It’s a “bang for the buck” proposition. I work pretty hard for 20-30 minutes for the sort of general health benefits that start to hit the point of diminishing returns around there. Working harder or longer would be far more performance enhancing (or enjoyment if running is your thing) than for general health.
I imagine a lot of people who run for real – who are good at running – would think that was bunk. But there’s also natural ability in running, and not just for speed. Some people are built to run. I’m not. If I lost 30 or 40 pounds, I’d be built much better for running, but that’s not where my body wants to be. Some people’s bodies do want to be there, and some of them are natural runners, in part because of their body type.
My favorite part of running is when I get to stop.
because, it turned out, i LOVE to run.
It’s funny how these conversations turn. I was just thinking yesterday (not for the first time – by which I mean thinking on this particular thing, not thinking in general ;^)) about how I force myself to run for exercise. I don’t like it, but it’s just too good and convenient of way to get some quick cario that I can’t forego it.
It’s a “bang for the buck” proposition. I work pretty hard for 20-30 minutes for the sort of general health benefits that start to hit the point of diminishing returns around there. Working harder or longer would be far more performance enhancing (or enjoyment if running is your thing) than for general health.
I imagine a lot of people who run for real – who are good at running – would think that was bunk. But there’s also natural ability in running, and not just for speed. Some people are built to run. I’m not. If I lost 30 or 40 pounds, I’d be built much better for running, but that’s not where my body wants to be. Some people’s bodies do want to be there, and some of them are natural runners, in part because of their body type.
My favorite part of running is when I get to stop.
A friend of my wife and I is an ultra-marathoner. On one occasion, he and his crew ran down the south side of the Grand Canyon, up the north side, then down the north side and up the south side.
All in one day, non-stop. I think they may hav taken a break for water and a snack when they got to the top of the north side.
I just can’t get my head around that.
I used to run, more or less like hairshirt – for the efficient cardio thing – but then my knees started making audible crunching sounds.
So, I stopped.
A friend of my wife and I is an ultra-marathoner. On one occasion, he and his crew ran down the south side of the Grand Canyon, up the north side, then down the north side and up the south side.
All in one day, non-stop. I think they may hav taken a break for water and a snack when they got to the top of the north side.
I just can’t get my head around that.
I used to run, more or less like hairshirt – for the efficient cardio thing – but then my knees started making audible crunching sounds.
So, I stopped.
I hate running. When I was a young adult I had, unfortunately, what most people took for a runner’s build. People in college were always asking me to go run with them.
I hate running. When I was a young adult I had, unfortunately, what most people took for a runner’s build. People in college were always asking me to go run with them.
I’m not a runner and one of the more brutal experiences for me in basic training was elimination sprints. I would have to hold back until the stronger runners were eliminated. But not hold back so much that the DIs would jump me for not making an effort. Then I would have to make a come from behind all-out sprint to beat out any stronger runners left that were coasting. If that failed, I was dead meat.
I’m not a runner and one of the more brutal experiences for me in basic training was elimination sprints. I would have to hold back until the stronger runners were eliminated. But not hold back so much that the DIs would jump me for not making an effort. Then I would have to make a come from behind all-out sprint to beat out any stronger runners left that were coasting. If that failed, I was dead meat.
What are elimination sprints? What’s a DI?
Thanks
What are elimination sprints? What’s a DI?
Thanks
DI=Drill instructor.
Elimination sprints I know from cycling, but I’m not sure how they would work with running
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elimination_race
though if it were a drill instructor sort of situation, some variation that applies the most pain to the slowest I imagine.
DI=Drill instructor.
Elimination sprints I know from cycling, but I’m not sure how they would work with running
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elimination_race
though if it were a drill instructor sort of situation, some variation that applies the most pain to the slowest I imagine.
This was in military basic training with DIs being drill instructors.
The elimination sprints would start with about 40 people sprinting about 150 yards/meters. The first four across the finish line got to quit. It was repeated until no one was left or the DIs got tired of it. All this in the middle of summer in San Diego.
This was in military basic training with DIs being drill instructors.
The elimination sprints would start with about 40 people sprinting about 150 yards/meters. The first four across the finish line got to quit. It was repeated until no one was left or the DIs got tired of it. All this in the middle of summer in San Diego.
(…) they simply put a copyright notice in the books
Thanks for this, Janie. Where you say, though, about a copyright notice, does this simply mean putting the copyright symbol and your name and year after?
This may make it tricky.
Thanks for this, Michael, and that absolutely is something that’s been in the back of my mind. But my motivation has been initially to get it out and get some sort of positive reaction, which I have had so far, then step back to see what next step to take. I’m not a professional, and I’ve been testing the waters with that sense. At the same time, taking that next step involves protecting myself, which I’m looking at – part of which I know may entail me moving the strip to my own blog and/or website.
Once again, thank you to the both of you!
(…) they simply put a copyright notice in the books
Thanks for this, Janie. Where you say, though, about a copyright notice, does this simply mean putting the copyright symbol and your name and year after?
This may make it tricky.
Thanks for this, Michael, and that absolutely is something that’s been in the back of my mind. But my motivation has been initially to get it out and get some sort of positive reaction, which I have had so far, then step back to see what next step to take. I’m not a professional, and I’ve been testing the waters with that sense. At the same time, taking that next step involves protecting myself, which I’m looking at – part of which I know may entail me moving the strip to my own blog and/or website.
Once again, thank you to the both of you!
Where you say, though, about a copyright notice, does this simply mean putting the copyright symbol and your name and year after?
Yes, that’s all they do. You don’t legally have to do even that much, as one of those links says. But I think in the context of one of the things that’s being talked about in this thread — the easy of copying these days — it’s at least a reminder to readers that it’s not your intention to give your work away for nothing.
I used to post photos on Flickr, and Flickr does not claim any rights over the photos, and you have a choice of various levels of ownership, the only ones of which I remember are regular copyright or Creative Commons (which you can look up: at the very least, it makes your work freely available on condition that you are credited, and that anyone who uses it also makes it freely available).
I do remember pondering some platform that had conditions like the ones Michael Cain mentions — they didn’t claim ownership of everything you displayed on their platform, but they did claim the right to use and reproduce it at their whim, with no further/explicit permission from you than agreeing to the TOS.
Where you say, though, about a copyright notice, does this simply mean putting the copyright symbol and your name and year after?
Yes, that’s all they do. You don’t legally have to do even that much, as one of those links says. But I think in the context of one of the things that’s being talked about in this thread — the easy of copying these days — it’s at least a reminder to readers that it’s not your intention to give your work away for nothing.
I used to post photos on Flickr, and Flickr does not claim any rights over the photos, and you have a choice of various levels of ownership, the only ones of which I remember are regular copyright or Creative Commons (which you can look up: at the very least, it makes your work freely available on condition that you are credited, and that anyone who uses it also makes it freely available).
I do remember pondering some platform that had conditions like the ones Michael Cain mentions — they didn’t claim ownership of everything you displayed on their platform, but they did claim the right to use and reproduce it at their whim, with no further/explicit permission from you than agreeing to the TOS.
What are elimination sprints? What’s a DI?
I thought I was going to be really helpful here to explain what an elimination sprint and a DI was, but Charles WT beat me to it.
From the sound of it – DI, and San Diego in the middle of summer – I would guess that Charles had been in the Marines and went to basic training at MCRD (Marine Corps Recruit Depot) in San Diego – the West Coast counterpart to the more famous (to the general public) Parris Island MCRD in South Carolina. (I do know that in the Marines, the San Diego MCRD is still often known as “Camp Hollywood,” though it is no less tougher than the one at PI.)
I too, went to basic training in San Diego – but in the Navy. (Almost 41 years ago!) I too endured an SD summer in 110-degree F/40+ degree C dry-as-a-popcorn-fart open-oven heat on an asphalt parade ground as big as an airport tarmac (which was sort of appropriate, as part of the ground was adjacent to one of the runways of the SD airport).
What are elimination sprints? What’s a DI?
I thought I was going to be really helpful here to explain what an elimination sprint and a DI was, but Charles WT beat me to it.
From the sound of it – DI, and San Diego in the middle of summer – I would guess that Charles had been in the Marines and went to basic training at MCRD (Marine Corps Recruit Depot) in San Diego – the West Coast counterpart to the more famous (to the general public) Parris Island MCRD in South Carolina. (I do know that in the Marines, the San Diego MCRD is still often known as “Camp Hollywood,” though it is no less tougher than the one at PI.)
I too, went to basic training in San Diego – but in the Navy. (Almost 41 years ago!) I too endured an SD summer in 110-degree F/40+ degree C dry-as-a-popcorn-fart open-oven heat on an asphalt parade ground as big as an airport tarmac (which was sort of appropriate, as part of the ground was adjacent to one of the runways of the SD airport).
At least the air is clearer these days. I recall being at the ironically named March Air Force Base one summer, circa 1970. The first week was just hot. On Saturday, I noticed what looked like a range of hills to the west, sort of orange-brown, and wondered that I hadn’t noticed them before. Monday, they arrived — orange colored smog so thick you could barely see a hundred yards. Imagine running, and breathing hard, in that.
At least the air is clearer these days. I recall being at the ironically named March Air Force Base one summer, circa 1970. The first week was just hot. On Saturday, I noticed what looked like a range of hills to the west, sort of orange-brown, and wondered that I hadn’t noticed them before. Monday, they arrived — orange colored smog so thick you could barely see a hundred yards. Imagine running, and breathing hard, in that.
I too, went to basic training in San Diego – but in the Navy.
Yes, I can remember the Navy recruits taking it easy outside their barracks while the Marine recruits did their three-mile runs in the sun.
One of our tracks paralleled one of the airport runways. Thousands of recruits running in the sun watched aircraft take off that they weren’t on.
I too, went to basic training in San Diego – but in the Navy.
Yes, I can remember the Navy recruits taking it easy outside their barracks while the Marine recruits did their three-mile runs in the sun.
One of our tracks paralleled one of the airport runways. Thousands of recruits running in the sun watched aircraft take off that they weren’t on.
I remember the air not being bad in San Diego in 1969. But part of the base was in sight of the ocean with onshore breezes at times.
I remember the air not being bad in San Diego in 1969. But part of the base was in sight of the ocean with onshore breezes at times.
Yes, I can remember the Navy recruits taking it easy outside their barracks while the Marine recruits did their three-mile runs in the sun.
I don’t know when you were at MCRD, but back in my day we didn’t sit around outside the barracks. We did 3M runs on that blazing asphalt, plus on a dirt track that was about as hot. (Not knocking you, mind you. Just saying.)
When we were on the asphalt, we did see you guys at it too, though, across the tarmac. We didn’t envy you!
Yes, I can remember the Navy recruits taking it easy outside their barracks while the Marine recruits did their three-mile runs in the sun.
I don’t know when you were at MCRD, but back in my day we didn’t sit around outside the barracks. We did 3M runs on that blazing asphalt, plus on a dirt track that was about as hot. (Not knocking you, mind you. Just saying.)
When we were on the asphalt, we did see you guys at it too, though, across the tarmac. We didn’t envy you!
The way things were laid out at the time, we could only see a few navy barracks. On reflection, I’m not sure they were recruit barracks.
The way things were laid out at the time, we could only see a few navy barracks. On reflection, I’m not sure they were recruit barracks.
Thanks for the education.
I’ve put enough into marathon running to learn that I could have been quite good if I’d taken it up young enough and got much skinnier than my body thinks it should be. But only quite good.
Thanks for the education.
I’ve put enough into marathon running to learn that I could have been quite good if I’d taken it up young enough and got much skinnier than my body thinks it should be. But only quite good.
But only quite good.
I think GftNC was the one who clued me in to the difference in British and American usage of “quite” in a case like this. Were it not for that, the phrase “only quite” would make little sense to me. ;^)
But only quite good.
I think GftNC was the one who clued me in to the difference in British and American usage of “quite” in a case like this. Were it not for that, the phrase “only quite” would make little sense to me. ;^)
I remember a well-known food writer here recounting how she had made a rich and elaborate dish for her new American foodie lover, and been bitterly disappointed when he said on tasting it “This is quite good.” And I had a similar experience with my Yorkshireman husband, telling me something (not food, I don’t think) was “all right”. It turns out in Yorkshire that’s high praise.
I remember a well-known food writer here recounting how she had made a rich and elaborate dish for her new American foodie lover, and been bitterly disappointed when he said on tasting it “This is quite good.” And I had a similar experience with my Yorkshireman husband, telling me something (not food, I don’t think) was “all right”. It turns out in Yorkshire that’s high praise.
It’s not just the two countries that are “separated by a common language.”
It’s not just the two countries that are “separated by a common language.”
There are claims that basic training is the most difficult when there are no wars. The training command has time to fine-tune the training and really bear down on the recruits. Plus all the recruits volunteered to be there and are more amenable to the training.
If not for the draft, I would never have gone anywhere near the military. I joined for four years hoping that would keep me out of combat. Which turned out to be the case.
At the time the Marines were desperate for cannon fodder. The recruiters seem to be taking anyone who fell through their doors with a detectable heartbeat. The training commands had been expanded and they were trying to feed people through as fast as possible. Many of the DIs were inexperienced and not much older than the recruits. Chaos reigned. The power of the farce was very strong.
There are claims that basic training is the most difficult when there are no wars. The training command has time to fine-tune the training and really bear down on the recruits. Plus all the recruits volunteered to be there and are more amenable to the training.
If not for the draft, I would never have gone anywhere near the military. I joined for four years hoping that would keep me out of combat. Which turned out to be the case.
At the time the Marines were desperate for cannon fodder. The recruiters seem to be taking anyone who fell through their doors with a detectable heartbeat. The training commands had been expanded and they were trying to feed people through as fast as possible. Many of the DIs were inexperienced and not much older than the recruits. Chaos reigned. The power of the farce was very strong.
If not for the draft, I would never have gone anywhere near the military. I joined for four years hoping that would keep me out of combat. Which turned out to be the case.
Which seems opportune for me asking…
You’ve made argument before here against conscription, but then also recently used family farm labor examples in an argument against mandated restrictions on child labor. Would you unpack for me how you negotiate that divide? Not a gotcha question, it’s just the family farm sits a bit ambiguously in the mix and I’m trying to see where the lines are.
If not for the draft, I would never have gone anywhere near the military. I joined for four years hoping that would keep me out of combat. Which turned out to be the case.
Which seems opportune for me asking…
You’ve made argument before here against conscription, but then also recently used family farm labor examples in an argument against mandated restrictions on child labor. Would you unpack for me how you negotiate that divide? Not a gotcha question, it’s just the family farm sits a bit ambiguously in the mix and I’m trying to see where the lines are.
I don’t grasp the connection between military conscription child labor restrictions.
I don’t grasp the connection between military conscription child labor restrictions.
I don’t grasp the connection between military conscription child labor restrictions.
At the risk of putting wrong words into nous’ mouth,
Both are situations where someone is stuck (involuntarily) in a situation where he is required to exert himself physically. Substantially more than peers who are not in that situation.
I don’t grasp the connection between military conscription child labor restrictions.
At the risk of putting wrong words into nous’ mouth,
Both are situations where someone is stuck (involuntarily) in a situation where he is required to exert himself physically. Substantially more than peers who are not in that situation.
Both cases are impingements on individual freedom. In the case of conscription, the government is saying you must do this. In the case of child labor restrictions, the government is saying you must not do this. Kids working in a family business should be between them and their parents unless the parents are being abusive or putting the kid’s safety at risk.
As for kids working outside the family business, there should be some scrutiny to ensure that kids are doing low-risk age-appropriate work with time limits. Child labor laws that use to protect children from working in mines now protect them from working in air-conditioned offices.
Child labor had declined to about 10% before the first child labor laws were passed. Another case of the politicians waiting to see where society was headed before taking credit for where society was headed.
As an aside.
“The Senate gained its first page in 1829, a nine-year-old boy named Grafton Hanson who was appointed by Senator Daniel Webster. Throughout the 19th century, Senate pages served as messengers and general helpers. Usually, around twelve years old, early pages were often local orphans or children of widowed mothers and their Senate income helped the family. Today, Senate pages come from all 50 states. Still appointed and sponsored by a senator, they must be high school juniors, at least sixteen years old, and attend school.”
Congressional Page Program
Both cases are impingements on individual freedom. In the case of conscription, the government is saying you must do this. In the case of child labor restrictions, the government is saying you must not do this. Kids working in a family business should be between them and their parents unless the parents are being abusive or putting the kid’s safety at risk.
As for kids working outside the family business, there should be some scrutiny to ensure that kids are doing low-risk age-appropriate work with time limits. Child labor laws that use to protect children from working in mines now protect them from working in air-conditioned offices.
Child labor had declined to about 10% before the first child labor laws were passed. Another case of the politicians waiting to see where society was headed before taking credit for where society was headed.
As an aside.
“The Senate gained its first page in 1829, a nine-year-old boy named Grafton Hanson who was appointed by Senator Daniel Webster. Throughout the 19th century, Senate pages served as messengers and general helpers. Usually, around twelve years old, early pages were often local orphans or children of widowed mothers and their Senate income helped the family. Today, Senate pages come from all 50 states. Still appointed and sponsored by a senator, they must be high school juniors, at least sixteen years old, and attend school.”
Congressional Page Program
Both cases are impingements on individual freedom. In the case of conscription, the government is saying you must do this. In the case of child labor restrictions, the government is saying you must not do this.
Not quite. In one case, yes, the government saying “you must do this.” But in the other case, adults (maybe parents, but also maybe not) likewise saying “you must do this.” The common thread being — you are getting orders from an authority figure who you are unable to resist. The common factor being not government per se but authority.
Both cases are impingements on individual freedom. In the case of conscription, the government is saying you must do this. In the case of child labor restrictions, the government is saying you must not do this.
Not quite. In one case, yes, the government saying “you must do this.” But in the other case, adults (maybe parents, but also maybe not) likewise saying “you must do this.” The common thread being — you are getting orders from an authority figure who you are unable to resist. The common factor being not government per se but authority.
I was thinking that CharlesWT has argued (or linked to the libertarian argument) that conscription was a form of slavery, but also discussed family farm labor as an often necessary contribution to family welfare.
His larger argument about child labor, meanwhile, seemed mostly to hinge upon some forms of child labor being less harmful than others and wishing to preserve access to the less harmful ones when it was impractical to stamp out the more harmful ones. At least I hope that is an accurate representation of his argument.
Given that the family farm labor argument came up in the latter discussion, and not in the discussion of conscription, I was wondering where the farm labor maps onto a larger view that includes both these larger discussions.
Are there common principles that outline when compelled labor is and is not permissible?
I was thinking that CharlesWT has argued (or linked to the libertarian argument) that conscription was a form of slavery, but also discussed family farm labor as an often necessary contribution to family welfare.
His larger argument about child labor, meanwhile, seemed mostly to hinge upon some forms of child labor being less harmful than others and wishing to preserve access to the less harmful ones when it was impractical to stamp out the more harmful ones. At least I hope that is an accurate representation of his argument.
Given that the family farm labor argument came up in the latter discussion, and not in the discussion of conscription, I was wondering where the farm labor maps onto a larger view that includes both these larger discussions.
Are there common principles that outline when compelled labor is and is not permissible?
How is the obligation of service to one’s family categorically different from the obligation of service to one’s nation/state/tribe?
How is the obligation of service to one’s family categorically different from the obligation of service to one’s nation/state/tribe?
I should, perhaps, mention that I am in favor of general, indeed universal, conscription to public service (not necessarily military). Because I see a substantial benefit to society for breaking people out of the social, economic, etc. silos that they typically exist in. Both to break down stereotypes and prejudices, and to provide an avenue for those on the bottom to break out.
Not that I was eager to get drafted when I was a teenager. Just that I can see the benefits now, as well as the inconveniences that were apparent then.
I should, perhaps, mention that I am in favor of general, indeed universal, conscription to public service (not necessarily military). Because I see a substantial benefit to society for breaking people out of the social, economic, etc. silos that they typically exist in. Both to break down stereotypes and prejudices, and to provide an avenue for those on the bottom to break out.
Not that I was eager to get drafted when I was a teenager. Just that I can see the benefits now, as well as the inconveniences that were apparent then.
Child labor laws that use to protect children from working in mines now protect them from working in air-conditioned offices.
How old should someone be before they’re eligible to work in air-conditioned offices?
Child labor laws that use to protect children from working in mines now protect them from working in air-conditioned offices.
How old should someone be before they’re eligible to work in air-conditioned offices?
As I’ve mentioned once or twice before, I play bridge competitively.
There’s no doubt in my mind that some people have much more aptitude for the game than others.
There’s also no doubt that application makes a big difference. For one thing, counting the hand – trying to picture unseen hands consistent with the bidding and play so far – is a considerable effort, especially at first, and most players never even try. You have to aspire to be a good player before you can be one.
Also, experience counts for a lot. Older bridge players remain competitive longer than in any other game I can think of – what they lose in mental sharpness they make up for in recognising more situations.
On copyright: there’s no copyright on bridge deals or play. Occasionally one of my less incompetent efforts is reported in a newspaper column. It doesn’t occur to anyone to pay me for it, and nor should it. But perhaps there’s an anchoring effect in what people think should be paid for.
On professionalism: a fair number of experts make a living by being paid to play in partnership with people willing to pay, or on their teams. And grumpy pros, however skilled, get paid less than pros who make the game a pleasure for their clients.
As I’ve mentioned once or twice before, I play bridge competitively.
There’s no doubt in my mind that some people have much more aptitude for the game than others.
There’s also no doubt that application makes a big difference. For one thing, counting the hand – trying to picture unseen hands consistent with the bidding and play so far – is a considerable effort, especially at first, and most players never even try. You have to aspire to be a good player before you can be one.
Also, experience counts for a lot. Older bridge players remain competitive longer than in any other game I can think of – what they lose in mental sharpness they make up for in recognising more situations.
On copyright: there’s no copyright on bridge deals or play. Occasionally one of my less incompetent efforts is reported in a newspaper column. It doesn’t occur to anyone to pay me for it, and nor should it. But perhaps there’s an anchoring effect in what people think should be paid for.
On professionalism: a fair number of experts make a living by being paid to play in partnership with people willing to pay, or on their teams. And grumpy pros, however skilled, get paid less than pros who make the game a pleasure for their clients.
Not quite. In one case, yes, the government saying “you must do this.” But in the other case, adults (maybe parents, but also maybe not) likewise saying “you must do this.”
How is the obligation of service to one’s family categorically different from the obligation of service to one’s nation/state/tribe?
There’s the matter of distance. You can assume with some exceptions that parents have the greatest concern for their children’s well-being. The further away, the less the concern. Until you reach politicians who are quite willing to use you as cannon fodder to advance their political ambitions.
At least I hope that is an accurate representation of his argument.
That’s a pretty good fit.
Are there common principles that outline when compelled labor is and is not permissible?
I’m guessing there’s very little compelled child labor left in first-world countries. At least physically coerced labor. And would be considered child abused.
My impression of the period when I was growing up is that parents, including my own, were making a transition from the methods their parents and grandparents used to get hard work out of children. But they were often clueless as to how to provide carrots.
Children will often do hard work because that’s the example the adults around them are setting. And they want the adults’ approval. At least some of them. Some may need additional encouragement. 🙂
I should, perhaps, mention that I am in favor of general, indeed universal, conscription to public service (not necessarily military).
Will you relinquish making complaints about the authoritarian right?
Because I see a substantial benefit to society for breaking people out of the social, economic, etc. silos that they typically exist in.
So you’re willing to sacrifice individual autonomy for your desired form of social engineering?
How old should someone be before they’re eligible to work in air-conditioned offices?
Perhaps ten to twelve.
Not quite. In one case, yes, the government saying “you must do this.” But in the other case, adults (maybe parents, but also maybe not) likewise saying “you must do this.”
How is the obligation of service to one’s family categorically different from the obligation of service to one’s nation/state/tribe?
There’s the matter of distance. You can assume with some exceptions that parents have the greatest concern for their children’s well-being. The further away, the less the concern. Until you reach politicians who are quite willing to use you as cannon fodder to advance their political ambitions.
At least I hope that is an accurate representation of his argument.
That’s a pretty good fit.
Are there common principles that outline when compelled labor is and is not permissible?
I’m guessing there’s very little compelled child labor left in first-world countries. At least physically coerced labor. And would be considered child abused.
My impression of the period when I was growing up is that parents, including my own, were making a transition from the methods their parents and grandparents used to get hard work out of children. But they were often clueless as to how to provide carrots.
Children will often do hard work because that’s the example the adults around them are setting. And they want the adults’ approval. At least some of them. Some may need additional encouragement. 🙂
I should, perhaps, mention that I am in favor of general, indeed universal, conscription to public service (not necessarily military).
Will you relinquish making complaints about the authoritarian right?
Because I see a substantial benefit to society for breaking people out of the social, economic, etc. silos that they typically exist in.
So you’re willing to sacrifice individual autonomy for your desired form of social engineering?
How old should someone be before they’re eligible to work in air-conditioned offices?
Perhaps ten to twelve.
Because I see a substantial benefit to society for breaking people out of the social, economic, etc. silos that they typically exist in.
So you’re willing to sacrifice individual autonomy for your desired form of social engineering?
Do you see a difference between public service and paying taxes (or any other kind of obedience to the law)? Both of which entail some restrictions on individual autonomy, in pursuit of some public good (“engineering” is frequently far too well-thought-out a term for it).
Because I see a substantial benefit to society for breaking people out of the social, economic, etc. silos that they typically exist in.
So you’re willing to sacrifice individual autonomy for your desired form of social engineering?
Do you see a difference between public service and paying taxes (or any other kind of obedience to the law)? Both of which entail some restrictions on individual autonomy, in pursuit of some public good (“engineering” is frequently far too well-thought-out a term for it).
Also, isn’t parenting social engineering?
Also, isn’t parenting social engineering?
Both of which entail some restrictions on individual autonomy, in pursuit of some public good (“engineering” is frequently far too well-thought-out a term for it).
Well, if you have a job you chose and like (admittedly a high bar for the sake of this argument), at least you get to do something you’ve chosen and enjoy while you earn the money to pay your share of the collective enterprise. I might be in favor of compulsory public service, but it would be a very complicated discussion and part of it (from my POV) would involve how much leeway for choice each individual had.
Also, isn’t parenting social engineering?
I’ve been trying not to jump into this precisely because it’s such a can of worms. But isn’t compulsory schooling social engineering?
(Why yes, I think it is…)
Lots of complexities gray areas in this topic. But I’ve got class tonight, so bye for now.
Both of which entail some restrictions on individual autonomy, in pursuit of some public good (“engineering” is frequently far too well-thought-out a term for it).
Well, if you have a job you chose and like (admittedly a high bar for the sake of this argument), at least you get to do something you’ve chosen and enjoy while you earn the money to pay your share of the collective enterprise. I might be in favor of compulsory public service, but it would be a very complicated discussion and part of it (from my POV) would involve how much leeway for choice each individual had.
Also, isn’t parenting social engineering?
I’ve been trying not to jump into this precisely because it’s such a can of worms. But isn’t compulsory schooling social engineering?
(Why yes, I think it is…)
Lots of complexities gray areas in this topic. But I’ve got class tonight, so bye for now.
I can’t even blame auto-correct.
complexities and gray areas….
I can’t even blame auto-correct.
complexities and gray areas….
Both of which entail some restrictions on individual autonomy, in pursuit of some public good
Society and the public good are abstractions. What it boils down to is some people being forced to forfeit some part of their lives for the benefit of some other people.
Also, isn’t parenting social engineering?
For those of us who keep society and the political separate, there’s a big difference between parents try to raise civilized human beings and the government hammering square pegs into the preferred round holes.
But isn’t compulsory schooling social engineering?
Yes and I’m against that too.
Both of which entail some restrictions on individual autonomy, in pursuit of some public good
Society and the public good are abstractions. What it boils down to is some people being forced to forfeit some part of their lives for the benefit of some other people.
Also, isn’t parenting social engineering?
For those of us who keep society and the political separate, there’s a big difference between parents try to raise civilized human beings and the government hammering square pegs into the preferred round holes.
But isn’t compulsory schooling social engineering?
Yes and I’m against that too.
What it boils down to is some people being forced to forfeit some part of their lives for the benefit of some other people.
Otherwise known as life on earth.
What it boils down to is some people being forced to forfeit some part of their lives for the benefit of some other people.
Otherwise known as life on earth.
Society and the public good are abstractions.
I disagree.
some people being forced to forfeit some part of their lives for the benefit of some other people.
Kids being made to work in the family business are not forfeiting some part of their lives for the benefit of some other people?
Sometimes parents are more attentive to the interests of their kids than society at large is. Sometimes they aren’t.
If I follow you argument here, your claim is that the obligations that parents place on kids are always more beneficial to the kids than the obligations imposed by law. I don’t think that holds up.
Society and the public good are abstractions.
I disagree.
some people being forced to forfeit some part of their lives for the benefit of some other people.
Kids being made to work in the family business are not forfeiting some part of their lives for the benefit of some other people?
Sometimes parents are more attentive to the interests of their kids than society at large is. Sometimes they aren’t.
If I follow you argument here, your claim is that the obligations that parents place on kids are always more beneficial to the kids than the obligations imposed by law. I don’t think that holds up.
If I follow you argument here, your claim is that the obligations that parents place on kids are always more beneficial to the kids than the obligations imposed by law. I don’t think that holds up.
If it did, there would be no such thing as child abuse by a parent. Which is pretty obviously nonsense.
If I follow you argument here, your claim is that the obligations that parents place on kids are always more beneficial to the kids than the obligations imposed by law. I don’t think that holds up.
If it did, there would be no such thing as child abuse by a parent. Which is pretty obviously nonsense.
If it did, there would be no such thing as child abuse by a parent. Which is pretty obviously nonsense.
I did say…
You can assume with some exceptions that parents have
the greatest[a greater] concern for their children’s well-being [than other people].If it did, there would be no such thing as child abuse by a parent. Which is pretty obviously nonsense.
I did say…
You can assume with some exceptions that parents have
the greatest[a greater] concern for their children’s well-being [than other people].You did.
But given the numbers of, for example, anti-vaxxers, the portion included in “some exceptions” seems a bit large.
You did.
But given the numbers of, for example, anti-vaxxers, the portion included in “some exceptions” seems a bit large.
Well…I make that mistake so rarely I don’t remember how to fix it… 🙂
Well…I make that mistake so rarely I don’t remember how to fix it… 🙂
If you mean leaving italics on, fixed it for you.
If you mean leaving italics on, fixed it for you.
All parents are less than perfect. And some are going to be bad. But the government overriding all parents’ judgment on how their children should be cared for is not a solution.
All parents are less than perfect. And some are going to be bad. But the government overriding all parents’ judgment on how their children should be cared for is not a solution.
government overriding all parents’ judgment
This makes it sound like every parent wants to do X. Generally, what the government asks is the rough consensus of what most parents think is good. What is problematic is that cultural patterns of child raising vary and it is easy to impose one aspect on a subculture in the country (and subsequently be judgemental about their behavior) without considering how it may fit into the overall culture.
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14305228
government overriding all parents’ judgment
This makes it sound like every parent wants to do X. Generally, what the government asks is the rough consensus of what most parents think is good. What is problematic is that cultural patterns of child raising vary and it is easy to impose one aspect on a subculture in the country (and subsequently be judgemental about their behavior) without considering how it may fit into the overall culture.
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14305228
the government overriding all parents’ judgment on how their children should be cared for is not a solution.
We’re not talking about the government overriding parental judgement on everything. We’re talking about the government setting some limits on what parents can do.
Just like, for example, the government puts a limit on said parents beating a stranger to a pulp, they can’t do that to their kids either. Even if their judgement holds that “spare the rod and spoil the child,” they can’t inflict broken bones or even major bruises.
the government overriding all parents’ judgment on how their children should be cared for is not a solution.
We’re not talking about the government overriding parental judgement on everything. We’re talking about the government setting some limits on what parents can do.
Just like, for example, the government puts a limit on said parents beating a stranger to a pulp, they can’t do that to their kids either. Even if their judgement holds that “spare the rod and spoil the child,” they can’t inflict broken bones or even major bruises.
If government, or society, or whatever other name one prefers for the collective semi-local not-me to which one belongs has no legitimate moral authority over individuals and their families, then is there any legitimate remedy to the child abuse that we all agree does happen that does not originate within the immediate family itself?
If so, then who gets to decide when action is warranted, and when it is actionable?
If government, or society, or whatever other name one prefers for the collective semi-local not-me to which one belongs has no legitimate moral authority over individuals and their families, then is there any legitimate remedy to the child abuse that we all agree does happen that does not originate within the immediate family itself?
If so, then who gets to decide when action is warranted, and when it is actionable?
In general, parents are more acutely aware of and concerned with the well being of their kids than pretty much anybody else outside of their family group.
In general, government’s interest in the well-being of the people is, shall we say, much more constructive than using them for cannon fodder.
In general, government stays the hell out of people raising their kids. You have to get fairly far out of bounds before the state will step in, and when it does, it’s generally in the interest of the safety of the kid.
Exceptions to all of that, of course. We’re talking about general cases.
Society is not an abstraction. Society is composed of the mutual obligations and responsibilities we all bear toward each other. Don’t run red lights. Don’t pour waste oil down storm drains. Let people off elevators before you try to get on. All tangible.
The public good is not an abstraction. Potable water, near-universal literacy, public roads, affordable and reliable mail delivery. All tangible.
As a point of fact, kids can work for family businesses – private businesses of which their parents or guardians are the sole proprietors – at a pretty young age, as young as around 12, depending on the state. There are restrictions on the number of hours, and on the kinds of work they can do, all of which are focused on making sure kids are safe, can go to school, and are not working crazy hours. All of that seems reasonable.
So as far as I can tell, the whole libertarian Reason magazine agenda here is bogus. Unfounded in fact. Without merit.
If you want to live a life utterly unfettered by obligations toward other people, you can do that. It generally involves going off the grid somewhere. People do it, if that’s the lifestyle that suits you it is available.
If you want to live around other people, and especially around other people who aren’t just like you and don’t necessarily share your agenda – whatever that agenda is – you’re going to be obliged to accept limits on your autonomy.
That’s just the way life is. In most cases, it’s not that big of a deal.
In general, parents are more acutely aware of and concerned with the well being of their kids than pretty much anybody else outside of their family group.
In general, government’s interest in the well-being of the people is, shall we say, much more constructive than using them for cannon fodder.
In general, government stays the hell out of people raising their kids. You have to get fairly far out of bounds before the state will step in, and when it does, it’s generally in the interest of the safety of the kid.
Exceptions to all of that, of course. We’re talking about general cases.
Society is not an abstraction. Society is composed of the mutual obligations and responsibilities we all bear toward each other. Don’t run red lights. Don’t pour waste oil down storm drains. Let people off elevators before you try to get on. All tangible.
The public good is not an abstraction. Potable water, near-universal literacy, public roads, affordable and reliable mail delivery. All tangible.
As a point of fact, kids can work for family businesses – private businesses of which their parents or guardians are the sole proprietors – at a pretty young age, as young as around 12, depending on the state. There are restrictions on the number of hours, and on the kinds of work they can do, all of which are focused on making sure kids are safe, can go to school, and are not working crazy hours. All of that seems reasonable.
So as far as I can tell, the whole libertarian Reason magazine agenda here is bogus. Unfounded in fact. Without merit.
If you want to live a life utterly unfettered by obligations toward other people, you can do that. It generally involves going off the grid somewhere. People do it, if that’s the lifestyle that suits you it is available.
If you want to live around other people, and especially around other people who aren’t just like you and don’t necessarily share your agenda – whatever that agenda is – you’re going to be obliged to accept limits on your autonomy.
That’s just the way life is. In most cases, it’s not that big of a deal.
So as far as I can tell, the whole libertarian Reason magazine agenda here is bogus. Unfounded in fact. Without merit.
You might add, completely unworkable. Or even, completely detached from reality.
So as far as I can tell, the whole libertarian Reason magazine agenda here is bogus. Unfounded in fact. Without merit.
You might add, completely unworkable. Or even, completely detached from reality.
Part of our disagreements is due to libertarians thinking that the social sphere and the political sphere should be separate. When we object to the government doing something, we are accused of objecting to something even being done.
Part of our disagreements is due to libertarians thinking that the social sphere and the political sphere should be separate. When we object to the government doing something, we are accused of objecting to something even being done.
So is the abuse of another human being an action in the social sphere or the political sphere? Where does child abuse fit?
So is the abuse of another human being an action in the social sphere or the political sphere? Where does child abuse fit?
There are claims that basic training is the most difficult when there are no wars.
In no way am I going to claim that Navy basic training is like its Marine counterpart, all the more so as I did not join when there was any war going on. Though being fair-skinned, I did get nasty second-degree burns, blisters and all, on my ears and the back of my neck in basic thanks to what we were obligated to do outdoors in a SoCal August/September.
If not for the draft, I would never have gone anywhere near the military.
That does go some way to undermining what you’ve said about the defensibility of children and farm family labor, though I’m not piling up on you here. Just saying that your use of “social engineering” to characterize any guv/legal restrictions on said is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting that’s making the point sag, somewhat.
Others have articulated the diff between conscription and child labor under certain conditions better than what I can here, but one other diff that I think is worth pointing out is that children are in no position to negotiate the character of their relationships with their parents, whereas conscription has had all sorts of loopholes that those who didn’t want to do any form of military service could negotiate (albeit with effort and possibly rafts of documentation forged, bribed from, and/or doctored by the truly desperate and/or cunning) in the form of the myriad deferments that were made possible.
A more-apt counterpart would center around compulsory military service, of the type that most famously exists in Israel and South Korea, which I’m not aware the U.S. has ever had. Conscription is to an extent negotiable (albeit with all sorts of social pressure and legal/military requirements). But I’m not aware that CMS is – everybody’s got to serve in some capacity, at some point, whether they agree with it or not.
The only other thing about what you’ve said of SE is that under that logic, every one of use has been social engineered, to an extent.
At the time the Marines were desperate for cannon fodder.
A sidebar – as compelling as the basic training segment of Full Metal Jacket is, I’m wondering if the basic training sequence in the now almost-forgotten The Boys in Company C was more typically plausible, where the cohort were, for the most part, not exactly the fittest and the DI had to resort to practically negotiating with the recruit squad leader to get the others in line (the DI role, interestingly also being played by R. Lee Ermey, later of FMJ).
There are claims that basic training is the most difficult when there are no wars.
In no way am I going to claim that Navy basic training is like its Marine counterpart, all the more so as I did not join when there was any war going on. Though being fair-skinned, I did get nasty second-degree burns, blisters and all, on my ears and the back of my neck in basic thanks to what we were obligated to do outdoors in a SoCal August/September.
If not for the draft, I would never have gone anywhere near the military.
That does go some way to undermining what you’ve said about the defensibility of children and farm family labor, though I’m not piling up on you here. Just saying that your use of “social engineering” to characterize any guv/legal restrictions on said is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting that’s making the point sag, somewhat.
Others have articulated the diff between conscription and child labor under certain conditions better than what I can here, but one other diff that I think is worth pointing out is that children are in no position to negotiate the character of their relationships with their parents, whereas conscription has had all sorts of loopholes that those who didn’t want to do any form of military service could negotiate (albeit with effort and possibly rafts of documentation forged, bribed from, and/or doctored by the truly desperate and/or cunning) in the form of the myriad deferments that were made possible.
A more-apt counterpart would center around compulsory military service, of the type that most famously exists in Israel and South Korea, which I’m not aware the U.S. has ever had. Conscription is to an extent negotiable (albeit with all sorts of social pressure and legal/military requirements). But I’m not aware that CMS is – everybody’s got to serve in some capacity, at some point, whether they agree with it or not.
The only other thing about what you’ve said of SE is that under that logic, every one of use has been social engineered, to an extent.
At the time the Marines were desperate for cannon fodder.
A sidebar – as compelling as the basic training segment of Full Metal Jacket is, I’m wondering if the basic training sequence in the now almost-forgotten The Boys in Company C was more typically plausible, where the cohort were, for the most part, not exactly the fittest and the DI had to resort to practically negotiating with the recruit squad leader to get the others in line (the DI role, interestingly also being played by R. Lee Ermey, later of FMJ).
I don’t want to pile on, but if politics effects changes in society, Especially thru the mechanisms of passing and removing laws, I don’t understand how you can draw a line. This isn’t to mention when one has politicians on platforms like twitter. Any ‘line’ drawn is not going to be straight and of varying thicknesses.
I don’t want to pile on, but if politics effects changes in society, Especially thru the mechanisms of passing and removing laws, I don’t understand how you can draw a line. This isn’t to mention when one has politicians on platforms like twitter. Any ‘line’ drawn is not going to be straight and of varying thicknesses.
What it boils down to is some people being forced to forfeit some part of their lives for the benefit of some other people.
and vice versa.
you’re welcome.
What it boils down to is some people being forced to forfeit some part of their lives for the benefit of some other people.
and vice versa.
you’re welcome.
Part of our disagreements is due to libertarians thinking that the social sphere and the political sphere should be separate. When we object to the government doing something, we are accused of objecting to something even being done
As others have observed, the line between “social” and “political” is doing a lot of work in this framing.
What if you live in a farming community, and someone decides to build a factory upstream along the river you all use for irrigation and drinking water, and the start dumping poison into the river? What do you non-political, non-governmental libertarians do about it?
If you do everything the “government” would do except call yourselves a “government,” then it seems to me you’re just quibbling over words.
But this ground has been trodden so hard it’s deeper than the Grand Canyon, and if prior experience is any guide I’m sure there will be a simple answer that defines nothing and begs a thousand questions. The thing is, the endless stream of sound bites gets tiresome, and it would be nice to have some meat on the bones.
Part of our disagreements is due to libertarians thinking that the social sphere and the political sphere should be separate. When we object to the government doing something, we are accused of objecting to something even being done
As others have observed, the line between “social” and “political” is doing a lot of work in this framing.
What if you live in a farming community, and someone decides to build a factory upstream along the river you all use for irrigation and drinking water, and the start dumping poison into the river? What do you non-political, non-governmental libertarians do about it?
If you do everything the “government” would do except call yourselves a “government,” then it seems to me you’re just quibbling over words.
But this ground has been trodden so hard it’s deeper than the Grand Canyon, and if prior experience is any guide I’m sure there will be a simple answer that defines nothing and begs a thousand questions. The thing is, the endless stream of sound bites gets tiresome, and it would be nice to have some meat on the bones.
Mixed Metaphors on Sale Today, a dime a dozen.
Mixed Metaphors on Sale Today, a dime a dozen.
The libertarian thing, if I understand it, is that nobody should ever be coerced into anything.
‘Society’ is OK because people engage in it at their own discretion.
‘Government’ is not OK because it operates by force of law.
It’s a very attractive idea. Nobody really likes being told what they can and can’t do. It would be wonderful if we could all just sort out any and every conflict though reasonable conversation between free equals.
The problem is that people aren’t that good.
The issues you cite with government have to do with the ways in which power is mis-used by people. I think everyone here recognizes the reality of the abuse of power.
You seem to think that, if we limit or eliminate government, all of those things will go away. The problem with that idea is that government is not the only source of power. And, absent government, there are few if any constraints on the other forms of power.
Take away the law, and your levers against all of the other sources and expressions of power basically disappear. At least, all of the levers that don’t involve accumulating your own resources of power and using them to dominate other people in turn.
Everybody would like to be free to do whatever they like. The appeal is obvious. It just seems profoundly naive.
The libertarian thing, if I understand it, is that nobody should ever be coerced into anything.
‘Society’ is OK because people engage in it at their own discretion.
‘Government’ is not OK because it operates by force of law.
It’s a very attractive idea. Nobody really likes being told what they can and can’t do. It would be wonderful if we could all just sort out any and every conflict though reasonable conversation between free equals.
The problem is that people aren’t that good.
The issues you cite with government have to do with the ways in which power is mis-used by people. I think everyone here recognizes the reality of the abuse of power.
You seem to think that, if we limit or eliminate government, all of those things will go away. The problem with that idea is that government is not the only source of power. And, absent government, there are few if any constraints on the other forms of power.
Take away the law, and your levers against all of the other sources and expressions of power basically disappear. At least, all of the levers that don’t involve accumulating your own resources of power and using them to dominate other people in turn.
Everybody would like to be free to do whatever they like. The appeal is obvious. It just seems profoundly naive.
When you get to the point in the conversation where the libertarian is proudly against public schools, you should simply be thankful that democracy means their tiny minority doesn’t get its way. People free to do as they wish form governments. Some are better than others. Thanks for playing!
When you get to the point in the conversation where the libertarian is proudly against public schools, you should simply be thankful that democracy means their tiny minority doesn’t get its way. People free to do as they wish form governments. Some are better than others. Thanks for playing!
As a point of fact, kids can work for family businesses – private businesses of which their parents or guardians are the sole proprietors – at a pretty young age, as young as around 12, depending on the state. There are restrictions on the number of hours, and on the kinds of work they can do, all of which are focused on making sure kids are safe, can go to school, and are not working crazy hours.
And even those are mostly only applied if the kids are actually getting paid a salary. If it’s just “chores,” the main restriction is on the kids still getting to school. (Even “safe” is pretty notional — as anyone who has spent time around farm equipment, or in a restaurant kitchen, will be aware.)
As a point of fact, kids can work for family businesses – private businesses of which their parents or guardians are the sole proprietors – at a pretty young age, as young as around 12, depending on the state. There are restrictions on the number of hours, and on the kinds of work they can do, all of which are focused on making sure kids are safe, can go to school, and are not working crazy hours.
And even those are mostly only applied if the kids are actually getting paid a salary. If it’s just “chores,” the main restriction is on the kids still getting to school. (Even “safe” is pretty notional — as anyone who has spent time around farm equipment, or in a restaurant kitchen, will be aware.)
You seem to think that, if we limit or eliminate government, all of those things will go away. The problem with that idea is that government is not the only source of power. And, absent government, there are few if any constraints on the other forms of power.
Put another way, you can either have a government, which is subject to a greater or lesser number of constraints. Or you can have something like Somalia, where warlords spring up to fill the power vacuum created by the lack of government.** Warlords who have essentially no constraints on their behavior towards the bulk of the population, as long as they keep their small band of thugs happy.
** Somalia is a favorite of those arguing against libertarians, for just that reason. Somehow, they never seem to have a good argument against. At best, they claim something like “it wouldn’t happen like that here”, perhaps because it’s Africa.
You seem to think that, if we limit or eliminate government, all of those things will go away. The problem with that idea is that government is not the only source of power. And, absent government, there are few if any constraints on the other forms of power.
Put another way, you can either have a government, which is subject to a greater or lesser number of constraints. Or you can have something like Somalia, where warlords spring up to fill the power vacuum created by the lack of government.** Warlords who have essentially no constraints on their behavior towards the bulk of the population, as long as they keep their small band of thugs happy.
** Somalia is a favorite of those arguing against libertarians, for just that reason. Somehow, they never seem to have a good argument against. At best, they claim something like “it wouldn’t happen like that here”, perhaps because it’s Africa.
It wouldn’t happen like that here rings even more hollowly after the kleptocratic regime of TFG
It wouldn’t happen like that here rings even more hollowly after the kleptocratic regime of TFG
The problem with that idea is that government is not the only source of power.
Indeed, and one of the things I have a hard time wrapping my head around is why privatized authority is never recognized as a threat, when the law is more often than not the thing that keeps it on a short leash.
There’s nothing new about the idea of privatized authority – the East India Company, anyone? In its heyday it was the major drug trafficker. A show of hands for the United Fruit Company? It pretty much ran Ecuador.
Organized crime, on the scale of the various drug cartels, the Mafia families, etc., all operate as examples of this. The tentacles of major gazillionaires like Jeff Bezos have the outreach of some mid-level developed nations.
I’d be inclined to grant some weight to the libertarian side when I see it being as hot and bothered by such folks, and similarly-overreaching entities, that are as authoritarian as they want to be.
Yes, governments still let them get away at least part of the time with what they do and it doesn’t get government off the hook. But libertarian silence in the face of corporate or ultra-rich malfeasance followed by libertarian shrieks of terror at the intersection of law and society baffle me.
The problem with that idea is that government is not the only source of power.
Indeed, and one of the things I have a hard time wrapping my head around is why privatized authority is never recognized as a threat, when the law is more often than not the thing that keeps it on a short leash.
There’s nothing new about the idea of privatized authority – the East India Company, anyone? In its heyday it was the major drug trafficker. A show of hands for the United Fruit Company? It pretty much ran Ecuador.
Organized crime, on the scale of the various drug cartels, the Mafia families, etc., all operate as examples of this. The tentacles of major gazillionaires like Jeff Bezos have the outreach of some mid-level developed nations.
I’d be inclined to grant some weight to the libertarian side when I see it being as hot and bothered by such folks, and similarly-overreaching entities, that are as authoritarian as they want to be.
Yes, governments still let them get away at least part of the time with what they do and it doesn’t get government off the hook. But libertarian silence in the face of corporate or ultra-rich malfeasance followed by libertarian shrieks of terror at the intersection of law and society baffle me.
no, no. there will be government in Libertaria. but it will be small; its only role will be to adjudicate between disputes that can’t be settled through reasoned, mutually-beneficial agreements. it’ll just be there to lend a hand in enforcing contracts between private parties.
no, no. there will be government in Libertaria. but it will be small; its only role will be to adjudicate between disputes that can’t be settled through reasoned, mutually-beneficial agreements. it’ll just be there to lend a hand in enforcing contracts between private parties.
the East India Company, anyone? In its heyday it was the major drug trafficker.
In light of the Opium Wars, “major drug trafficker” is the least of it. Of course, governments were villains in that story as well.
the East India Company, anyone? In its heyday it was the major drug trafficker.
In light of the Opium Wars, “major drug trafficker” is the least of it. Of course, governments were villains in that story as well.
it’ll just be there to lend a hand in enforcing contracts between private parties
“enforcing”??? Oh, the horror!!!
it’ll just be there to lend a hand in enforcing contracts between private parties
“enforcing”??? Oh, the horror!!!
enforcment by mutual-agreement!
the offending party will simply be unable to argue against the compelling logic of the situation, when presented with the level-headed reasoning of the court (which will be made up of volunteers from the surrounding areas).
enforcment by mutual-agreement!
the offending party will simply be unable to argue against the compelling logic of the situation, when presented with the level-headed reasoning of the court (which will be made up of volunteers from the surrounding areas).
When discussing libertarianism here I often feel like comments are being addressed to a straw libertarian way off to my side somewhere. 🙂
Libertarians are not libertine. They reconize the neccessity for the rule of law.
Except for the anarcho-capitalists who, like communists, look to the day when government is no longer needed, libertarians favor enough government to enforce laws against crime against people and property, provide civil and criminal courts, and provide for the common defense.
On the separation of the social and the political.
“There are basically two ways to organize society, voluntarily, through the private interaction of individuals, social organizations, religious institutions, and businesses – what I would call civil society; or coercively, through the actions of the state – what I call political society. That we need some political society to protect us from crime at home and enemies abroad seems clear enough. But what should be equally clear is that we should, to the extent possible, minimize the role of political society and maximize the role of civil society, of voluntarism over coercion. All the various political “isms” – from communism to fascism to conservatism to socialism to liberalism (and every alleged “third way” in between) really boil down to a single question: Who is going to make this decision about this particular aspect of your life? You, or somebody else?
It should be axiomatic that civil society requires public policies that reflect and enhance the dignity of human life by ensuring that individuals have control over their own lives. To the extent that others control your life, to that extent, your dignity is diminished.”
Civil Society Versus Political Society
“What Is Civil Society?
Civil society can be difficult to understand; it is individualistic without being atomistic and is made up of associations without being collectivist. Civil society is a spontaneous order, a complex network of relationships and associations based on the freedom of the individual, who voluntarily assumes obligations and accepts responsibility for his or her behavior.”
Restoring Civil Society
Some scholars argue that civil society should also be separate from the commercial sphere.
For any of you who are inclined to get into the weeds.
“The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them can be found in ancient China, Greece, and Israel; they began to be developed into something resembling modern libertarian philosophy in the work of such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine.”
• Individualism…
• Individual Rights…
• Spontaneous Order…
• The Rule of Law…
• Limited Government…
• Free Markets…
• The Virtue of Production…
• Natural Harmony of Interests…
• Peace…
Key Concepts of Libertarianism: The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries.
When discussing libertarianism here I often feel like comments are being addressed to a straw libertarian way off to my side somewhere. 🙂
Libertarians are not libertine. They reconize the neccessity for the rule of law.
Except for the anarcho-capitalists who, like communists, look to the day when government is no longer needed, libertarians favor enough government to enforce laws against crime against people and property, provide civil and criminal courts, and provide for the common defense.
On the separation of the social and the political.
“There are basically two ways to organize society, voluntarily, through the private interaction of individuals, social organizations, religious institutions, and businesses – what I would call civil society; or coercively, through the actions of the state – what I call political society. That we need some political society to protect us from crime at home and enemies abroad seems clear enough. But what should be equally clear is that we should, to the extent possible, minimize the role of political society and maximize the role of civil society, of voluntarism over coercion. All the various political “isms” – from communism to fascism to conservatism to socialism to liberalism (and every alleged “third way” in between) really boil down to a single question: Who is going to make this decision about this particular aspect of your life? You, or somebody else?
It should be axiomatic that civil society requires public policies that reflect and enhance the dignity of human life by ensuring that individuals have control over their own lives. To the extent that others control your life, to that extent, your dignity is diminished.”
Civil Society Versus Political Society
“What Is Civil Society?
Civil society can be difficult to understand; it is individualistic without being atomistic and is made up of associations without being collectivist. Civil society is a spontaneous order, a complex network of relationships and associations based on the freedom of the individual, who voluntarily assumes obligations and accepts responsibility for his or her behavior.”
Restoring Civil Society
Some scholars argue that civil society should also be separate from the commercial sphere.
For any of you who are inclined to get into the weeds.
“The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them can be found in ancient China, Greece, and Israel; they began to be developed into something resembling modern libertarian philosophy in the work of such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine.”
• Individualism…
• Individual Rights…
• Spontaneous Order…
• The Rule of Law…
• Limited Government…
• Free Markets…
• The Virtue of Production…
• Natural Harmony of Interests…
• Peace…
Key Concepts of Libertarianism: The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries.
When discussing libertarianism here I often feel like comments are being addressed to a straw libertarian way off to my side somewhere.
In all fairness, and given recent discussions, a palpable hit.
When discussing libertarianism here I often feel like comments are being addressed to a straw libertarian way off to my side somewhere.
In all fairness, and given recent discussions, a palpable hit.
What makes civil society possible?
What makes civil society possible?
And, have you ever actually read Locke?
And, have you ever actually read Locke?
When discussing libertarianism here I often feel like comments are being addressed to a straw libertarian way off to my side somewhere.
Fair enough. But, present company excepted, an awful lot of self-styled libertarians (including the folks writing some of the Reason articles you link to) are a lot closer to what we’re talking about than they are to you.
(As someone who is a conservative who is pretty far from a lot of today’s self-styled “conservatives”, I can definitely sympathize.)
When discussing libertarianism here I often feel like comments are being addressed to a straw libertarian way off to my side somewhere.
Fair enough. But, present company excepted, an awful lot of self-styled libertarians (including the folks writing some of the Reason articles you link to) are a lot closer to what we’re talking about than they are to you.
(As someone who is a conservative who is pretty far from a lot of today’s self-styled “conservatives”, I can definitely sympathize.)
When discussing libertarianism here I often feel like comments are being addressed to a straw libertarian way off to my side somewhere.
In all fairness, and given recent discussions, a palpable hit.
Maybe I’ve missed it, but it seems to me that we rarely actually “discuss” libertarianism. More often we get another and another and then another in a long-running stream of oracular statements from Reason magazine, in a tone that suggests that the content is as obvious and simple as “2+2=4,” and once the oracle has spoken we’ll all see how dim we’ve been not to grasp it before.
To me it seems to be based on an imaginary human race made up of people who are not much more complex than Tinkertoys. Like this: a complex network of relationships and associations based on the freedom of the individual, who voluntarily assumes obligations and accepts responsibility for his or her behavior.
I’m not sure which planet such people are living on, but it’s not this one. I’m also not sure how a society made up of these people gets them to “voluntarily” assume their obligations.
It’s a magic trick, I guess.
When discussing libertarianism here I often feel like comments are being addressed to a straw libertarian way off to my side somewhere.
In all fairness, and given recent discussions, a palpable hit.
Maybe I’ve missed it, but it seems to me that we rarely actually “discuss” libertarianism. More often we get another and another and then another in a long-running stream of oracular statements from Reason magazine, in a tone that suggests that the content is as obvious and simple as “2+2=4,” and once the oracle has spoken we’ll all see how dim we’ve been not to grasp it before.
To me it seems to be based on an imaginary human race made up of people who are not much more complex than Tinkertoys. Like this: a complex network of relationships and associations based on the freedom of the individual, who voluntarily assumes obligations and accepts responsibility for his or her behavior.
I’m not sure which planet such people are living on, but it’s not this one. I’m also not sure how a society made up of these people gets them to “voluntarily” assume their obligations.
It’s a magic trick, I guess.
P.S. by “the oracle” I meant the magazine, not CharlesWT.
P.S. by “the oracle” I meant the magazine, not CharlesWT.
“I’m not sure which planet such people are living on, but it’s not this one. I’m also not sure how a society made up of these people gets them to “voluntarily” assume their obligations”
This is an eloquent statement of the fundamental views of most people I know. I could not disagree more. In fact, this is how all society exists. Without the voluntary assumption of our obligations civil society couldn’t exist.
A break down in our society is that a significant portion of people have decided that government should enforce their views far beyond the fundamental obligations to government.
The extent of the transfer of focus for helping the poor from volunteers and charities to government programs is the biggest example of this. As is the shift in focus from raising people from poverty to just paying them. It is the assumption that people will not voluntarily assume the obligation for their neighbors that drives people to look at government and ask it to enforce the obligation.
Nothing weakens the fabric of civil society more than the assumption that I should have government make you do what I want.
“I’m not sure which planet such people are living on, but it’s not this one. I’m also not sure how a society made up of these people gets them to “voluntarily” assume their obligations”
This is an eloquent statement of the fundamental views of most people I know. I could not disagree more. In fact, this is how all society exists. Without the voluntary assumption of our obligations civil society couldn’t exist.
A break down in our society is that a significant portion of people have decided that government should enforce their views far beyond the fundamental obligations to government.
The extent of the transfer of focus for helping the poor from volunteers and charities to government programs is the biggest example of this. As is the shift in focus from raising people from poverty to just paying them. It is the assumption that people will not voluntarily assume the obligation for their neighbors that drives people to look at government and ask it to enforce the obligation.
Nothing weakens the fabric of civil society more than the assumption that I should have government make you do what I want.
A sidebar – as compelling as the basic training segment of Full Metal Jacket is, I’m wondering if the basic training sequence in the now almost-forgotten The Boys in Company C was more typically plausible, where the cohort were, for the most part, not exactly the fittest and the DI had to resort to practically negotiating with the recruit squad leader to get the others in line (the DI role, interestingly also being played by R. Lee Ermey, later of FMJ).
I think I’ve seen The Boys in Company C, but I can’t remember any of it. FMJ is pretty much dead on.
My experience was that it was pretty much a one-way street between DIs and recruits. Nothing like negotiation going on between them. The main qualification for being a squad leader was to be the tallest person in the squad. And the platoon leader was the tallest in the platoon. And the default go-to person to abuse if something went wrong.
The Marines were so desperate for warm bodies that, when people were unable to do the training, they didn’t send them home. They put them in remedial platoons that tried to get them up to speed so that they could do the regular training and pass the required physical and academic tests to stay in the Marines.
The overweight recruits were put on diets and exercised to take the weight off. The underweight and weak were put on diets to gain weight and exercise to gain strength. The under-educated were taught reading and math in the hope that they might pass the written tests. The incorrigible, screwups, recruits the DIs didn’t like/wanted to get rid of were put in correctional platoons where they were brutalized into getting their shit together.
There was a rumor that some DIs were so unhappy with a platoon they had that they got the recruits up in the middle of the night, had them sign some papers, told them they were being transferred to another location and stuffed them on a bus. Only after they got off the bus did they realized that they had been transferred to the Navy.
A sidebar – as compelling as the basic training segment of Full Metal Jacket is, I’m wondering if the basic training sequence in the now almost-forgotten The Boys in Company C was more typically plausible, where the cohort were, for the most part, not exactly the fittest and the DI had to resort to practically negotiating with the recruit squad leader to get the others in line (the DI role, interestingly also being played by R. Lee Ermey, later of FMJ).
I think I’ve seen The Boys in Company C, but I can’t remember any of it. FMJ is pretty much dead on.
My experience was that it was pretty much a one-way street between DIs and recruits. Nothing like negotiation going on between them. The main qualification for being a squad leader was to be the tallest person in the squad. And the platoon leader was the tallest in the platoon. And the default go-to person to abuse if something went wrong.
The Marines were so desperate for warm bodies that, when people were unable to do the training, they didn’t send them home. They put them in remedial platoons that tried to get them up to speed so that they could do the regular training and pass the required physical and academic tests to stay in the Marines.
The overweight recruits were put on diets and exercised to take the weight off. The underweight and weak were put on diets to gain weight and exercise to gain strength. The under-educated were taught reading and math in the hope that they might pass the written tests. The incorrigible, screwups, recruits the DIs didn’t like/wanted to get rid of were put in correctional platoons where they were brutalized into getting their shit together.
There was a rumor that some DIs were so unhappy with a platoon they had that they got the recruits up in the middle of the night, had them sign some papers, told them they were being transferred to another location and stuffed them on a bus. Only after they got off the bus did they realized that they had been transferred to the Navy.
Maybe I’ve missed it, but it seems to me that we rarely actually “discuss” libertarianism. More often we get another and another and then another in a long-running stream of oracular statements from Reason magazine, in a tone that suggests that the content is as obvious and simple as “2+2=4,” and once the oracle has spoken we’ll all see how dim we’ve been not to grasp it before.
Reason and Cato do lean pretty hard on the No True Scotsman arguments when it comes to doing anything beyond laying out their catechism.
I mean, according to the Cato definition above, most of the Marxists I know are libertarians, they are just libertarians who are convinced that individual liberty requires a greater level of cooperation and compromise than the self-styled libertarians prefer in some areas where public and private overlap.
I’ve read Locke, Hume, Smith, Jefferson, and Paine. The Critical Theorists I know have all read them, too, and take them seriously. Restating first principles and affirming the Libertarian version of the Nicene Creed is not going to answer any of the questions those people have about when, and where, and how, people decide whether the individual or the collective should prevail.
Was pre-modern Iceland an anarcho-capitalist society? Did their voluntary association in the Thing count as civil society or political society? Does their system of law enforcement count as an effective example of civil self-enforcement when we look at those institutions in anthropological detail?
Maybe I’ve missed it, but it seems to me that we rarely actually “discuss” libertarianism. More often we get another and another and then another in a long-running stream of oracular statements from Reason magazine, in a tone that suggests that the content is as obvious and simple as “2+2=4,” and once the oracle has spoken we’ll all see how dim we’ve been not to grasp it before.
Reason and Cato do lean pretty hard on the No True Scotsman arguments when it comes to doing anything beyond laying out their catechism.
I mean, according to the Cato definition above, most of the Marxists I know are libertarians, they are just libertarians who are convinced that individual liberty requires a greater level of cooperation and compromise than the self-styled libertarians prefer in some areas where public and private overlap.
I’ve read Locke, Hume, Smith, Jefferson, and Paine. The Critical Theorists I know have all read them, too, and take them seriously. Restating first principles and affirming the Libertarian version of the Nicene Creed is not going to answer any of the questions those people have about when, and where, and how, people decide whether the individual or the collective should prevail.
Was pre-modern Iceland an anarcho-capitalist society? Did their voluntary association in the Thing count as civil society or political society? Does their system of law enforcement count as an effective example of civil self-enforcement when we look at those institutions in anthropological detail?
no straw at all. i didn’t just make up the contract thing. that’s something actual libertarians talk about:
https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/voluntary-contract-enforcement
[and, bonus, he actually thinks Somalia is a good example of non-state contract enforcement!]
no straw at all. i didn’t just make up the contract thing. that’s something actual libertarians talk about:
https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/voluntary-contract-enforcement
[and, bonus, he actually thinks Somalia is a good example of non-state contract enforcement!]
The extent of the transfer of focus for helping the poor from volunteers and charities to government programs is the biggest example of this.
But the much larger extent of the enforcement of public policies designed to transfer wealth to the already rich is not?
Nothing weakens the fabric of civil society more than the assumption that I should have government make you do what I want.
What weakens this fabric far more is the appropriation of future output by today’s tiny few.
The extent of the transfer of focus for helping the poor from volunteers and charities to government programs is the biggest example of this.
But the much larger extent of the enforcement of public policies designed to transfer wealth to the already rich is not?
Nothing weakens the fabric of civil society more than the assumption that I should have government make you do what I want.
What weakens this fabric far more is the appropriation of future output by today’s tiny few.
As for child labor, if all the child labor laws were rescinded, I seriously doubt that businesses would make a rush to hire children. Especially if they had to pay them minimum wage.
But kids could legally get paid for doing things they’re already legally doing or could do now.
As for child labor, if all the child labor laws were rescinded, I seriously doubt that businesses would make a rush to hire children. Especially if they had to pay them minimum wage.
But kids could legally get paid for doing things they’re already legally doing or could do now.
nous is much more helpful here than I am, as are several other regulars.
But Marty’s comment reminds me of another question begged. I focused on the “voluntary” in “voluntary obligations,” but even before that, someone has to decide what the obligations actually are. What could be more “political”?
For example, not being greedy is one of the prime obligations, to my way of thinking. Taking millions of times more than your share of the goodies (e.g., being a billionaire) is about as opposite to meeting your obligations to “society” as anything can get that isn’t murder and mayhem. No doubt Marty’s mileage varies.
Grab what you can, far beyond any reasonable definition of “need,” and blame the people who get the leavings for their poverty — a very popular stance amongst our species.
nous is much more helpful here than I am, as are several other regulars.
But Marty’s comment reminds me of another question begged. I focused on the “voluntary” in “voluntary obligations,” but even before that, someone has to decide what the obligations actually are. What could be more “political”?
For example, not being greedy is one of the prime obligations, to my way of thinking. Taking millions of times more than your share of the goodies (e.g., being a billionaire) is about as opposite to meeting your obligations to “society” as anything can get that isn’t murder and mayhem. No doubt Marty’s mileage varies.
Grab what you can, far beyond any reasonable definition of “need,” and blame the people who get the leavings for their poverty — a very popular stance amongst our species.
Some of those “other regulars” showed up. I can go back to pretending to clean the attic.
Some of those “other regulars” showed up. I can go back to pretending to clean the attic.
Libertarians worship the system of private property (and the distribution of actually existing private power).
They tout the economic relations of capitalism as the best of all possible worlds, and what world could be better if you are poor and I am rich?
Capitalism grows or it dies, a one-way street that is baked in.
Continued economic growth as far as the eye can see is a recipe for the extinction of our species.
Please read and ponder the recent article in The New Republic entitled We’re Hurtling Toward Global Suicide.
I’m not too sure the watchman state can handle that eventuality in a tidy little court case.
Libertarians worship the system of private property (and the distribution of actually existing private power).
They tout the economic relations of capitalism as the best of all possible worlds, and what world could be better if you are poor and I am rich?
Capitalism grows or it dies, a one-way street that is baked in.
Continued economic growth as far as the eye can see is a recipe for the extinction of our species.
Please read and ponder the recent article in The New Republic entitled We’re Hurtling Toward Global Suicide.
I’m not too sure the watchman state can handle that eventuality in a tidy little court case.
Fair enough. But, present company excepted, an awful lot of self-styled libertarians (including the folks writing some of the Reason articles you link to) are a lot closer to what we’re talking about than they are to you.
Reason has a pretty broad umbrella. They tend to use libertarian as an adjective instead of a noun. Some may not describe themselves as libertarian but have a libertarian slant on the subject they’re writing on.
Fair enough. But, present company excepted, an awful lot of self-styled libertarians (including the folks writing some of the Reason articles you link to) are a lot closer to what we’re talking about than they are to you.
Reason has a pretty broad umbrella. They tend to use libertarian as an adjective instead of a noun. Some may not describe themselves as libertarian but have a libertarian slant on the subject they’re writing on.
“even before that, someone has to decide what the obligations actually are. What could be more “political”?”
I agree it needs to be decided, the political part comes as we decide if it is the governments responsibility to enforce the obligation.
Just a few observations, back to cleaning the garage.
“even before that, someone has to decide what the obligations actually are. What could be more “political”?”
I agree it needs to be decided, the political part comes as we decide if it is the governments responsibility to enforce the obligation.
Just a few observations, back to cleaning the garage.
Continued economic growth as far as the eye can see is a recipe for the extinction of our species.
Well, not exactly. Economic growth involving continued increasing consumption of natural resources is a problem. But that’s not the only possible source of economic growth now, is it?
Continued economic growth as far as the eye can see is a recipe for the extinction of our species.
Well, not exactly. Economic growth involving continued increasing consumption of natural resources is a problem. But that’s not the only possible source of economic growth now, is it?
Marty – As is the shift in focus from raising people from poverty to just paying them.
This statement only makes sense if both the speaker and the interlocutors are making unspoken moral assumptions.
If you give people enough money to raise their household income above the poverty line, then you have raised them out of economic poverty.
The rejection of this option shows that there’s an inflection going on with the word “poverty” that is intended to shift it from a discussion of economics to a discussion of morality.
Please unpack your underlying reasoning more if you feel I am being unfair in this analysis.
Marty – As is the shift in focus from raising people from poverty to just paying them.
This statement only makes sense if both the speaker and the interlocutors are making unspoken moral assumptions.
If you give people enough money to raise their household income above the poverty line, then you have raised them out of economic poverty.
The rejection of this option shows that there’s an inflection going on with the word “poverty” that is intended to shift it from a discussion of economics to a discussion of morality.
Please unpack your underlying reasoning more if you feel I am being unfair in this analysis.
Well, not exactly.
It’s certainly a debatable point. Here’s one view. And another.
Here’s an opposing view.
Well, not exactly.
It’s certainly a debatable point. Here’s one view. And another.
Here’s an opposing view.
But the much larger extent of the enforcement of public policies designed to transfer wealth to the already rich is not?
****
If you give people enough money to raise their household income above the poverty line, then you have raised them out of economic poverty.
The rejection of this option shows that there’s an inflection going on with the word “poverty” that is intended to shift it from a discussion of economics to a discussion of morality.
*sighs happily, and goes to bed*
But the much larger extent of the enforcement of public policies designed to transfer wealth to the already rich is not?
****
If you give people enough money to raise their household income above the poverty line, then you have raised them out of economic poverty.
The rejection of this option shows that there’s an inflection going on with the word “poverty” that is intended to shift it from a discussion of economics to a discussion of morality.
*sighs happily, and goes to bed*
As is the shift in focus from raising people from poverty to just paying them.
As an aside, words like ‘just’ are incredibly difficult to teach in EFL because they convey information that is not obvious at first glance. If Marty were to unpack this, I’d suggest that he explain what he means when he says ‘just’. ‘Just pay them’ implies that the government is neglecting to demand other things of them, and so it is the exact opposite of CharlesWT’s argument.
As is the shift in focus from raising people from poverty to just paying them.
As an aside, words like ‘just’ are incredibly difficult to teach in EFL because they convey information that is not obvious at first glance. If Marty were to unpack this, I’d suggest that he explain what he means when he says ‘just’. ‘Just pay them’ implies that the government is neglecting to demand other things of them, and so it is the exact opposite of CharlesWT’s argument.
I’m going to leave questions/comments about morality alone for now, since nous asked Marty a question and I don’t want to muddy the waters.
But “raising people from poverty,” like “just paying them,” is also carrying a lot of weight of implication. Just for example, you could say, instead: “give people the means to raise themselves from poverty.” It would sound less paternalistic that way. Or “create an economic system in which it isn’t almost impossible to rise out of poverty even with three jobs.”
I’m going to leave questions/comments about morality alone for now, since nous asked Marty a question and I don’t want to muddy the waters.
But “raising people from poverty,” like “just paying them,” is also carrying a lot of weight of implication. Just for example, you could say, instead: “give people the means to raise themselves from poverty.” It would sound less paternalistic that way. Or “create an economic system in which it isn’t almost impossible to rise out of poverty even with three jobs.”
And it’s interesting, but not something I have the energy to dig into right now, to realize that I think “raising people from poverty” does sound paternalistic to me, while “paying them” does not.
Maybe it has something to do with implications about morality vs straight economics.
And it’s interesting, but not something I have the energy to dig into right now, to realize that I think “raising people from poverty” does sound paternalistic to me, while “paying them” does not.
Maybe it has something to do with implications about morality vs straight economics.
Once upon a time, in a small West Virginia town, the 6th-grade daughter of atheist parents recorded her public school sex-ed teacher preaching Old Testament dogma in class. Her father complained to the school board. Entirely voluntarily, the good Christian townsfolk launched a Facebook page in defense of the teacher, doxxed the girl and her family, and physically harassed them so much that they had to move out of town.
If you doubt that actually happened in the Year of Our Lord 2019, just take it as a hypothetical. Please note: “hypotheticals” are a staple of legal education, so dismissing “hypotheticals” as unworthy of discussion is nothing but weaseling.
Now, I would very much appreciate CharlesWT, Marty, or any Reason columnist explaining to a heathen librul commie like me how to think about the above in Libertarian(TM) terms. References to “society”, “politics”, and the US Constitution will be especially welcome. Come to think of it, “cancel culture” claims will be fine, too.
–TP
Once upon a time, in a small West Virginia town, the 6th-grade daughter of atheist parents recorded her public school sex-ed teacher preaching Old Testament dogma in class. Her father complained to the school board. Entirely voluntarily, the good Christian townsfolk launched a Facebook page in defense of the teacher, doxxed the girl and her family, and physically harassed them so much that they had to move out of town.
If you doubt that actually happened in the Year of Our Lord 2019, just take it as a hypothetical. Please note: “hypotheticals” are a staple of legal education, so dismissing “hypotheticals” as unworthy of discussion is nothing but weaseling.
Now, I would very much appreciate CharlesWT, Marty, or any Reason columnist explaining to a heathen librul commie like me how to think about the above in Libertarian(TM) terms. References to “society”, “politics”, and the US Constitution will be especially welcome. Come to think of it, “cancel culture” claims will be fine, too.
–TP
The extent of the transfer of focus for helping the poor from volunteers and charities to government programs is the biggest example of this
So, at some point, helping the poor was primarily the responsibility of volunteers and charities, and at some point it shifted to government.
When did this transfer happen, as you understand it?
The extent of the transfer of focus for helping the poor from volunteers and charities to government programs is the biggest example of this
So, at some point, helping the poor was primarily the responsibility of volunteers and charities, and at some point it shifted to government.
When did this transfer happen, as you understand it?
Solon in Athens in the early 6th century BC would be an early example.
Solon in Athens in the early 6th century BC would be an early example.
“f you give people enough money to raise their household income above the poverty line, then you have raised them out of economic poverty.”
This is not accurate unless you can quit giving them money and they can remain above the poverty line. If you just give them money they are poor people you are supporting.
It is a definitional discussion. I suspect that providing minimum basic income would raise people from poverty for a short time, but ultimately would just raise the poverty line. Would you have raised them out of economic poverty? No.
Raising people from economic poverty is when they can earn enough money to not be poor. This requires a combination of empowering individuals and maintaining a sound economy.
I would suggest that politically we would still define some people as poor because it is a relative measure that is convenient to address a certain constituency.
“f you give people enough money to raise their household income above the poverty line, then you have raised them out of economic poverty.”
This is not accurate unless you can quit giving them money and they can remain above the poverty line. If you just give them money they are poor people you are supporting.
It is a definitional discussion. I suspect that providing minimum basic income would raise people from poverty for a short time, but ultimately would just raise the poverty line. Would you have raised them out of economic poverty? No.
Raising people from economic poverty is when they can earn enough money to not be poor. This requires a combination of empowering individuals and maintaining a sound economy.
I would suggest that politically we would still define some people as poor because it is a relative measure that is convenient to address a certain constituency.
Which brings us back to the old discussion of ‘What exactly does poor mean?’.
Unfortunately this kind of discussion tends to quickly turn into an ideological shouting match with arguments like “Louis XIV had no cellphone and no colour TV. So either he was poor or those allegedly poor people in this country are actually richer than that decadent king of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys” [Fill in the straw man arguments of the other side at your pleasure].
Which brings us back to the old discussion of ‘What exactly does poor mean?’.
Unfortunately this kind of discussion tends to quickly turn into an ideological shouting match with arguments like “Louis XIV had no cellphone and no colour TV. So either he was poor or those allegedly poor people in this country are actually richer than that decadent king of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys” [Fill in the straw man arguments of the other side at your pleasure].
Raising people from economic poverty is when they can earn enough money to not be poor. This requires a combination of empowering individuals and maintaining a sound economy.
Or, the people who employ them could pay them a living wage.
Not charity, not government. Just pay them more.
Raising people from economic poverty is when they can earn enough money to not be poor. This requires a combination of empowering individuals and maintaining a sound economy.
Or, the people who employ them could pay them a living wage.
Not charity, not government. Just pay them more.
Not charity, not government. Just pay them more.
If the employer pays them more than their labor is worth, that’s charity. That’s usually reserved for the employer’s idiot nephew…
Not charity, not government. Just pay them more.
If the employer pays them more than their labor is worth, that’s charity. That’s usually reserved for the employer’s idiot nephew…
Don’t want to flood you with links but
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973653719/california-program-giving-500-no-strings-attached-stipends-pays-off-study-finds
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/stocktons-basic-income-experiment-pays-off/618174/
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22313272/stockton-basic-income-guaranteed-free-money
Don’t want to flood you with links but
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973653719/california-program-giving-500-no-strings-attached-stipends-pays-off-study-finds
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/stocktons-basic-income-experiment-pays-off/618174/
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22313272/stockton-basic-income-guaranteed-free-money
If the employer pays them more than their labor is worth, that’s charity.
Tinkertoy logic.
What does “worth” mean? You have to boil it down to the idea that there is no measure of life or people or anything else but money.
You have to charge for your products what the labor and dignity of the human beings who made them are “worth.” My “worth,” not yours.
If the employer pays them more than their labor is worth, that’s charity.
Tinkertoy logic.
What does “worth” mean? You have to boil it down to the idea that there is no measure of life or people or anything else but money.
You have to charge for your products what the labor and dignity of the human beings who made them are “worth.” My “worth,” not yours.
Oh, bust I just got out of bed, my own logic falls short. It might not even involve charging more for your products if the religion of “the more you can grab the more admirable you are” theory of economics weren’t the dominant religion.
Again.
Oh, bust I just got out of bed, my own logic falls short. It might not even involve charging more for your products if the religion of “the more you can grab the more admirable you are” theory of economics weren’t the dominant religion.
Again.
And by the way, I’m bookmarking CharleWT’s 8:27 as a reminder in case he ever complains about being straw-manned again. Unless it’s a joke, it’s the perfect exemplar of that oracular, gotcha, explain it to the simple-minded that I mentioned yesterday.
And by the way, I’m bookmarking CharleWT’s 8:27 as a reminder in case he ever complains about being straw-manned again. Unless it’s a joke, it’s the perfect exemplar of that oracular, gotcha, explain it to the simple-minded that I mentioned yesterday.
If the employer pays them more than their labor is worth, that’s charity.
That’s certainly one way to look at it. It does beg the question of how “what their labor is worth” is determined.
If people can’t earn enough to pay for their basic needs, then they are functionally poor. It doesn’t matter whether the government or anybody else draws a line in the sand saying below this line you’re poor, above it you are not. It doesn’t matter if anybody draws that line. If you can’t make enough from working to pay for basic needs – food, shelter, clothing, transportation, health care – then you are poor.
That is what being poor means. That is what being poor has always meant.
There are charities that focus on helping the poor. I encourage anyone and everyone reading this to support them. The resources and efforts of those charities are not sufficient to address all of the needs of everyone who is poor. The resources of charities combined with what is currently available from government are not enough to address all of the needs of everyone who is poor, for that matter, see also the number of GoFundMe campaigns dedicated to paying some individual’s medical bills or other financial disaster. Most of those amount to somebody making the transition from not-poor to poor more or less overnight, often as a result of circumstances completely out of their control.
The precedent of government acting to address poverty go back as far as recorded history. In the US and the English speaking colonies that preceded it, that precedent goes back to the earliest days of those colonies, and they in turn adopted the practice of public support for the poor from precedents in the UK going back at least to the Old Poor Laws of Elizabeth I, which in turn were based on precedents going back to the Tudor and even medieval periods.
I suspect there are similar precedents in most national legal traditions.
This is a somewhat exasperating topic, because the most obvious solution is for more of the wealth generated by the economy to flow to the people who work in it. It’s a solution that doesn’t require charity, doesn’t require government intervention. It simply requires that employers not have business models based on paying people less than what they can live on.
But that solution seems to be off the table, for reasons that escape me.
If the employer pays them more than their labor is worth, that’s charity.
That’s certainly one way to look at it. It does beg the question of how “what their labor is worth” is determined.
If people can’t earn enough to pay for their basic needs, then they are functionally poor. It doesn’t matter whether the government or anybody else draws a line in the sand saying below this line you’re poor, above it you are not. It doesn’t matter if anybody draws that line. If you can’t make enough from working to pay for basic needs – food, shelter, clothing, transportation, health care – then you are poor.
That is what being poor means. That is what being poor has always meant.
There are charities that focus on helping the poor. I encourage anyone and everyone reading this to support them. The resources and efforts of those charities are not sufficient to address all of the needs of everyone who is poor. The resources of charities combined with what is currently available from government are not enough to address all of the needs of everyone who is poor, for that matter, see also the number of GoFundMe campaigns dedicated to paying some individual’s medical bills or other financial disaster. Most of those amount to somebody making the transition from not-poor to poor more or less overnight, often as a result of circumstances completely out of their control.
The precedent of government acting to address poverty go back as far as recorded history. In the US and the English speaking colonies that preceded it, that precedent goes back to the earliest days of those colonies, and they in turn adopted the practice of public support for the poor from precedents in the UK going back at least to the Old Poor Laws of Elizabeth I, which in turn were based on precedents going back to the Tudor and even medieval periods.
I suspect there are similar precedents in most national legal traditions.
This is a somewhat exasperating topic, because the most obvious solution is for more of the wealth generated by the economy to flow to the people who work in it. It’s a solution that doesn’t require charity, doesn’t require government intervention. It simply requires that employers not have business models based on paying people less than what they can live on.
But that solution seems to be off the table, for reasons that escape me.
It simply requires that employers not have business models based on paying
peoplelaborers/employees less than what they can live on……and employers/investors more than anyone ever needed to live on, even with homes on five planets and customized farcasters for traveling among them.
“Exasperating” doesn’t come close.
It simply requires that employers not have business models based on paying
peoplelaborers/employees less than what they can live on……and employers/investors more than anyone ever needed to live on, even with homes on five planets and customized farcasters for traveling among them.
“Exasperating” doesn’t come close.
If the employer pays them more than their labor is worth, that’s charity.
Ah, you must be referring to corporate executives.
But just being curious here, what do you call it when the employer pays them less than their labor is “worth”?
If the employer pays them more than their labor is worth, that’s charity.
Ah, you must be referring to corporate executives.
But just being curious here, what do you call it when the employer pays them less than their labor is “worth”?
So CharlesWT, do you approve of labor unions?
So CharlesWT, do you approve of labor unions?
Raising people from economic poverty is when they can earn enough money to not be poor. This requires a combination of empowering individuals and maintaining a sound economy.
Marty, on this blog multiple people over the last few years have produced stats showing that real wages for actual labour have stagnated (or worse) over several years, while returns on investment of capital for the rich have skyrocketed. Numerous studies show that even people working three jobs are still unable to support their families, which used not to be the case, while the top !% of 1% yadda yadda yadda. Do you consider this to be consistent with, let alone necessary, for “maintaining a sound economy”? What does a “sound economy” even mean in these terms? And what are the costs for society? Janie talks about people having more money than they could ever need in several lifetimes – how do you explain, and justify, people working all the hours God sends and still not having enough to pay rent, pay medical bills, feed and clothe their children? Does this constitute a “sound economy”? I may be (I am) economically illiterate, and I am certainly not in the “kill the rich” camp (figuratively speaking), but even I can see that this is not a healthy or workable situation. If you subtract from this discussion any sense that you are engaged in an ideological battle, can you agree with any part of what e.g. russell is saying?
Raising people from economic poverty is when they can earn enough money to not be poor. This requires a combination of empowering individuals and maintaining a sound economy.
Marty, on this blog multiple people over the last few years have produced stats showing that real wages for actual labour have stagnated (or worse) over several years, while returns on investment of capital for the rich have skyrocketed. Numerous studies show that even people working three jobs are still unable to support their families, which used not to be the case, while the top !% of 1% yadda yadda yadda. Do you consider this to be consistent with, let alone necessary, for “maintaining a sound economy”? What does a “sound economy” even mean in these terms? And what are the costs for society? Janie talks about people having more money than they could ever need in several lifetimes – how do you explain, and justify, people working all the hours God sends and still not having enough to pay rent, pay medical bills, feed and clothe their children? Does this constitute a “sound economy”? I may be (I am) economically illiterate, and I am certainly not in the “kill the rich” camp (figuratively speaking), but even I can see that this is not a healthy or workable situation. If you subtract from this discussion any sense that you are engaged in an ideological battle, can you agree with any part of what e.g. russell is saying?
So CharlesWT, do you approve of labor unions?
Sure as long as the government stays out of it. If employees are free to choose which union to belong to. Or no union at all. If the employer is free to choose which union to deal with.
So CharlesWT, do you approve of labor unions?
Sure as long as the government stays out of it. If employees are free to choose which union to belong to. Or no union at all. If the employer is free to choose which union to deal with.
Sure as long as the government stays out of it.
I was going to write that you would answer JanieM’s question exactly as you did, but you beat me to it.
In libertarian speak, the answers write themselves.
So, I take it, you support repeal of Taft-Hartley?
Sure as long as the government stays out of it.
I was going to write that you would answer JanieM’s question exactly as you did, but you beat me to it.
In libertarian speak, the answers write themselves.
So, I take it, you support repeal of Taft-Hartley?
Sure as long as the government stays out of it.
can the government get involved if an employer sends in thugs to beat up the union? or is it still a private matter?
/asking for all of history
Sure as long as the government stays out of it.
can the government get involved if an employer sends in thugs to beat up the union? or is it still a private matter?
/asking for all of history
Since we are so hell bent on eliminating government, let’s let’er rip, shall we?
Free and fully unconstrained free movement of labor across so-called “national” borders.
Anybody who wants to can practise medicine, dentistry, or law.
Eliminate copywrite and patent law.
No more public schools.
No more taxpayer funded fire departments.
No more taxpayer funded police. If you want protection of your property, then hire your own damned security….a true “free market” solution.
While we are at it, get rid of the “nation-state”. The concept is just a means to sneak government control into our lives.
Wake up sheeple. Government is, a priori evil.The libertarian paradise awaits!
This strawman rests its case.
Since we are so hell bent on eliminating government, let’s let’er rip, shall we?
Free and fully unconstrained free movement of labor across so-called “national” borders.
Anybody who wants to can practise medicine, dentistry, or law.
Eliminate copywrite and patent law.
No more public schools.
No more taxpayer funded fire departments.
No more taxpayer funded police. If you want protection of your property, then hire your own damned security….a true “free market” solution.
While we are at it, get rid of the “nation-state”. The concept is just a means to sneak government control into our lives.
Wake up sheeple. Government is, a priori evil.The libertarian paradise awaits!
This strawman rests its case.
Lord of the Freedom Flies.
Biggest Stick makes the rule.
Lord of the Freedom Flies.
Biggest Stick makes the rule.
If the employer pays them more than their labor is worth, that’s charity.
Which means pretty much every large company CEO is the recipient of charity. (In other words, what bobbyp said at 9:42.)
Perhaps we need to move from struggling to define “poor” meaningfully to defining “worth.”
If the employer pays them more than their labor is worth, that’s charity.
Which means pretty much every large company CEO is the recipient of charity. (In other words, what bobbyp said at 9:42.)
Perhaps we need to move from struggling to define “poor” meaningfully to defining “worth.”
Bobby, you left out what I would consider one of the critical ones:
All roads are privately built toll roads. Which means most people can’t afford to use them, maintenance is minimal, and speeds are constrained by stopping eveny mile or two to pay whatever the local toll is — which, in turn, is constrained only by how much you would have to pay to get back to where you can choose an alternative route.
(Can you tell I get really irritated when driving in those parts of the country where the Interstate highways are toll roads?)
Bobby, you left out what I would consider one of the critical ones:
All roads are privately built toll roads. Which means most people can’t afford to use them, maintenance is minimal, and speeds are constrained by stopping eveny mile or two to pay whatever the local toll is — which, in turn, is constrained only by how much you would have to pay to get back to where you can choose an alternative route.
(Can you tell I get really irritated when driving in those parts of the country where the Interstate highways are toll roads?)
Think about it: a smug pronouncement about “worth” followed by a joke about the owner’s idiot nephew, har har har the notion of a living wage is hilarious.
But it’s government that’s the problem.
Think about it: a smug pronouncement about “worth” followed by a joke about the owner’s idiot nephew, har har har the notion of a living wage is hilarious.
But it’s government that’s the problem.
If you want protection of your property, then hire your own damned security.
what are you going to pay them with, gold or bitcoin?
If you want protection of your property, then hire your own damned security.
what are you going to pay them with, gold or bitcoin?
So, I take it, you support repeal of Taft-Hartley?
The law is a mixed bag. Another case of a law being passed to fix problems created by a previous law instead of fixing the previous law.
can the government get involved if an employer sends in thugs to beat up the union? or is it still a private matter?
No, I mean the government not taking sides.
No more public schools.
In the past year, the public schools and teacher unions haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory. Homeschooling, not remote or other kinds of schooling, has tripled to over 10%. Once things get back to some kind of normal, many of those students will go back to public schools. But tens of thousands won’t.
No more taxpayer funded police. If you want protection of your property, then hire your own damned security….a true “free market” solution.
The police and their unions haven’t covered themselves in glory either. Police standing back while rioters cause billions of dollars in damages and destroying people’s lives. Unions defending officers guilty of kinds of really bad behavior.
So, I take it, you support repeal of Taft-Hartley?
The law is a mixed bag. Another case of a law being passed to fix problems created by a previous law instead of fixing the previous law.
can the government get involved if an employer sends in thugs to beat up the union? or is it still a private matter?
No, I mean the government not taking sides.
No more public schools.
In the past year, the public schools and teacher unions haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory. Homeschooling, not remote or other kinds of schooling, has tripled to over 10%. Once things get back to some kind of normal, many of those students will go back to public schools. But tens of thousands won’t.
No more taxpayer funded police. If you want protection of your property, then hire your own damned security….a true “free market” solution.
The police and their unions haven’t covered themselves in glory either. Police standing back while rioters cause billions of dollars in damages and destroying people’s lives. Unions defending officers guilty of kinds of really bad behavior.
The law is a mixed bag. Another case of a law being passed to fix problems created by a previous law instead of fixing the previous law.
LOL…well, OK. How should the Wagner Act be “fixed”?
Also, you did not answer cleek’s question. Is it ok for firms to hire thugs to beat up strikers or not?
what are you going to pay them with, gold or bitcoin?
well, with no government and no currency (backed by gold, bitcoin, or anything else), I’ll go with chickens. I mean, with the Federal Reserve abolished, what else are you going to do?
The law is a mixed bag. Another case of a law being passed to fix problems created by a previous law instead of fixing the previous law.
LOL…well, OK. How should the Wagner Act be “fixed”?
Also, you did not answer cleek’s question. Is it ok for firms to hire thugs to beat up strikers or not?
what are you going to pay them with, gold or bitcoin?
well, with no government and no currency (backed by gold, bitcoin, or anything else), I’ll go with chickens. I mean, with the Federal Reserve abolished, what else are you going to do?
The police and their unions haven’t covered themselves in glory either. Police standing back while rioters cause billions of dollars in damages and destroying people’s lives.
If there were no police, George Floyd would still be alive.
Therefore, there would not have been any riots and associated property damage or deaths.
QED
I love it when you can argue like a libertarian!
The police and their unions haven’t covered themselves in glory either. Police standing back while rioters cause billions of dollars in damages and destroying people’s lives.
If there were no police, George Floyd would still be alive.
Therefore, there would not have been any riots and associated property damage or deaths.
QED
I love it when you can argue like a libertarian!
Also, you did not answer cleek’s question. Is it ok for firms to hire thugs to beat up strikers or not?
I’ve said before that there should be a rule of law with laws prohibiting aggression against persons and property.
I mean, with the Federal Reserve abolished, what else are you going to do?
Yep. Economic activity was base on barter, chickens or otherwise, before there was a Federal Reserve.
Also, you did not answer cleek’s question. Is it ok for firms to hire thugs to beat up strikers or not?
I’ve said before that there should be a rule of law with laws prohibiting aggression against persons and property.
I mean, with the Federal Reserve abolished, what else are you going to do?
Yep. Economic activity was base on barter, chickens or otherwise, before there was a Federal Reserve.
No, I mean the government not taking sides.
that’s kindof impossible.
it’s like asking a ref to stay out of a soccer match.
No, I mean the government not taking sides.
that’s kindof impossible.
it’s like asking a ref to stay out of a soccer match.
Yep. Economic activity was base on barter, chickens or otherwise, before there was a Federal Reserve.
And that meant that everybody had to be an expert in evaluating the worth of anything that might be offered in exchange. (Do you know how to assay gold for purity? I sure don’t.) Not to mention that the person who wants your stuff may not be the person who has what you want.
Money was invented for a reason. That reason still exists. Governments standardized money, because privately established moneys were not consistent (and easily counterfeited, and had other problems). And coins are bulky, especially in large amounts, so some kind of paper, with various denominations, is necessary if you are going to engage in anything but the tiniest, most local, transactions.
Yep. Economic activity was base on barter, chickens or otherwise, before there was a Federal Reserve.
And that meant that everybody had to be an expert in evaluating the worth of anything that might be offered in exchange. (Do you know how to assay gold for purity? I sure don’t.) Not to mention that the person who wants your stuff may not be the person who has what you want.
Money was invented for a reason. That reason still exists. Governments standardized money, because privately established moneys were not consistent (and easily counterfeited, and had other problems). And coins are bulky, especially in large amounts, so some kind of paper, with various denominations, is necessary if you are going to engage in anything but the tiniest, most local, transactions.
And that meant that everybody had to be an expert in evaluating the worth of anything that might be offered in exchange.
Now we just have to experts at guessing how much the Fed might clip their coins.
And that meant that everybody had to be an expert in evaluating the worth of anything that might be offered in exchange.
Now we just have to experts at guessing how much the Fed might clip their coins.
Even assuming, for the sake of discussion, that this is really a serious concern, it’s still a huge step forward in reducing the number of things you need to know in order to conduct your affairs.
Even assuming, for the sake of discussion, that this is really a serious concern, it’s still a huge step forward in reducing the number of things you need to know in order to conduct your affairs.
Has nationalization’s time finally come?
Has nationalization’s time finally come?
Why nationalization as a solution? The obvious parallel would seem to be AT&T, which got broken up into the various Baby Bells.
There might be better alternatives, but monopolies have been broken up before without having the government take over the whole thing. Anyone arguing for nationalization needs to show not just that there is a problem, but that this is the best solution. A convincing case will, I suspect, be hard to make.
Why nationalization as a solution? The obvious parallel would seem to be AT&T, which got broken up into the various Baby Bells.
There might be better alternatives, but monopolies have been broken up before without having the government take over the whole thing. Anyone arguing for nationalization needs to show not just that there is a problem, but that this is the best solution. A convincing case will, I suspect, be hard to make.
A convincing case will, I suspect, be hard to make.
I may be wrong, but I would surmise you have missed the main thrust of the article. Nationalization was pretty much a toss off at the very end of it.
A convincing case will, I suspect, be hard to make.
I may be wrong, but I would surmise you have missed the main thrust of the article. Nationalization was pretty much a toss off at the very end of it.
The libertarian ethos seems to wrapped up a lot in the perception that commercial interactions proceed without friction and seeming of their own accord. However, the more things change…
https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/this-is-the-oldest-customer-complaint-in-history-and-its-great/
I wonder if there was the Assyrian equivalent of Reason, bringing together folks under an umbrella of ‘why do we need rules anyway?’
The libertarian ethos seems to wrapped up a lot in the perception that commercial interactions proceed without friction and seeming of their own accord. However, the more things change…
https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/this-is-the-oldest-customer-complaint-in-history-and-its-great/
I wonder if there was the Assyrian equivalent of Reason, bringing together folks under an umbrella of ‘why do we need rules anyway?’
A world fulla guns and people are all gonna be respecting property rights and the sacred bonds of contracts.
Pull the other•n
A world fulla guns and people are all gonna be respecting property rights and the sacred bonds of contracts.
Pull the other•n
However, the more things change…
“Lamassī was doing her best to keep up with the demand for her fine woolen cloth, fickle though the requirements seemed to be. First, her husband asked for less wool in the fabric, and then he asked for more. Why couldn’t he make up his mind? Maybe it was his customers in that distant country. Maybe they didn’t know what they wanted. At any rate, her latest batch of cloth, or most of it, would soon be on its way. She wanted Pūsu-kēn to know it was coming. She wanted him to know she was doing her job. She wanted a little appreciation.
Lamassī rolled a small ball of damp clay between her hands, then flattened and smoothed it into a neat, pillow-shaped tablet, which she cupped in her left palm. She picked up her stylus and began to write, pressing wedge-like characters into the wet clay.
Four Thousand Years Ago, Textile Traders Invented a Basic Social Technology: Mass Literacy: When there’s business to be done over long distances, you don’t want to depend on a scribe.
However, the more things change…
“Lamassī was doing her best to keep up with the demand for her fine woolen cloth, fickle though the requirements seemed to be. First, her husband asked for less wool in the fabric, and then he asked for more. Why couldn’t he make up his mind? Maybe it was his customers in that distant country. Maybe they didn’t know what they wanted. At any rate, her latest batch of cloth, or most of it, would soon be on its way. She wanted Pūsu-kēn to know it was coming. She wanted him to know she was doing her job. She wanted a little appreciation.
Lamassī rolled a small ball of damp clay between her hands, then flattened and smoothed it into a neat, pillow-shaped tablet, which she cupped in her left palm. She picked up her stylus and began to write, pressing wedge-like characters into the wet clay.
Four Thousand Years Ago, Textile Traders Invented a Basic Social Technology: Mass Literacy: When there’s business to be done over long distances, you don’t want to depend on a scribe.
I’ve said before that there should be a rule of law with laws prohibiting aggression against persons and property.
we have that.
you don’t like it.
you call enforcement coercion.
I’ve said before that there should be a rule of law with laws prohibiting aggression against persons and property.
we have that.
you don’t like it.
you call enforcement coercion.
“I may be wrong, but I would surmise you have missed the main thrust of the article. Nationalization was pretty much a toss off at the very end of it.”
Given your comment with link being nationalization one could have assumed you thought it was an important part, not a toss off.
“I may be wrong, but I would surmise you have missed the main thrust of the article. Nationalization was pretty much a toss off at the very end of it.”
Given your comment with link being nationalization one could have assumed you thought it was an important part, not a toss off.
What Marty said. (More succinctly than I could have managed at this hour.)
What Marty said. (More succinctly than I could have managed at this hour.)
from bobbyp’s link:
never mind nationalization. let’s send Amazon (and similar cheap-ass mega-employers) a bill for every person on their payroll who is also on any form of public assistance. whatever the public sector spends on public assistance for those folks, plus a small handling fee – let’s say 50%.
let’s persuade employers that business models based on paying people so little that they have to rely on public assistance are no longer a thing. which is to say, will not be tolerated.
let’s achieve the conservative nirvana of eliminating the welfare state, by replacing it with people actually getting paid enough to live on.
from bobbyp’s link:
never mind nationalization. let’s send Amazon (and similar cheap-ass mega-employers) a bill for every person on their payroll who is also on any form of public assistance. whatever the public sector spends on public assistance for those folks, plus a small handling fee – let’s say 50%.
let’s persuade employers that business models based on paying people so little that they have to rely on public assistance are no longer a thing. which is to say, will not be tolerated.
let’s achieve the conservative nirvana of eliminating the welfare state, by replacing it with people actually getting paid enough to live on.
you call enforcement coercion.
Yep. And on the flip side they call millions of workers doing shit jobs for shit pay “Freedom!”.
And what is their solution? “Here, try on this pair of bootstraps, maybe this time they will fit.”
you call enforcement coercion.
Yep. And on the flip side they call millions of workers doing shit jobs for shit pay “Freedom!”.
And what is their solution? “Here, try on this pair of bootstraps, maybe this time they will fit.”
let’s achieve the conservative nirvana of eliminating the welfare state, by replacing it with people actually getting paid enough to live on.
Amen.
And simultaneously achieve the nirvana of Marty’s wished for “sound economy”, since all those workers actually getting paid enough to live on would actually have modest amounts of money to spend on more than just the barest survival.
let’s achieve the conservative nirvana of eliminating the welfare state, by replacing it with people actually getting paid enough to live on.
Amen.
And simultaneously achieve the nirvana of Marty’s wished for “sound economy”, since all those workers actually getting paid enough to live on would actually have modest amounts of money to spend on more than just the barest survival.
Libertarian Economics: The Law of Supply
and DemandLibertarian Economics: The Law of Supply
and DemandLibertarian Economics: I’m free to do anything I wish. You don’t like it? Tough. (Of course *I* will never be on the sharp end of that. By first principles. Or something.)
Libertarian Economics: I’m free to do anything I wish. You don’t like it? Tough. (Of course *I* will never be on the sharp end of that. By first principles. Or something.)
let’s achieve the conservative nirvana of eliminating the welfare state, by replacing it with people actually getting paid enough to live on.
Unfortunately one of the basic tenets of conservatives (left as well as right*) is a clear natural hierarchy (and be it of the ‘more equal than others’ kind**). And to create artificial minimum standards is detrimental to that clarity.
*old joke: What is capitalism? The exploitation of man by his fellow man.
And how is it in socialism? The other way around.
**in evangelical circles there is also the ‘I am more humble than thou, thus I am superior (to you)’ principle.
let’s achieve the conservative nirvana of eliminating the welfare state, by replacing it with people actually getting paid enough to live on.
Unfortunately one of the basic tenets of conservatives (left as well as right*) is a clear natural hierarchy (and be it of the ‘more equal than others’ kind**). And to create artificial minimum standards is detrimental to that clarity.
*old joke: What is capitalism? The exploitation of man by his fellow man.
And how is it in socialism? The other way around.
**in evangelical circles there is also the ‘I am more humble than thou, thus I am superior (to you)’ principle.
Amazon employs about 1.3 million people worldwide and contracts with another 500 thousand. About the population of Dallas.
Amazon has no obligation to pay more than what people are willing to work for. Amazon already pays at least $15 an hour. Isn’t that the minimum wage that so many want? Without Amazon people could be on food stamps and have no job.
Amazon employs about 1.3 million people worldwide and contracts with another 500 thousand. About the population of Dallas.
Amazon has no obligation to pay more than what people are willing to work for. Amazon already pays at least $15 an hour. Isn’t that the minimum wage that so many want? Without Amazon people could be on food stamps and have no job.
Amazon has no obligation to pay more than what people are willing to work for.
Unless such an obligation is imposed by law.
Without Amazon people could be on food stamps and have no job.
Has someone suggested eliminating Amazon?
Amazon has no obligation to pay more than what people are willing to work for.
Unless such an obligation is imposed by law.
Without Amazon people could be on food stamps and have no job.
Has someone suggested eliminating Amazon?
Amazon has no obligation to pay more than what people are willing to work for.
…and if they aren’t willing to work for what we are paying, we’ll find more ways to make them desperate enough to find the will.
Tactical scarcity: it’s not social engineering because it confirms my biases.
Amazon has no obligation to pay more than what people are willing to work for.
…and if they aren’t willing to work for what we are paying, we’ll find more ways to make them desperate enough to find the will.
Tactical scarcity: it’s not social engineering because it confirms my biases.
Amazon has no obligation to pay more than what people are willing to work for.
If your employees are on food stamps, you aren’t paying what they’re willing to work for. You’re only paying part.
Everybody else is paying the rest.
Amazon has no obligation to pay more than what people are willing to work for.
If your employees are on food stamps, you aren’t paying what they’re willing to work for. You’re only paying part.
Everybody else is paying the rest.
we, the people, have agreed to have a minimum wage.
abstract philosophies can take a hike.
we, the people, have agreed to have a minimum wage.
abstract philosophies can take a hike.
The minimum wage is always $0.00. Government just sets the size of the gap in which it’s illegal to even have a job.
The minimum wage is always $0.00. Government just sets the size of the gap in which it’s illegal to even have a job.
The minimum wage is always $0.00.
Really? Why isn’t it negative infinity?
Government just sets the size of the gap in which it’s illegal to even have a job.
Or where it’s illegal to exploit desperate people.
The minimum wage is always $0.00.
Really? Why isn’t it negative infinity?
Government just sets the size of the gap in which it’s illegal to even have a job.
Or where it’s illegal to exploit desperate people.
Since your strawman feint, which I admitted was a clever dig, CharlesWT I feel forced to ask you (and if I have asked and been answered before, forgive me, I’ve forgotten): do you actually believe this stuff? Or is it all just debating points?
Since your strawman feint, which I admitted was a clever dig, CharlesWT I feel forced to ask you (and if I have asked and been answered before, forgive me, I’ve forgotten): do you actually believe this stuff? Or is it all just debating points?
The minimum wage is always $0.00. Government just sets the size of the gap in which it’s illegal to even have a job.
Turns out that to libertarians, the answer to the question of how to structure society is an endless series of clever word games justifying, and in effect glorifying, rapacity. Whether people can lead decent lives is of no concern. If you’re not strong and clever enough to outwit the predators, too bad for you.
Freedumb of contract yay. Health, safety, and dignity, meh.
This is not a serious discussion. For whatever part I played in triggering it, I apologize. I won’t waste any more time on it. nous is right that there may be some use in it indirectly, and more power to those of you who are mindful of that possibility and capable of facilitating it.
The minimum wage is always $0.00. Government just sets the size of the gap in which it’s illegal to even have a job.
Turns out that to libertarians, the answer to the question of how to structure society is an endless series of clever word games justifying, and in effect glorifying, rapacity. Whether people can lead decent lives is of no concern. If you’re not strong and clever enough to outwit the predators, too bad for you.
Freedumb of contract yay. Health, safety, and dignity, meh.
This is not a serious discussion. For whatever part I played in triggering it, I apologize. I won’t waste any more time on it. nous is right that there may be some use in it indirectly, and more power to those of you who are mindful of that possibility and capable of facilitating it.
Or where it’s illegal to exploit desperate people.
So, better for desperate people to not have a job at all than to be paid a wage you don’t approve of? Minimum wage laws are otherwise known as Intracity Black Youth Disemployment laws. So far the government isn’t putting a gun to employers’ heads and forcing them to hire people who would bring less value to their business than what they would have to pay them. A minimum wage means some people will never be hired.
do you actually believe this stuff?
Yes. There’s nothing magical about labor cost as opposed to the cost of other inputs into a business. If the cost of labor goes up either due to market forces or government edict, the difference may have to be made up, if possible, by reducing cost elsewhere or increasing prices. Even very successful corporations can have very thin net profit margins. Walmart’s 2020 net profit margin is 2.43%. 2018 – 1.31%.
Unless productivity increases, paying people more doesn’t increase overall wealth. It’s just shifting money between pockets. Minimum wage laws are indirect taxes politicians are trying to force on employers instead of having the courage of passing an actual tax.
Or where it’s illegal to exploit desperate people.
So, better for desperate people to not have a job at all than to be paid a wage you don’t approve of? Minimum wage laws are otherwise known as Intracity Black Youth Disemployment laws. So far the government isn’t putting a gun to employers’ heads and forcing them to hire people who would bring less value to their business than what they would have to pay them. A minimum wage means some people will never be hired.
do you actually believe this stuff?
Yes. There’s nothing magical about labor cost as opposed to the cost of other inputs into a business. If the cost of labor goes up either due to market forces or government edict, the difference may have to be made up, if possible, by reducing cost elsewhere or increasing prices. Even very successful corporations can have very thin net profit margins. Walmart’s 2020 net profit margin is 2.43%. 2018 – 1.31%.
Unless productivity increases, paying people more doesn’t increase overall wealth. It’s just shifting money between pockets. Minimum wage laws are indirect taxes politicians are trying to force on employers instead of having the courage of passing an actual tax.
The minimum wage is always $0.00.
it is not. we, via our elected representatives, have decided it isn’t.
there are no job creators dancing on the head of that pin.
The minimum wage is always $0.00.
it is not. we, via our elected representatives, have decided it isn’t.
there are no job creators dancing on the head of that pin.
So, better for desperate people to not have a job at all than to be paid a wage you don’t approve of?
I’m okay with UBI instead, if that’s more to your liking. Job or no job, at least people can eat and not be so desperate.
Minimum wage laws are indirect taxes politicians are trying to force on employers instead of having the courage of passing an actual tax.
So you’d prefer a tax on businesses? And what would politicians do with the revenue?
So, better for desperate people to not have a job at all than to be paid a wage you don’t approve of?
I’m okay with UBI instead, if that’s more to your liking. Job or no job, at least people can eat and not be so desperate.
Minimum wage laws are indirect taxes politicians are trying to force on employers instead of having the courage of passing an actual tax.
So you’d prefer a tax on businesses? And what would politicians do with the revenue?
it is not. we, via our elected representatives, have decided it isn’t.
If all potential employers think your abilities aren’t worth the minimum wage, your wage is certainly going to be zero.
So you’d prefer a tax on businesses?
Taxing businesses is just an indirect way of taking money out of individual pockets. Better to tax people directly.
it is not. we, via our elected representatives, have decided it isn’t.
If all potential employers think your abilities aren’t worth the minimum wage, your wage is certainly going to be zero.
So you’d prefer a tax on businesses?
Taxing businesses is just an indirect way of taking money out of individual pockets. Better to tax people directly.
There’s nothing magical about labor cost as opposed to the cost of other inputs into a business. If the cost of labor goes up either due to market forces or government edict, the difference may have to be made up, if possible, by reducing cost elsewhere or increasing prices.
I opine, perhaps mistakenly, that the above is classic “lump of labor fallacy” reasoning. It is the kind of reasoning that views a dynamic economy in zero-sum terms.
Just putting it out there.
There’s nothing magical about labor cost as opposed to the cost of other inputs into a business. If the cost of labor goes up either due to market forces or government edict, the difference may have to be made up, if possible, by reducing cost elsewhere or increasing prices.
I opine, perhaps mistakenly, that the above is classic “lump of labor fallacy” reasoning. It is the kind of reasoning that views a dynamic economy in zero-sum terms.
Just putting it out there.
Amazon has no obligation to pay more than what people are willing to work for.
“Willing” is carrying a lot of weight there.
How about a maximum wage instead? Now some might argue that this would lead to less of whatever it is that these irreplaceable (bobbyp makes a funny) folks provide, but I think we could get by somehow.
Amazon has no obligation to pay more than what people are willing to work for.
“Willing” is carrying a lot of weight there.
How about a maximum wage instead? Now some might argue that this would lead to less of whatever it is that these irreplaceable (bobbyp makes a funny) folks provide, but I think we could get by somehow.
Minimum wage laws are indirect taxes politicians are trying to force on employers instead of having the courage of passing an actual tax.
(…)
Taxing businesses is just an indirect way of taking money out of individual pockets. Better to tax people directly.
You seem to have a thing for taxes being indirect, even when they aren’t taxes. Why isn’t taxing people directly an indirect tax on the businesses those people would otherwise spend that money with? Money circulates.
Minimum wage laws are indirect taxes politicians are trying to force on employers instead of having the courage of passing an actual tax.
(…)
Taxing businesses is just an indirect way of taking money out of individual pockets. Better to tax people directly.
You seem to have a thing for taxes being indirect, even when they aren’t taxes. Why isn’t taxing people directly an indirect tax on the businesses those people would otherwise spend that money with? Money circulates.
A minimum wage means some people will never be hired.
We have a minimum wage now. Nevertheless, people are hired.
the difference may have to be made up, if possible, by reducing cost elsewhere or increasing prices.
Actually, there are other options.
Walmart’s 2020 net profit margin is 2.43%. 2018 – 1.31%.
Sounds like they need a better business model.
Unless productivity increases, paying people more doesn’t increase overall wealth.
Productivity has been increasing for generations.
It’s just shifting money between pockets.
Other money flows are not?
Minimum wage laws are indirect taxes politicians are trying to force on employers instead of having the courage of passing an actual tax.
Actually, they’re not. They’re minimum wage laws.
Sometime things aren’t secretly something else. Sometimes they’re just what they are.
If people can’t live on what they earn, they suffer. Or, other people’s money – people who aren’t actually benefiting directly from their labor – has to be directed to helping them out.
I have no problem with public money being spent to help people who are poor. But it pisses me off when the reason they are poor is because some billionaire has made themselves rich from a business model predicated on paying the absolute least they possibly get away with.
Bezos and the Waltons don’t need you and me subsidizing their workers with food stamps. They make enough from their enterprises to pay people enough to live on.
If their business model can’t survive doing that, they shouldn’t be in business.
A minimum wage means some people will never be hired.
We have a minimum wage now. Nevertheless, people are hired.
the difference may have to be made up, if possible, by reducing cost elsewhere or increasing prices.
Actually, there are other options.
Walmart’s 2020 net profit margin is 2.43%. 2018 – 1.31%.
Sounds like they need a better business model.
Unless productivity increases, paying people more doesn’t increase overall wealth.
Productivity has been increasing for generations.
It’s just shifting money between pockets.
Other money flows are not?
Minimum wage laws are indirect taxes politicians are trying to force on employers instead of having the courage of passing an actual tax.
Actually, they’re not. They’re minimum wage laws.
Sometime things aren’t secretly something else. Sometimes they’re just what they are.
If people can’t live on what they earn, they suffer. Or, other people’s money – people who aren’t actually benefiting directly from their labor – has to be directed to helping them out.
I have no problem with public money being spent to help people who are poor. But it pisses me off when the reason they are poor is because some billionaire has made themselves rich from a business model predicated on paying the absolute least they possibly get away with.
Bezos and the Waltons don’t need you and me subsidizing their workers with food stamps. They make enough from their enterprises to pay people enough to live on.
If their business model can’t survive doing that, they shouldn’t be in business.
If all potential employers think your abilities aren’t worth the minimum wage, your wage is certainly going to be zero.
no, it won’t be. unless you’re advocating that i die of starvation or exposure on the road in front of your house, the state is going to support me. paid for by taxes.
pick one: welfare, livable wage, or dead people on the streets.
If all potential employers think your abilities aren’t worth the minimum wage, your wage is certainly going to be zero.
no, it won’t be. unless you’re advocating that i die of starvation or exposure on the road in front of your house, the state is going to support me. paid for by taxes.
pick one: welfare, livable wage, or dead people on the streets.
Minimum wage laws are indirect taxes politicians are trying to force on employers instead of having the courage of passing an actual tax.
It sounds like you are arguing in favor of taxing individual income, in excess of some threshold,** at 100%. And using that to pay a UBI. As your preferred alternative to a minimum wage.
Certainly no sane person can argue that a CEO making upwards of 1 million a year is bringing that much value to the company. Yet many of them get paid like that. Which rather undercuts the thesis that companies cannot pay anyone more than their efforts are worth. It’s just a matter of who get paid how much above that.
** Research shows that happiness increases with income. But only up to around $95,000 per year. Still, that’s likely an unreasonably low threshold.
Minimum wage laws are indirect taxes politicians are trying to force on employers instead of having the courage of passing an actual tax.
It sounds like you are arguing in favor of taxing individual income, in excess of some threshold,** at 100%. And using that to pay a UBI. As your preferred alternative to a minimum wage.
Certainly no sane person can argue that a CEO making upwards of 1 million a year is bringing that much value to the company. Yet many of them get paid like that. Which rather undercuts the thesis that companies cannot pay anyone more than their efforts are worth. It’s just a matter of who get paid how much above that.
** Research shows that happiness increases with income. But only up to around $95,000 per year. Still, that’s likely an unreasonably low threshold.
some might argue that this would lead to less of whatever it is that these irreplaceable (bobbyp makes a funny) folks provide, but I think we could get by somehow.
Certainly in the middle of the last century, when CEOs made 20 times their employees average wage, instead of 300+ times, the economy flourished anyway. Investment did not disappear. Entrepreneurs still turned up. Inventions were made and technology grew.
some might argue that this would lead to less of whatever it is that these irreplaceable (bobbyp makes a funny) folks provide, but I think we could get by somehow.
Certainly in the middle of the last century, when CEOs made 20 times their employees average wage, instead of 300+ times, the economy flourished anyway. Investment did not disappear. Entrepreneurs still turned up. Inventions were made and technology grew.
no, it won’t be. unless you’re advocating that i die of starvation or exposure on the road in front of your house, the state is going to support me. paid for by taxes.
Or we’ll see a succession of nights of the long knives. And taxes will be the least of the concerns of the very rich.
no, it won’t be. unless you’re advocating that i die of starvation or exposure on the road in front of your house, the state is going to support me. paid for by taxes.
Or we’ll see a succession of nights of the long knives. And taxes will be the least of the concerns of the very rich.
Certainly no sane person can argue that a CEO making upwards of 1 million a year is bringing that much value to the company.
Actually, I could believe that there are people making $1M a year who are creating that much value.
The guys in the 8 and 9 figure ranges, much less so.
And if the argument is hey, look at the revenue that the enterprise is generating, that same logic should apply across the board.
Certainly no sane person can argue that a CEO making upwards of 1 million a year is bringing that much value to the company.
Actually, I could believe that there are people making $1M a year who are creating that much value.
The guys in the 8 and 9 figure ranges, much less so.
And if the argument is hey, look at the revenue that the enterprise is generating, that same logic should apply across the board.
It’s just shifting money between pockets.
That’s a start (as long as the origin pockets are the billionaire investors etc, and the destination pockets are the actual workers who do the work). Or am I missing something?
It’s just shifting money between pockets.
That’s a start (as long as the origin pockets are the billionaire investors etc, and the destination pockets are the actual workers who do the work). Or am I missing something?
I opine, perhaps mistakenly, that the above is classic “lump of labor fallacy” reasoning.
I certainly don’t believe that there is a fixed number of jobs. The fallacy is applicable in arguments that immigrants take jobs, automation reduces the number of jobs, allowing teenagers to be paid less than minimum wage reduces the number of adult jobs.
We have a minimum wage now. Nevertheless, people are hired.
Sure they are. If what they bring to the jog is worth the minimum wage or more. But if they have a poor education and no skills, they’ll find it very difficult to get and keep jobs.
Sounds like they need a better business model.
Should they go to a Costco model and fire a million or so employees?
Productivity has been increasing for generations.
But likely very little of it is due to having and raising a minimum wage.
But it pisses me off when the reason they are poor is because some billionaire has made themselves rich from a business model predicated on paying the absolute least they possibly get away with.
But the gap between the cost of inputs and the value of outputs is where new wealth is created.
I don’t understand the preoccupation with billionaires. Except for the handouts many of them have gotten from the government, most of them got rich by creating magnitudes more wealth for everyone else.
5 Ways Elon Musk and Other Billionaires Get Welfare for the Rich
Bezos and the Waltons don’t need you and me subsidizing their workers with food stamps.
Or they could just refuse to hire anyone on food stamps.
If their business model can’t survive doing that, they shouldn’t be in business.
Yep. They should fire 4 million people and call it a day.
Certainly no sane person can argue that a CEO making upwards of 1 million a year is bringing that much value to the company.
At that level, it’s can be difficult to judge their value to the corporation. Perhaps even by the people who hire them. Part of it may be largely unseen. Like the connections and influence they have in their industry and with politicians and bureaucrats. CEO compensation tends to track the capitalization size of the corporations they work for. With globalization, some corporations have gotten very large.
I opine, perhaps mistakenly, that the above is classic “lump of labor fallacy” reasoning.
I certainly don’t believe that there is a fixed number of jobs. The fallacy is applicable in arguments that immigrants take jobs, automation reduces the number of jobs, allowing teenagers to be paid less than minimum wage reduces the number of adult jobs.
We have a minimum wage now. Nevertheless, people are hired.
Sure they are. If what they bring to the jog is worth the minimum wage or more. But if they have a poor education and no skills, they’ll find it very difficult to get and keep jobs.
Sounds like they need a better business model.
Should they go to a Costco model and fire a million or so employees?
Productivity has been increasing for generations.
But likely very little of it is due to having and raising a minimum wage.
But it pisses me off when the reason they are poor is because some billionaire has made themselves rich from a business model predicated on paying the absolute least they possibly get away with.
But the gap between the cost of inputs and the value of outputs is where new wealth is created.
I don’t understand the preoccupation with billionaires. Except for the handouts many of them have gotten from the government, most of them got rich by creating magnitudes more wealth for everyone else.
5 Ways Elon Musk and Other Billionaires Get Welfare for the Rich
Bezos and the Waltons don’t need you and me subsidizing their workers with food stamps.
Or they could just refuse to hire anyone on food stamps.
If their business model can’t survive doing that, they shouldn’t be in business.
Yep. They should fire 4 million people and call it a day.
Certainly no sane person can argue that a CEO making upwards of 1 million a year is bringing that much value to the company.
At that level, it’s can be difficult to judge their value to the corporation. Perhaps even by the people who hire them. Part of it may be largely unseen. Like the connections and influence they have in their industry and with politicians and bureaucrats. CEO compensation tends to track the capitalization size of the corporations they work for. With globalization, some corporations have gotten very large.
Productivity has been increasing for generations.
But likely very little of it is due to having and raising a minimum wage.
You’re looking at it just backwards. The increase in productivity is what justifies increasing the wages of those doing the work.
Productivity has been increasing for generations.
But likely very little of it is due to having and raising a minimum wage.
You’re looking at it just backwards. The increase in productivity is what justifies increasing the wages of those doing the work.
it’s can be difficult to judge their value to the corporation. Perhaps even by the people who hire them.
Best guess: their value is that they sit on each others’ Boards of Directors, and so can raise each others salaries.
it’s can be difficult to judge their value to the corporation. Perhaps even by the people who hire them.
Best guess: their value is that they sit on each others’ Boards of Directors, and so can raise each others salaries.
Yep. They should fire 4 million people and call it a day.
And if there is a real demand, then someone else will do it using a different business model, and will still need to hire people to do the work. Many of those 4 million will just end up working for someone else to do something similar. Many of them will end up working for themselves doing the thing that the billionaire paid them to do.
Yep. They should fire 4 million people and call it a day.
And if there is a real demand, then someone else will do it using a different business model, and will still need to hire people to do the work. Many of those 4 million will just end up working for someone else to do something similar. Many of them will end up working for themselves doing the thing that the billionaire paid them to do.
most of them got rich by creating magnitudes more wealth for everyone else
“Everyone else”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somehow I missed that!
Because outside of libertarian fantasy-land, the wealth was created for everyone . . . except the people who are working full-time and then some, and still need food stamps. For veryone except many disabled people (an issue in my own family, but hey, Marty says charity should take care of people like that, though I’m not holding my breath). For everyone except the infirm elderly, and the refugees, and the list goes on. It is beyond measure what a freaking joke it is for CharlesWT, after laying out his notions of how businesses should operate, to justify the accumulation of billions by saying it’s the entrepreneur’s proper reward for making “wealth” for “everyone else.”
Every bit of this logic-chopping has to do with turning life into simple equestions that leave out all the annoying complexity, obscuring or sidestepping basic questions like: How did the money get into one pocket and not another in the first place? How are we to share out the world’s resources? What does “mine” mean, as in “my money”? We do it by a set of rules made by humans. There’s no Deity of Economics who handed down a bunch of universal truths that only libertarians know.
What it means, behind the logic designed to leave out all the gray areas and hard questions, is: “Mine” is whatever I can grab and successfully keep.
And as to “most of them” (the billionaires who created all this value that by gum is never going to be shared with the unworthy — did anyone notice CharlesWT’s alternate name for a minimum wage? the billionaires who somehow get the credit and most of the wealth even though they needed the labor of millions to actually “create” it) — I do wonder how many billionaires created anything, rather than got themselves born into the right family, or had the luck or shrewdness to marry the right spouse?
I said I was going. “I wish I could quit you.”
Maybe tomorrow.
most of them got rich by creating magnitudes more wealth for everyone else
“Everyone else”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somehow I missed that!
Because outside of libertarian fantasy-land, the wealth was created for everyone . . . except the people who are working full-time and then some, and still need food stamps. For veryone except many disabled people (an issue in my own family, but hey, Marty says charity should take care of people like that, though I’m not holding my breath). For everyone except the infirm elderly, and the refugees, and the list goes on. It is beyond measure what a freaking joke it is for CharlesWT, after laying out his notions of how businesses should operate, to justify the accumulation of billions by saying it’s the entrepreneur’s proper reward for making “wealth” for “everyone else.”
Every bit of this logic-chopping has to do with turning life into simple equestions that leave out all the annoying complexity, obscuring or sidestepping basic questions like: How did the money get into one pocket and not another in the first place? How are we to share out the world’s resources? What does “mine” mean, as in “my money”? We do it by a set of rules made by humans. There’s no Deity of Economics who handed down a bunch of universal truths that only libertarians know.
What it means, behind the logic designed to leave out all the gray areas and hard questions, is: “Mine” is whatever I can grab and successfully keep.
And as to “most of them” (the billionaires who created all this value that by gum is never going to be shared with the unworthy — did anyone notice CharlesWT’s alternate name for a minimum wage? the billionaires who somehow get the credit and most of the wealth even though they needed the labor of millions to actually “create” it) — I do wonder how many billionaires created anything, rather than got themselves born into the right family, or had the luck or shrewdness to marry the right spouse?
I said I was going. “I wish I could quit you.”
Maybe tomorrow.
Best guess: their value is that they sit on each others’ Boards of Directors, and so can raise each others salaries.
Likely a factor.
More on CEO compensation.
““Greed” is the populist activist and politician answer. A more sophisticated version of this argument is outlined in “Why Has CEO Pay Increased So Much?” by economists Xavier Gabaix and Augustin Landier. Basically, it comes down to clever CEOs taking advantage of the system because they can, with modern norms hardly a constraint. For instance: “Stock-option plans are viewed as a means by which CEOs can (inefficiently) increase their own compensation under the camouflage of (efficiently) improving incentives, and thus without encountering shareholder resistance.” According to this view, high-paid CEOs literally skim or steal the bulk of their compensation.
There are other explanations, but Gabaix and Landier have arrived at their own, one with far less political sizzle: Companies are now worth more, so the CEOs running them get paid more. From the study (bold by me):”
An explanation for high CEO pay that doesn’t involve greed or ‘late capitalism’
If CEO compensation is inflated, it seems to be more or less equally inflated.
Best guess: their value is that they sit on each others’ Boards of Directors, and so can raise each others salaries.
Likely a factor.
More on CEO compensation.
““Greed” is the populist activist and politician answer. A more sophisticated version of this argument is outlined in “Why Has CEO Pay Increased So Much?” by economists Xavier Gabaix and Augustin Landier. Basically, it comes down to clever CEOs taking advantage of the system because they can, with modern norms hardly a constraint. For instance: “Stock-option plans are viewed as a means by which CEOs can (inefficiently) increase their own compensation under the camouflage of (efficiently) improving incentives, and thus without encountering shareholder resistance.” According to this view, high-paid CEOs literally skim or steal the bulk of their compensation.
There are other explanations, but Gabaix and Landier have arrived at their own, one with far less political sizzle: Companies are now worth more, so the CEOs running them get paid more. From the study (bold by me):”
An explanation for high CEO pay that doesn’t involve greed or ‘late capitalism’
If CEO compensation is inflated, it seems to be more or less equally inflated.
the sixfold increase of U.S. CEO pay between 1980 and 2003 can be fully attributed to the sixfold increase in market capitalization of large companies during that period.”
Where is the six-fold increase in everybody else’s compensation?
the sixfold increase of U.S. CEO pay between 1980 and 2003 can be fully attributed to the sixfold increase in market capitalization of large companies during that period.”
Where is the six-fold increase in everybody else’s compensation?
Where is the six-fold increase in everybody else’s compensation?
The graph I made years ago of after-tax household income was almost precisely from those years, 1979 through 2005. (Not going to dig it out and post it right now. But you’ve all seen it, I suspect.) At the beginning of the period, the ratio between the after tax household income of the top 1% of 1% of US households to the bottom quintile was roughly 300 to 1. At the end of that period it was more than 1500 to 1. The top 1% of 1%, and IIRC maybe the top 10% of 1%, had skyrocketed. Pretty much everyone below that had stayed flat or nearly flat.
The top 1% of 1% were struggling along on a measly $2 million a month [AFTER TAX, remember] per household. We could have asked them to struggle along on a mere $1 million a month instead, and increased the bottom quintile’s after-tax household income by about 30%.
That is, 11,000 households had so much money coming in that if they’d given up half of it, they could have improved the lives of 25,000,000 households by a 30% increase in income.
Maybe then the latter could have paid both the rent and the utilities, and had a bit over for some cheap macaroni for dinner.
Those numbers also imply something about where any increase in everybody else’s compensation went: straight to the top.
The mythical genius wealth-creators are also the wealth-takers. They do not do it to create wealth for “everyone else.” If they did, everyone else would have some of it.
Where is the six-fold increase in everybody else’s compensation?
The graph I made years ago of after-tax household income was almost precisely from those years, 1979 through 2005. (Not going to dig it out and post it right now. But you’ve all seen it, I suspect.) At the beginning of the period, the ratio between the after tax household income of the top 1% of 1% of US households to the bottom quintile was roughly 300 to 1. At the end of that period it was more than 1500 to 1. The top 1% of 1%, and IIRC maybe the top 10% of 1%, had skyrocketed. Pretty much everyone below that had stayed flat or nearly flat.
The top 1% of 1% were struggling along on a measly $2 million a month [AFTER TAX, remember] per household. We could have asked them to struggle along on a mere $1 million a month instead, and increased the bottom quintile’s after-tax household income by about 30%.
That is, 11,000 households had so much money coming in that if they’d given up half of it, they could have improved the lives of 25,000,000 households by a 30% increase in income.
Maybe then the latter could have paid both the rent and the utilities, and had a bit over for some cheap macaroni for dinner.
Those numbers also imply something about where any increase in everybody else’s compensation went: straight to the top.
The mythical genius wealth-creators are also the wealth-takers. They do not do it to create wealth for “everyone else.” If they did, everyone else would have some of it.
Who are human beings to interfere in the natural progress of economics?
Who are human beings to interfere in the natural progress of economics?
If CEO compensation is inflated, it seems to be more or less equally inflated.
So, basically as I understand this, CEO’s cheat and steal, get away with it, and this is due to “increased market capitalization”. This, somehow is placed in front of us as some kind of explanatory conclusion.
But somehow, by a major feat of magic, when it comes time to discuss income distribution, minimum wage, yadda, yadda, you know, for the plebes…we are subjected to simplistic supply and demand curves, abstruse, yet still inapplicable microeconomic allegories (complete with unstated and unexamined ceteris paribus assumptions), and unsubstantiated conclusions based on simplistic econ 101 abstracted just about totally from the real world.
Well, I am convinced! LOL!
If CEO compensation is inflated, it seems to be more or less equally inflated.
So, basically as I understand this, CEO’s cheat and steal, get away with it, and this is due to “increased market capitalization”. This, somehow is placed in front of us as some kind of explanatory conclusion.
But somehow, by a major feat of magic, when it comes time to discuss income distribution, minimum wage, yadda, yadda, you know, for the plebes…we are subjected to simplistic supply and demand curves, abstruse, yet still inapplicable microeconomic allegories (complete with unstated and unexamined ceteris paribus assumptions), and unsubstantiated conclusions based on simplistic econ 101 abstracted just about totally from the real world.
Well, I am convinced! LOL!
oops….damnned italics.
oops….damnned italics.
Go bobbyp. 🙂
Go bobbyp. 🙂
CharlesWT: There’s nothing magical about labor cost as opposed to the cost of other inputs into a business.
Cold-rolled steel, kilowatt hours, office supplies, and other “inputs into a business” are different from human labor in at least this respect: they are not potential CUSTOMERS for that or any other business. Also, they have never (to my knowledge) been roused to revolution, but let that pass.
But the gap between the cost of inputs and the value of outputs is where new wealth is created.
“New wealth” being CREATED is all well and good, and if it all accrues to 500 families that’s apperently okay with Libertarians(TM).
Walmart’s 2020 net profit margin is 2.43%. 2018 – 1.31%.
Talking “net profit margin” is one good way to NOT discuss “return on investment”. If you own a supermarket that buys $1 million of inventory and sells it for a $24,300 profit, you’re making a paltry 2.43% margin. If you do that 50 times a year, your return on investment is …?
–TP
CharlesWT: There’s nothing magical about labor cost as opposed to the cost of other inputs into a business.
Cold-rolled steel, kilowatt hours, office supplies, and other “inputs into a business” are different from human labor in at least this respect: they are not potential CUSTOMERS for that or any other business. Also, they have never (to my knowledge) been roused to revolution, but let that pass.
But the gap between the cost of inputs and the value of outputs is where new wealth is created.
“New wealth” being CREATED is all well and good, and if it all accrues to 500 families that’s apperently okay with Libertarians(TM).
Walmart’s 2020 net profit margin is 2.43%. 2018 – 1.31%.
Talking “net profit margin” is one good way to NOT discuss “return on investment”. If you own a supermarket that buys $1 million of inventory and sells it for a $24,300 profit, you’re making a paltry 2.43% margin. If you do that 50 times a year, your return on investment is …?
–TP
Talking “net profit margin”
In classical microeconomic theory under conditions of pure competition, firm “profit” is theoretically competed away….but I guess we have to let that pass.
Talking “net profit margin”
In classical microeconomic theory under conditions of pure competition, firm “profit” is theoretically competed away….but I guess we have to let that pass.
If CEO compensation is inflated, it seems to be more or less equally inflated
You left out part.
If CEO compensation is inflated, it seems to be more or less equally inflated across CEOs; with none spread to the rest of the employees.
If CEO compensation is inflated, it seems to be more or less equally inflated
You left out part.
If CEO compensation is inflated, it seems to be more or less equally inflated across CEOs; with none spread to the rest of the employees.
A question for bobbyp or anyone who knows more about the field of study called economics than I do: Is the stuff CharlesWT is writing with such breezy authority actually any more valid than saying okay, we now declare that
pi = 3
On the one hand I think: oh, surely not, it can’t possibly be that over-simplified and still be confused with the real world.
On the other hand, it seems to me that “the economy” is, in the real world, infinitely more many-faceted and dynamic than the circumference of a circle, so I have to start allowing the possibility that yes, it’s that over-simplified. (To put it politely.)
Having gone to an engineering school, where if nothing else a lot of the work is deeply grounded in the need for the things people build to actually work, I sure am glad we don’t let [libertarian?] economists design bridges.
A question for bobbyp or anyone who knows more about the field of study called economics than I do: Is the stuff CharlesWT is writing with such breezy authority actually any more valid than saying okay, we now declare that
pi = 3
On the one hand I think: oh, surely not, it can’t possibly be that over-simplified and still be confused with the real world.
On the other hand, it seems to me that “the economy” is, in the real world, infinitely more many-faceted and dynamic than the circumference of a circle, so I have to start allowing the possibility that yes, it’s that over-simplified. (To put it politely.)
Having gone to an engineering school, where if nothing else a lot of the work is deeply grounded in the need for the things people build to actually work, I sure am glad we don’t let [libertarian?] economists design bridges.
Maybe I should say, “I sure am glad we don’t let [libertarian] economists design bridges on libertarian principles.” I have a depressing idea that a lot of engineers actually do think that the real world, and human beings in particular, can be boiled down to a series of fairly simple equations.
So if I could write the previous comment all over again, I’d just say, wtf with the oversimplification?
Maybe I should say, “I sure am glad we don’t let [libertarian] economists design bridges on libertarian principles.” I have a depressing idea that a lot of engineers actually do think that the real world, and human beings in particular, can be boiled down to a series of fairly simple equations.
So if I could write the previous comment all over again, I’d just say, wtf with the oversimplification?
What I love most about libertarianism is the assumption that, if people can determine their political world that they won’t decide to have regulations, hate crime laws and a minimum wage: aka government.
For libertarianism to really work, it would have to prevent the people from choosing anti-libertarian policies. But that’s anti-libertarian.
Yep. Engineering.
What I love most about libertarianism is the assumption that, if people can determine their political world that they won’t decide to have regulations, hate crime laws and a minimum wage: aka government.
For libertarianism to really work, it would have to prevent the people from choosing anti-libertarian policies. But that’s anti-libertarian.
Yep. Engineering.
A lot of Americans including Democrats: “Those guys are not so bad.”
“The debate over the power of billionaires in America is driven by critics who see them as rapacious tax cheats and by defenders who see them as embodiments of the American dream.
But what do regular people think?
A new, exclusive poll from Vox and Data for Progress pulls back the curtain on how Americans feel about the exploding net worth of billionaires during the Covid-19 pandemic; their record-setting philanthropy as a way to address inequality; and whether they have too much political power in the country’s elections. The poll was fielded in February and surveyed likely voters.”
What Americans really think about billionaires during the pandemic: A new poll from Vox and Data for Progress pulls back the curtain.
A lot of Americans including Democrats: “Those guys are not so bad.”
“The debate over the power of billionaires in America is driven by critics who see them as rapacious tax cheats and by defenders who see them as embodiments of the American dream.
But what do regular people think?
A new, exclusive poll from Vox and Data for Progress pulls back the curtain on how Americans feel about the exploding net worth of billionaires during the Covid-19 pandemic; their record-setting philanthropy as a way to address inequality; and whether they have too much political power in the country’s elections. The poll was fielded in February and surveyed likely voters.”
What Americans really think about billionaires during the pandemic: A new poll from Vox and Data for Progress pulls back the curtain.
For libertarianism to really work, it would have to prevent the people from choosing anti-libertarian policies. But that’s anti-libertarian.
I wrote a comment way back in this thread stating that people who are free to do as they wish form governments, some of which are better than others. Couple that with another regarding people out on the more extreme end of the libertarian spectrum being a tiny minority that will not get its way in a democracy, and the rest of the conversation is academic/recreational.
Framing your ideology as though it is as fundamental as the laws of nature and your opinions as though they should be obviously correct to any thinking person won’t change many people’s minds. It’s like there’s a gene that a few people have that makes them believe the sort of logical but uselessly hyper-reductive propositions libertarianism has to offer.
It’s not a bad ideal to start from, I guess. But when taken as set of absolute rules without regard to the complexities that those rules fail to consider, while acting as though you’re one of the realest realists among the human race, you end up on the fringes pretty easily.
For libertarianism to really work, it would have to prevent the people from choosing anti-libertarian policies. But that’s anti-libertarian.
I wrote a comment way back in this thread stating that people who are free to do as they wish form governments, some of which are better than others. Couple that with another regarding people out on the more extreme end of the libertarian spectrum being a tiny minority that will not get its way in a democracy, and the rest of the conversation is academic/recreational.
Framing your ideology as though it is as fundamental as the laws of nature and your opinions as though they should be obviously correct to any thinking person won’t change many people’s minds. It’s like there’s a gene that a few people have that makes them believe the sort of logical but uselessly hyper-reductive propositions libertarianism has to offer.
It’s not a bad ideal to start from, I guess. But when taken as set of absolute rules without regard to the complexities that those rules fail to consider, while acting as though you’re one of the realest realists among the human race, you end up on the fringes pretty easily.
Libertarian economists don’t *design* bridges, but they do have a say in how existing bridges are *maintained*.
The I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, frex.
Libertarians are very useful for how they point out flaws in authoritarian government, but would be a disaster if put in charge of government.
Communists are very useful for how they point out flaws in capitalism, but would be a disaster if put in charge an economy.
From each for what they can provide.
Libertarian economists don’t *design* bridges, but they do have a say in how existing bridges are *maintained*.
The I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, frex.
Libertarians are very useful for how they point out flaws in authoritarian government, but would be a disaster if put in charge of government.
Communists are very useful for how they point out flaws in capitalism, but would be a disaster if put in charge an economy.
From each for what they can provide.
people who are free to do as they wish form governments
yup. exactly.
and those governments are going to take on more responsibilities as the society gets more complex. can’t be helped, because a government is simply the implementation of the agreements we make with one another.
people who are free to do as they wish form governments
yup. exactly.
and those governments are going to take on more responsibilities as the society gets more complex. can’t be helped, because a government is simply the implementation of the agreements we make with one another.
The debate over the power of billionaires in America
If you’re trying to make this all about some kind of resentment of billionaires, you’re missing the point.
The issue is not “some people are billionaires”. The issue is that some people are billionaires, while other people are on food stamps. And, in particular, many of the people on food stamps *work for the people who are billionaires*, and some of the billionaires became billionaires by pursuing business models based on paying people so little that they have to go on food stamps.
If Walmart or Amazon or McDonalds or whoever can’t survive without paying people less than it costs to pay the bills, then they should go out of business. Because they, as commercial enterprises, are not pulling their weight. They’re making everyone else pay part of their employees’ compensation, while they are reaping the benefit of their employees’ labor.
And, quite often, paying minimal taxes of their own.
If they go out of business, somebody else will step in. If whoever steps in is required to pay people well enough for them to live on, they will figure out a way to do that. Because what successful business people are really, really good at, is adapting to whatever the conditions are that they need to operate under.
And it’s completely legitimate for the public – for government – to define the conditions under which businesses have to operate.
Every single regulation or constraint that has ever been passed concerning how people can operate commercial businesses has been met with claims that they would make it impossible for those businesses to continue. And yet, somehow, business continues.
The economy survived the advent of the 40 hour week, minimum wage, child labor law, workplace safety standards, regulations on food and drug purity, a variety of tax and financial disclosure regimes – briefly, a century and a half or more of commercial regulation of all kinds. They didn’t exist, then they did. And commercial activity has taken it all in stride and soldiered on. And, done quite well.
A business model based on paying people less than what they need to pay their bills is a shitty business model. It shouldn’t be allowed. Because it’s a shitty business model.
It does, in fact, shift money from one pocket to another. It shifts money from my pocket, and your pocket, and the pocket of everybody reading this, into the pockets of people like Bezos and the Waltons.
They don’t need the fncking money. They have enough, more than enough, more than enough for 10,000 people. Each of them.
I’ll take libertarianism a hell of a lot more seriously when it stops being an excuse for some privileged people to act like dicks.
The debate over the power of billionaires in America
If you’re trying to make this all about some kind of resentment of billionaires, you’re missing the point.
The issue is not “some people are billionaires”. The issue is that some people are billionaires, while other people are on food stamps. And, in particular, many of the people on food stamps *work for the people who are billionaires*, and some of the billionaires became billionaires by pursuing business models based on paying people so little that they have to go on food stamps.
If Walmart or Amazon or McDonalds or whoever can’t survive without paying people less than it costs to pay the bills, then they should go out of business. Because they, as commercial enterprises, are not pulling their weight. They’re making everyone else pay part of their employees’ compensation, while they are reaping the benefit of their employees’ labor.
And, quite often, paying minimal taxes of their own.
If they go out of business, somebody else will step in. If whoever steps in is required to pay people well enough for them to live on, they will figure out a way to do that. Because what successful business people are really, really good at, is adapting to whatever the conditions are that they need to operate under.
And it’s completely legitimate for the public – for government – to define the conditions under which businesses have to operate.
Every single regulation or constraint that has ever been passed concerning how people can operate commercial businesses has been met with claims that they would make it impossible for those businesses to continue. And yet, somehow, business continues.
The economy survived the advent of the 40 hour week, minimum wage, child labor law, workplace safety standards, regulations on food and drug purity, a variety of tax and financial disclosure regimes – briefly, a century and a half or more of commercial regulation of all kinds. They didn’t exist, then they did. And commercial activity has taken it all in stride and soldiered on. And, done quite well.
A business model based on paying people less than what they need to pay their bills is a shitty business model. It shouldn’t be allowed. Because it’s a shitty business model.
It does, in fact, shift money from one pocket to another. It shifts money from my pocket, and your pocket, and the pocket of everybody reading this, into the pockets of people like Bezos and the Waltons.
They don’t need the fncking money. They have enough, more than enough, more than enough for 10,000 people. Each of them.
I’ll take libertarianism a hell of a lot more seriously when it stops being an excuse for some privileged people to act like dicks.
On the other hand, it seems to me that “the economy” is, in the real world, infinitely more many-faceted and dynamic than the circumference of a circle, so I have to start allowing the possibility that yes, it’s that over-simplified.
Economies affected by billions of people interacting every day are extremely complex. This is why libertarians prefer economic activity to be bottom-up, rather than top-down, as much as possible. Due to the calculation problem. An example of the problem:
“Scenes of food shortages, long lines, and fed up Russians were commonplace in the Soviet Union. Moscow believed it could deliver a world of prosperity and egalitarianism by instituting advanced mathematical calculations to manage the economy. How did it turn out? Well, like every good economist, when things became so bad, the smartest men in the room turned to the one publication that could save mankind: the Sears Catalog.
Rather than using the market pricing system, Soviet officials mirrored their Chinese counterparts and combed through the iconic but now defunct catalog to learn about prices for consumer goods. Despite the intensive study and analysis of the cost for a pair of long johns, Moscow could not alleviate the misery.”
The Deprivation of Socialism in the Soviet Union
An argument against the calculation problem:
Debunking Austrian Economics’ Socialist Calculation Problem
In spite of economic complexity, there are some basic rules that are hard to get around. Here’s a list of ten, some of which will be objected to depending on economic and ideological points of view.
“In the midst of so many economic fallacies being repeatedly seemingly without end, it may be helpful to return to some of the most basic laws of economics. Here are ten of them that bear repeating again and again.
1. Production precedes consumption…
2. Consumption is the final goal of production…
3. Production has costs…
4. Value is subjective…
5. Productivity determines the wage rate…
6. Expenditure is income and costs…
7. Money is not wealth…
8. Labor does not create value…
9. Profit is the entrepreneurial bonus…
10. All genuine laws of economics are logical laws…”
Ten Fundamental Laws of Economics
I have a depressing idea that a lot of engineers actually do think that the real world, and human beings in particular, can be boiled down to a series of fairly simple equations.
Libertarians tend to favor the Austrian School of economics which is more like geometry than math with a distinct lack of equations.
On the other hand, it seems to me that “the economy” is, in the real world, infinitely more many-faceted and dynamic than the circumference of a circle, so I have to start allowing the possibility that yes, it’s that over-simplified.
Economies affected by billions of people interacting every day are extremely complex. This is why libertarians prefer economic activity to be bottom-up, rather than top-down, as much as possible. Due to the calculation problem. An example of the problem:
“Scenes of food shortages, long lines, and fed up Russians were commonplace in the Soviet Union. Moscow believed it could deliver a world of prosperity and egalitarianism by instituting advanced mathematical calculations to manage the economy. How did it turn out? Well, like every good economist, when things became so bad, the smartest men in the room turned to the one publication that could save mankind: the Sears Catalog.
Rather than using the market pricing system, Soviet officials mirrored their Chinese counterparts and combed through the iconic but now defunct catalog to learn about prices for consumer goods. Despite the intensive study and analysis of the cost for a pair of long johns, Moscow could not alleviate the misery.”
The Deprivation of Socialism in the Soviet Union
An argument against the calculation problem:
Debunking Austrian Economics’ Socialist Calculation Problem
In spite of economic complexity, there are some basic rules that are hard to get around. Here’s a list of ten, some of which will be objected to depending on economic and ideological points of view.
“In the midst of so many economic fallacies being repeatedly seemingly without end, it may be helpful to return to some of the most basic laws of economics. Here are ten of them that bear repeating again and again.
1. Production precedes consumption…
2. Consumption is the final goal of production…
3. Production has costs…
4. Value is subjective…
5. Productivity determines the wage rate…
6. Expenditure is income and costs…
7. Money is not wealth…
8. Labor does not create value…
9. Profit is the entrepreneurial bonus…
10. All genuine laws of economics are logical laws…”
Ten Fundamental Laws of Economics
I have a depressing idea that a lot of engineers actually do think that the real world, and human beings in particular, can be boiled down to a series of fairly simple equations.
Libertarians tend to favor the Austrian School of economics which is more like geometry than math with a distinct lack of equations.
They have enough, more than enough, more than enough for 10,000 people.
To put a point on this:
The Waltons are collectively worth about $215B. That’s split between 7 family members, for an average of about $30B each.
$30B split among 10,000 people is $3M each. The average member of Sam Walton’s lucky sperm club is as wealthy as 10,000 millionaires.
It’s just an absurd amount of money for an individual to have. I’m not arguing morally right or wrong, I’m just saying it’s absurd. It’s so much money that it’s kind of meaningless. It’s orders of magnitude beyond the point where having more makes any difference to your quality or experience of life.
Instead of two houses, or five, you can have a hundred houses. Or a thousand. You can have a million pairs of shoes. A hundred private jets. You can buy all the cheese in France. All of it.
It’s a ridiculous amount of money.
Some people do useful things, are very successful, and end up being absurdly wealthy. Warren Buffett comes to mind. Does anybody here resent Warren Buffett? I don’t.
Acquiring that kind of wealth based on paying people crap wages, however, is obscene.
They have enough, more than enough, more than enough for 10,000 people.
To put a point on this:
The Waltons are collectively worth about $215B. That’s split between 7 family members, for an average of about $30B each.
$30B split among 10,000 people is $3M each. The average member of Sam Walton’s lucky sperm club is as wealthy as 10,000 millionaires.
It’s just an absurd amount of money for an individual to have. I’m not arguing morally right or wrong, I’m just saying it’s absurd. It’s so much money that it’s kind of meaningless. It’s orders of magnitude beyond the point where having more makes any difference to your quality or experience of life.
Instead of two houses, or five, you can have a hundred houses. Or a thousand. You can have a million pairs of shoes. A hundred private jets. You can buy all the cheese in France. All of it.
It’s a ridiculous amount of money.
Some people do useful things, are very successful, and end up being absurdly wealthy. Warren Buffett comes to mind. Does anybody here resent Warren Buffett? I don’t.
Acquiring that kind of wealth based on paying people crap wages, however, is obscene.
the most basic laws of economics
Very much on the order of three persons in one God.
And in libertarian-world, geometry is apparently not math. That sets a solid benchmark right there.
the most basic laws of economics
Very much on the order of three persons in one God.
And in libertarian-world, geometry is apparently not math. That sets a solid benchmark right there.
Productivity determines the wage rate
Clearly, somebody has not been following the libertarian 10 fundamental laws.
Better get on that!
Productivity determines the wage rate
Clearly, somebody has not been following the libertarian 10 fundamental laws.
Better get on that!
And in libertarian-world, geometry is apparently not math. That sets a solid benchmark right there.
Not math in the sense of data analysis, mathematical models, charts, equations. More like axioms, logical proofs.
And in libertarian-world, geometry is apparently not math. That sets a solid benchmark right there.
Not math in the sense of data analysis, mathematical models, charts, equations. More like axioms, logical proofs.
I have a depressing idea that a lot of engineers actually do think that the real world, and human beings in particular, can be boiled down to a series of fairly simple equations.
A lot of engineers are accustomed to thinking that way. Even though, in practice, a lot of those equations are known to be approximations. See, for example, the Navier-Stokes equation (the later equations in the article), which describes fluid flows.
Since second order, non-linear partial differential equations cannot be solved exactly, any fluid mechanics course starts out deciding which parts to zero out. Ideal Fluid Flows: friction = 0. Boundary Layer Flows: incompressible fluids near a solid boundary (even though air, say over a wing, actually is compressible). Etc. (Can you tell my grad school was in the part of Mechanical Engineering called either Fluid Mechanics or Aeronautical Sciences? AKA “rocket science”, because it also applies to flows thru a rocket nozzle.)
Some bits of science, e.g. ecology, are far more complicated than the bits just dealing with molecules. And people even more so. That’s why Social Sciences are fuzzier than Physical Sciences. Economics looks less fuzzy, because its got more equations. But they are still, when you dig down, based on statistical approximations. Which means pretty bad at dealing with individuals, or even just small numbers of individuals. And any entrepreneur is acting as an individual.
I have a depressing idea that a lot of engineers actually do think that the real world, and human beings in particular, can be boiled down to a series of fairly simple equations.
A lot of engineers are accustomed to thinking that way. Even though, in practice, a lot of those equations are known to be approximations. See, for example, the Navier-Stokes equation (the later equations in the article), which describes fluid flows.
Since second order, non-linear partial differential equations cannot be solved exactly, any fluid mechanics course starts out deciding which parts to zero out. Ideal Fluid Flows: friction = 0. Boundary Layer Flows: incompressible fluids near a solid boundary (even though air, say over a wing, actually is compressible). Etc. (Can you tell my grad school was in the part of Mechanical Engineering called either Fluid Mechanics or Aeronautical Sciences? AKA “rocket science”, because it also applies to flows thru a rocket nozzle.)
Some bits of science, e.g. ecology, are far more complicated than the bits just dealing with molecules. And people even more so. That’s why Social Sciences are fuzzier than Physical Sciences. Economics looks less fuzzy, because its got more equations. But they are still, when you dig down, based on statistical approximations. Which means pretty bad at dealing with individuals, or even just small numbers of individuals. And any entrepreneur is acting as an individual.
Not math in the sense of data analysis, mathematical models, charts, equations. More like axioms, logical proofs.
Inconveniently, people are not logical. You don’t need a psychologist to know that; simple observation will tell you.
Not math in the sense of data analysis, mathematical models, charts, equations. More like axioms, logical proofs.
Inconveniently, people are not logical. You don’t need a psychologist to know that; simple observation will tell you.
More like axioms, logical proofs.
1. given a perfectly spherical human
2. libertarianism
3. QED.
More like axioms, logical proofs.
1. given a perfectly spherical human
2. libertarianism
3. QED.
Are the vaccine passports going to be yellow, shaped like a star, and sewn on our clothes?
Seems to make the implicit assumption that having been vaccinated will be seen as a bad thing. Which may say something about where the author’s head is at. Or how he sees his audience.
Are the vaccine passports going to be yellow, shaped like a star, and sewn on our clothes?
Seems to make the implicit assumption that having been vaccinated will be seen as a bad thing. Which may say something about where the author’s head is at. Or how he sees his audience.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
An oldie, but still a good start to understand what you are dealing with when encountering this ideology.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
An oldie, but still a good start to understand what you are dealing with when encountering this ideology.
Libertarians are right that governments are bad at micromanagement. But right-libertarians (propertarians), are completely wrong about the implications of that.
A free-market economic system uses money to assign resources to production. This is good, in that it causes things people value to be produced. It’s bad, in that in a modern economy it facilitates enormous concentrations of wealth.
The governments of the world have chosen to encourage certain sorts of production, and (by lobbyist design) to help the rich get richer, by bestowing monopolies in the form of IP rights. This is good in so far as it helps musicians, for example, to make a living (we read several pages above that in the world of music streaming this mechanism is not working well, but the conversation has moved on). It’s bad in that it facilitates enormous concentrations of wealth.
Not coincidentally, we use money also to determine the distribution of resources for consumption.
The problem is that the optimum distribution of resources for consumption is nothing like the one we get by allowing the lucky few to accumulate billions and spend it as they whimsy takes them. If a billionaire buys all the cheese in France, it makes them only very slightly happier than buying only a small fraction of it, but it immiserates the rest of the French-cheese-eating world.
Fortunately, we have governments. What governments should rightly do is employ a system of taxes and benefits to redistribute some part of the income of the super-rich. They should seek to take the money in the least judgemental possible way, by taxing away a substantial fraction of the income of the super-rich, without regard to its source, and distributing it to all, as universal income. Then the French cheese can go to whoever enjoys it most, and the super-rich will still have vastly more than enough.
The mistake of propertarians is to fetishize money, howsoever come by, as the natural entitlement of its recipient, rather than the accidental result of the way our economic system happens to be operating.
The rest of us need not trouble ourselves unduly with this delusion. Voters, including many billionaires, will readily appreciate the benefits of a redistributive system aimed at making ordinary people better off.
Libertarians are right that governments are bad at micromanagement. But right-libertarians (propertarians), are completely wrong about the implications of that.
A free-market economic system uses money to assign resources to production. This is good, in that it causes things people value to be produced. It’s bad, in that in a modern economy it facilitates enormous concentrations of wealth.
The governments of the world have chosen to encourage certain sorts of production, and (by lobbyist design) to help the rich get richer, by bestowing monopolies in the form of IP rights. This is good in so far as it helps musicians, for example, to make a living (we read several pages above that in the world of music streaming this mechanism is not working well, but the conversation has moved on). It’s bad in that it facilitates enormous concentrations of wealth.
Not coincidentally, we use money also to determine the distribution of resources for consumption.
The problem is that the optimum distribution of resources for consumption is nothing like the one we get by allowing the lucky few to accumulate billions and spend it as they whimsy takes them. If a billionaire buys all the cheese in France, it makes them only very slightly happier than buying only a small fraction of it, but it immiserates the rest of the French-cheese-eating world.
Fortunately, we have governments. What governments should rightly do is employ a system of taxes and benefits to redistribute some part of the income of the super-rich. They should seek to take the money in the least judgemental possible way, by taxing away a substantial fraction of the income of the super-rich, without regard to its source, and distributing it to all, as universal income. Then the French cheese can go to whoever enjoys it most, and the super-rich will still have vastly more than enough.
The mistake of propertarians is to fetishize money, howsoever come by, as the natural entitlement of its recipient, rather than the accidental result of the way our economic system happens to be operating.
The rest of us need not trouble ourselves unduly with this delusion. Voters, including many billionaires, will readily appreciate the benefits of a redistributive system aimed at making ordinary people better off.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
LOL.
nothing has changed in 24 years.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
LOL.
nothing has changed in 24 years.
seems like this deserves a mention.
that’s a goddamn fancy ham sandwich.
seems like this deserves a mention.
that’s a goddamn fancy ham sandwich.
The mistake of propertarians is to fetishize money, howsoever come by, as the natural entitlement of its recipient, rather than the accidental result of the way our economic system happens to be operating.
Yes and yes and yes again. Thanks for such a concise rendering, pro bono.
The mistake of propertarians is to fetishize money, howsoever come by, as the natural entitlement of its recipient, rather than the accidental result of the way our economic system happens to be operating.
Yes and yes and yes again. Thanks for such a concise rendering, pro bono.
Two quotes from bobbyp’s link:
If the result is clearly nonsensical, why bother arguing over the logic?
Two quotes from bobbyp’s link:
If the result is clearly nonsensical, why bother arguing over the logic?
If the result is clearly nonsensical, why bother arguing over the logic?
Especially if the error is in the postulates.
If the result is clearly nonsensical, why bother arguing over the logic?
Especially if the error is in the postulates.
why bother arguing over the logic
I keep asking myself that, but then I remember that it applies to a great deal of what we talk about around here. 😉
why bother arguing over the logic
I keep asking myself that, but then I remember that it applies to a great deal of what we talk about around here. 😉
bobbyp wrote
Now, this does leave an opening for a reply “Nyah, nyah, you didn’t go over every line of that proof and find the error, you have to do that, or you’re close-minded”.
But it isn’t equations and shit like that, it is just geometry! You know, easy math! Everyone can see that square pegs don’t fit in round holes! As long as I define the shapes, it is all QED!
bobbyp wrote
Now, this does leave an opening for a reply “Nyah, nyah, you didn’t go over every line of that proof and find the error, you have to do that, or you’re close-minded”.
But it isn’t equations and shit like that, it is just geometry! You know, easy math! Everyone can see that square pegs don’t fit in round holes! As long as I define the shapes, it is all QED!