This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Bottom line:  If you don't give the little guy, the new innovator, a chance to monopolize the market for a while, all you will wind up with is old money monopolizing the market.

So, your answer, to prevent natural monopolies is... enforced monopolies?

Sadly, yes.

Then it's a bad answer, wouldn't you say?

What's so bad about natural monopolies that they warrant violent monopolies to prevent them?

The so-called violent monopolies I advocate are short-term, the natural monopolies are borderline eternal, and thus present a greater threat to individual freedom.

[myrkul]

Bottom line:  If you don't give the little guy, the new innovator, a chance to monopolize the market for a while, all you will wind up with is old money monopolizing the market.

So, your answer, to prevent natural monopolies is... enforced monopolies?

Sadly, yes.

Then it's a bad answer, wouldn't you say?

What's so bad about natural monopolies that they warrant violent monopolies to prevent them?

The so-called violent monopolies I advocate are short-term, the natural monopolies are borderline eternal, and thus present a greater threat to individual freedom.

How so?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

I'm willing to share.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Bottom line:  If you don't give the little guy, the new innovator, a chance to monopolize the market for a while, all you will wind up with is old money monopolizing the market.

So, your answer, to prevent natural monopolies is... enforced monopolies?

Sadly, yes.

Then it's a bad answer, wouldn't you say?

What's so bad about natural monopolies that they warrant violent monopolies to prevent them?

The so-called violent monopolies I advocate are short-term, the natural monopolies are borderline eternal, and thus present a greater threat to individual freedom.

How so?

Without IP, if a small outfit innovates and markets, a large outfit can use the innovation and market it to a larger market, at a lower price, or the small outfit can sell to the larger outfit.  This will eventually muscle all small outfits out of the market.  This should be obvious to anyone with a bit of schooling in economics.

[myrkul]

Without IP, if a small outfit innovates and markets, a large outfit can use the innovation and market it to a larger market, at a lower price, or the small outfit can sell to the larger outfit.  This will eventually muscle all small outfits out of the market.  This should be obvious to anyone with a bit of schooling in economics.

Yes, but I asked you what was bad about it. So far, all you've shown me is the benefits.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Without IP, if a small outfit innovates and markets, a large outfit can use the innovation and market it to a larger market, at a lower price, or the small outfit can sell to the larger outfit.  This will eventually muscle all small outfits out of the market.  This should be obvious to anyone with a bit of schooling in economics.

Yes, but I asked you what was bad about it. So far, all you've shown me is the benefits.

What I consider to be bad about it is that it will bring into existence yet larger monopolies, that will be large  concentrations of power, that will, in time, bring about yet another tyranny.  As I said before, mine is mine, at least long enough to profit from it.  If I am forced to sell-out in order to make profit, I am not free.

[myrkul]

What I consider to be bad about it is that it will bring into existence yet larger monopolies, that will be large  concentrations of power, that will, in time, bring about yet another tyranny.

By what means? Give me a brief hypothetical.

As I said before, mine is mine, at least long enough to profit from it.  If I am forced to sell-out in order to make profit, I am not free.

You don't need to sell out to make a profit. You just have to out-compete them. It's not their fault if you can't do that. And that's certainly no reason to punish the consumers.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

What I consider to be bad about it is that it will bring into existence yet larger monopolies, that will be large  concentrations of power, that will, in time, bring about yet another tyranny.

By what means? Give me a brief hypothetical.

Call it a hunch and an ingrained mistrust of any concentration of power.

As I said before, mine is mine, at least long enough to profit from it.  If I am forced to sell-out in order to make profit, I am not free.

You don't need to sell out to make a profit. You just have to out-compete them. It's not their fault if you can't do that. And that's certainly no reason to punish the consumers.
[/quote]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=177087.msg1942961#msg1942961

The little guy will never be able to out-compete the big guy.

[myrkul]

What I consider to be bad about it is that it will bring into existence yet larger monopolies, that will be large  concentrations of power, that will, in time, bring about yet another tyranny.

By what means? Give me a brief hypothetical.

Call it a hunch and an ingrained mistrust of any concentration of power.

To which your answer is... wait for it... a concentration of power.

As I said before, mine is mine, at least long enough to profit from it.  If I am forced to sell-out in order to make profit, I am not free.

You don't need to sell out to make a profit. You just have to out-compete them. It's not their fault if you can't do that. And that's certainly no reason to punish the consumers.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=177087.msg1942961#msg1942961

The little guy will never be able to out-compete the big guy.

Unless the big guy tries to charge more than market for his product. Then the little guy can undercut him and become the big guy.

[Rassah]

Learned about this little story in my Masters' Business Strategy class
http://strategypeak.com/softsoaps-unconventional-strategy/

Somewhat relevant to your discussion on IP and being able to make money and compete when the option of IP is not available.
In the current economy of easy file downloading, the way companies continue to make money is by providing services that data alone can't give. Collecting, organizing, and storing music and movies, making suggestions based on your history, and customizing your experience to fit you. That's the only way iTunes and Netflix can exist. In your drug example, you could either maintain profits by claiming expertise of the drugs that others can't, since you developed it, or sell it along with a service of being able to monitor the patient's doses and health to make sure there are no complications that someone who just buys and takes it at home can run into, or even better, customize each drug mix and dosage specifically for every customer's biology and body type, which you can do thanks to the trials and research information you collected. These are things that are near impossible to replicate.


Regarding monopolies, they are concerns that are obvious to anyone with a bit of schooling in economics, but are of no concern to anyone with a lot of schooling in economics. Two reasons:
1) Monopolies grow big, big companies get set in their routine, and after a while can't change and adapt as quickly to new markets and technologies. They always lose out to newer, smaller, more agile competitors. Kodak is an excellent example of monopoly failure.
2) I have mentioned this over and over, and maybe you weren't around when I did, but there are TWO types of threats to any product. One is the type that anyone with a bit of econ schooling always brings up, which is directly competing product (e.g. Coca Cola vs Pepsi). Most people think the only way to take down a monopoly is to come up with a product that does the same thing, basically. What they forget about is the second threat to products, which is SUBSTITUTION (e.g. forget Colas, and drink juice, milk, or even just water).

If you keep the substitution threat in mind, you'll realize that all monopolies are temporary, no matter how entrenched they are, because if the monopoly becomes too cumbersome, people will always figure out how to just buy or do something else. Even if it involves switching to taking shitty 640x480 photos that get saved to floppy disks.

Disclosure: I own three patents and hope to make money off them, though they are mostly protected by the obscurity of the technology than the actual IP rights.

[kokjo]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

at some point it becomes too expensive to defend your IP, and thus you stop defending it.

cost-benefit 101: is it beneficial to attack someone who have not attacked you first? yes, sometimes!

(and this is the point that myrkul fail to see...)

So, you would shoot at AnCaps before being shot at?

if it was in my best interest: yes sure!

[myrkul]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

at some point it becomes too expensive to defend your IP, and thus you stop defending it.

cost-benefit 101: is it beneficial to attack someone who have not attacked you first? yes, sometimes!

(and this is the point that myrkul fail to see...)

So, you would shoot at AnCaps before being shot at?

if it was in my best interest: yes sure!

It would not be. Doing so would get you shot back at.

[Rassah]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

at some point it becomes too expensive to defend your IP, and thus you stop defending it.

cost-benefit 101: is it beneficial to attack someone who have not attacked you first? yes, sometimes!

(and this is the point that myrkul fail to see...)

So, you would shoot at AnCaps before being shot at?

if it was in my best interest: yes sure!

It would not be. Doing so would get you shot back at.

I don't know... I mean it worked for Han Solo...

[myrkul]

I don't know... I mean it worked for Han Solo...

Would it have if Greedo had had a partner?

[kokjo]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

at some point it becomes too expensive to defend your IP, and thus you stop defending it.

cost-benefit 101: is it beneficial to attack someone who have not attacked you first? yes, sometimes!

(and this is the point that myrkul fail to see...)

So, you would shoot at AnCaps before being shot at?

if it was in my best interest: yes sure!

It would not be. Doing so would get you shot back at.

I don't know... I mean it worked for Han Solo...

how can you so categorically refuse that unprovoked violence can be profitable sometimes? i simply don't understand it.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

at some point it becomes too expensive to defend your IP, and thus you stop defending it.

cost-benefit 101: is it beneficial to attack someone who have not attacked you first? yes, sometimes!

(and this is the point that myrkul fail to see...)

So, you would shoot at AnCaps before being shot at?

if it was in my best interest: yes sure!

It would not be. Doing so would get you shot back at.

He's a Dane, and has probably never touched a gun, much less fired one.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

at some point it becomes too expensive to defend your IP, and thus you stop defending it.

cost-benefit 101: is it beneficial to attack someone who have not attacked you first? yes, sometimes!

(and this is the point that myrkul fail to see...)

So, you would shoot at AnCaps before being shot at?

if it was in my best interest: yes sure!

It would not be. Doing so would get you shot back at.

I don't know... I mean it worked for Han Solo...

how can you so categorically refuse that unprovoked violence can be profitable sometimes? i simply don't understand it.

Spoken like a true mugger. 

[kokjo]

He's a Dane, and has probably never touched a gun, much less fired one.

and im proud of living in a society that ables me to survive without touching one.

gun nuts!

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

He's a Dane, and has probably never touched a gun, much less fired one.

and im proud of living in a society that ables me to survive without touching one.

gun nuts!

Such dishonesty!  The Assault rate in Denmark is 17% higher than in the USA.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Denmark/United-States/

[kokjo]

He's a Dane, and has probably never touched a gun, much less fired one.

and im proud of living in a society that ables me to survive without touching one.

gun nuts!

Such dishonesty!  The Assault rate in Denmark is 17% higher than in the USA.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Denmark/United-States/

People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevelence.

in other words, people in Denmark believe in the authority of the police, while USA is afraid of it.