Go start a non-trivial business and then tell me what you think about government.
The only people who think that government interference is not part of the problem are those who either work for the government, depend on it for a living, benefit from their rulings, actions and handouts or have never started a business and came face-to-face with the beast.
Why isn't your all-knowing government moving swiftly to fix the software patent problem? What are they waiting for?
I'll tell you why: It keeps thousands upon thousands of government employees (voters) employed and it brings-in money, lots of money. In the meantime they, through inaction, cause untold carnage and damage our ability to innovate at full speed.
Also, in the accounting politicians engage in patent issues don't offer them any advantage because they are not going to gain significant votes by doing anything in that segment.
I mean, Google had to put what, twelve billion dollars into patents just so they could continue to exist in the smart phone market? Do you know what a company can do with twelve billion dollars? Talk about jobs and innovation.
As a software entrepreneur you have to live in fear of some asshole ruining your life because our brain-dead government granted them a patent on the pink sliding button you happen to be using.
Stability? Tell that to the Ambassador who got killed Libya. Why are we even there? Why are we at war with half the fucking world? Why are we buying friends through foreign aid? Friends that turn on us and, like a drug, we think we can keep buying their loyalty with more money?
That's really brilliant stuff partner. And government owns all of it. Not private enterprise. Not capitalism. Not entrepreneurs. Government. Your all-providing, all-knowing, infallible government.
I am fairly well travelled and speak several languages. When I am abroad sometimes I feel ashamed to be an American. Do you know why? Not because of our people. Just like folks all over the world we Americans are kind, loving, hard-working people who love our families and just want to have a nice life.
No, when I feel ashamed to be an American it is because of the way our government defecates not only all over us but all over other parts of the world. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. Our government has become a beast that behaves badly regardless of who is at the helm. It is a shame. And it is probably time for people who believe blindly in the supernatural powers of government to wake up and see reality for what it is.
I go back to the same thing. If you love government you have to love the good and the bad. You can't pick. Your government (and other governments) started wars that have killed tens of millions of people. Maybe even pushing over a hundred million. Start at World War 1 and do the math. A hundred million people dead. People didn't start those wars. Businesses didn't. Fucking governments did. And tens of millions of people are dead for it. I suppose you are proud and support that too?
Private sector seems pretty enthusiastic about the wars to me...
I agree with libertarians in the sense that I think concentrated power is a bad thing. But I think the idea that an unregulated market would be any better is laughable.
The answer, in my mind, is better regulation, not necessarily less regulation (although I suspect that the second would often follow from the first, but not in the way that libertarians seem to want).
Food labeling, by the way, is an example of good regulation in my book. Nobody gets to tell me what I can or cannot eat (just talking about labeling laws here, I realize there are also laws banning certain foods). But at the same time, nobody can try to trick me, either, at least not without breaking the law and being exposed to liability.
> Private sector seems pretty enthusiastic about the wars to me
Who? Your local baker? The mechanic around the corner? How about the printer? Or the dry cleaner? Apple?
Sure, businesses that make things for the military are going to benefit from wars. It only stands to reason that they might be more pro-war (or pro-conflict) than the local dry cleaner.
Here's the paradox. And it takes a little reasoning.
Who starts wars? Government.
Who benefits from wars. Well, nobody, but let's just say that government contractors do. They make weapons, missiles, bullets, crap. They do.
If you can make so much money making stuff for the war machinery, are you going to bother making stuff for consumer applications? Nope. If you can sell toilets for $1,000 rather than $50 you are going to make radiation hardened toilets. Let the Chinese make the "small stuff".
What happens when you have a war-driven economy then? Well, your consumer products manufacturing base goes to shit. Wages are artificially inflated by the war machine and, very soon, you have to pay a guy $50 per hour to put screws into a VCR. Therefore, the consumer business has to go to other countries where someone can make a VCR for less than we can.
And, what happens over a long period of time of doing things this way? Decades? You completely erode your manufacturing base to the point where you almost can't make anything in the country any more.
So, there you go. The whole business of government being so smart. Government providing everything we need. Government being all-knowing and providing the foundation upon which we will all build our empires. This same government is almost solely responsible for the destruction of our consumer manufacturing infrastructure by creating a falsely inflated military economy that made it impossible to get anything done in this country.
Government is an ass.
If government is responsible for all of our success. If we should thank and revere government for all we have accomplished. Then, we should also hold government responsible for all of our failures. You can't have it both ways. If they make things happen then they own the disasters too.
Mind you, I am not one for complete lack of government or complete lack of regulation. This is where I have trouble with political alignment labels. Saying that you are "libertarian" doesn't necessarily mean that you adhere to the textbook definition of what this might mean today. The same is true of other political views.
Yes, some government is necessary. They need to look after our roads, power grid, ports, etc. The government we have today is far larger than what we probably need.
I use fire in survival situations as an imperfect analogy:
When a fire is the right size it provides, warmth, comfort, security, the ability to cook food, etc. In a very real sense, it "works" with your, not against you.
If it is too small it is useless. In the wilderness you might have to fend-off predators because they will not be deterred by your tiny fire. You might not be able to cook food or sterilize water. A small fire is bad.
If a fire gets too big it is dangerous. It can get out of hand and kill you. Beyond a certain size it actually becomes another threat to your survival. If big enough --and if there's enough fuel around-- it starts to create its own wind and it grows larger and larger, until it consumes everything around it. The fire only cares about itself. Every particle serves the fire and not you. It is actually this huge mass that starts to work against you, not for you.
Our government is too large. It creates its own wind. It is growing larger and larger. We have too many government workers, their corresponding unions, their families and retirees that form a unified voting block that mindlessly supports, well, bigger government. It is quickly becoming a threat to our own survival. It is working against us, not with or for us.
Nobody is proposing that we have no government and live in total anarchy. Just like the small fire, that would be dangerous. What we do need is a government of the right size and mindset. We have not had that for decades.
Nope. Uber has been experiencing friction purely and exclusively at the hands of government. A government that caters to the unionized (or collectivized --however you want to put it) taxi groups that are intent on protecting an industry that is in obvious need of disruption. Politics has EVERYTHING to do with this problem. It is not a technical problem at all.
Isn't it reasonable, then, to ask why it is that government is allowed to interfere with progress this way?
If you want to accuse me of hijacking a thread to promote my political views, so be it. I don't see you offering any sort of an explanation or solution for what Uber are running into.
This is no different than what Boeing run into with the NLRB from the standpoint of a government body's interference with industry and progress.
I love how "trolling" is the universal accusation levied when one has no logical way to present a rational position of any kind. Hey, I'll admit that not everything I say might be on point. I am far from perfect. But I think that the elephant in the room is not too hard to identify here.
I asked you a simple question:
How do YOU explain the Uber problem?
I am sure the Uber people would LOVE to discover that government actually isn't their problem and that they should focus their efforts elsewhere.
Maybe the officials are pissed because Uber is using too much Javascript?
No, a discussion about Uber's problems is a discussion about the politics of the deal. That's the issue.
You've spent a few thousand words here that all boil down to 'government is evil' without showing how that relates to the case at hand (It's simple: follow the money) and yet you want me to give you reasons so you can spend a few thousand more words to beat down whatever it was that I might have to say on the subject with more anti-government rants.
Because it continues to frame the debate in terms of the ggps choosing, which have no bearing on the case.
"A government action is wrong/misguided/favors some party and hinders some other"
Does not automatically lead to
"Government is bad".
You can only debate that if you are prepared to take a step back and to list the relative merits / detractions from having some government regulation some of the time and then to try to apply those to the case at hand.
In this case I figure some special interests are being hurt and some particular individuals use their political influence to serve their ends. That does not say anything pro/con the government as an institution, it says something about the particular individuals involved. See Airbnb vs the established hospitality industry, the RIAA/MPAA vs a lot of other entities and a whole slew of examples too numerous to list here.
The one thing that you might extract as a rule is that special interests influencing politics is a bad thing, but in a country where companies are allowed to directly influence politics that is pretty much to be expected.
> In this case I figure some special interests are being hurt and some particular individuals use their political influence to serve their ends. That does not say anything pro/con the government as an institution, it says something about the particular individuals involved.
Exactly! With the exception that, yes, it does say a lot about government as an institution.
A government mature enough to understand that it should not meddle with the competitive forces in markets should take a position of non-interference. It should have the balls to tell even those with political influence --as you termed it-- to go pound sand.
Ultimately, the decision to go after Uber. The decision to attempt to CHANGE LAWS in order to restrict or destroy their business model rests upon one or a group of government actors. Without their agreement to interfere with Uber's business in favor of the taxi industry none of this would be happening. It is government. It is not people who "use their political influence". Government becomes the gating element that enables discriminatory action against interests of an industry that evidence seems to show is in dire need of disruption.
I don't buy my children ice cream every time they ask for it. No matter how much they kick, scream or cry for it. It's about being the adult in the room.
I'll tell you why government agents help the taxi industry rather than Uber. In their political accounting they have no votes to gain by favoring Uber and a lot to loose by letting Uber function freely. Uber has no political value in terms of votes and other political contributions. That's the America we live in today.
Murray Rothbard's book, The Ethics of Liberty, is about how all the functions of government could be performed by the free market. He talks about roads, utilities, etc.
When I travel, I often think about how the country would be different if government did not build the roads. I think you would probably have a fewer roads, less sprawl, and more density because each road would only be built if it were, for some entrepreneur or land owner, the best investment opportunity.
I agree with your fire analogy. Could have done without the "all-knowing government" hyperbole, though. That just makes you sound like a wacko and detracts from your otherwise-valid points.
I like the fire analogy too. It tends to make people think. It came out of a political conversation while camping and tending to the fire.
> Could have done without the "all-knowing government" hyperbole, though.
Maybe I should have put that into quotes. It was intended as sarcasm. In other words, I am sort-of echoing what proponents of a government-centric, government-driven society might think of the government.
I lived ten years in Argentina. Some of those while they had de-facto dictators and military rule. People in the US who are in love with the concept of more government don't understand just how large and dangerous that fire can become.
I agree with your sentiment that software patents need fixing, however some level of patent-like protection needs to be put in place - thus government interference is necessary. A completely deregulated system would spurn innovation, because everything would be copied at the drop of a hat.
As for your foreign policy beliefs - the US needs to be involved with the rest of the world because they have the potential to cause us serious harm (either in a real war or through terrorist attacks). Thus, as with patents, some level of intervention is necessary. A completely isolationist policy would come back to haunt us at some point. How much intervention is necessary is a matter of opinion and debate.
Go start a non-trivial business and then tell me what you think about government.
How non-trivial would you like? Many of the really non-trivial business ventures in history were started and run by governments at first, as they were simply too risky as private ventures.
Personally I think right-wing libertarianism is just basically what happened when conservatives started having to power-share and so they realised that they were no longer in sole control of government, which they really hate, so some of them decided it must be overthrown. Then they realised that the people they were now most closely aligned with are hippy anarcho-syndicalists, and out of the result of the ensuing nervous collapse and confusion, the modern libertarian movement was born.
[edit] I got thinking about what happens when you cross conservatives with anarchists and got an image of dishevelled mud covered people who are mistrustful of interference from the government, but with lots of guns and land and money. And I suddenly realised that the image in my head strongly matches most members of the UK aristocracy. I bet Liz sings Sex Pistols songs in the bath while scrubbing shit off her toenails after scrubbing out the horses.
The only people who think that government interference is not part of the problem are those who either work for the government, depend on it for a living, benefit from their rulings, actions and handouts or have never started a business and came face-to-face with the beast.
Why isn't your all-knowing government moving swiftly to fix the software patent problem? What are they waiting for?
I'll tell you why: It keeps thousands upon thousands of government employees (voters) employed and it brings-in money, lots of money. In the meantime they, through inaction, cause untold carnage and damage our ability to innovate at full speed.
Also, in the accounting politicians engage in patent issues don't offer them any advantage because they are not going to gain significant votes by doing anything in that segment.
I mean, Google had to put what, twelve billion dollars into patents just so they could continue to exist in the smart phone market? Do you know what a company can do with twelve billion dollars? Talk about jobs and innovation.
As a software entrepreneur you have to live in fear of some asshole ruining your life because our brain-dead government granted them a patent on the pink sliding button you happen to be using.
Stability? Tell that to the Ambassador who got killed Libya. Why are we even there? Why are we at war with half the fucking world? Why are we buying friends through foreign aid? Friends that turn on us and, like a drug, we think we can keep buying their loyalty with more money?
That's really brilliant stuff partner. And government owns all of it. Not private enterprise. Not capitalism. Not entrepreneurs. Government. Your all-providing, all-knowing, infallible government.
I am fairly well travelled and speak several languages. When I am abroad sometimes I feel ashamed to be an American. Do you know why? Not because of our people. Just like folks all over the world we Americans are kind, loving, hard-working people who love our families and just want to have a nice life.
No, when I feel ashamed to be an American it is because of the way our government defecates not only all over us but all over other parts of the world. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. Our government has become a beast that behaves badly regardless of who is at the helm. It is a shame. And it is probably time for people who believe blindly in the supernatural powers of government to wake up and see reality for what it is.
I go back to the same thing. If you love government you have to love the good and the bad. You can't pick. Your government (and other governments) started wars that have killed tens of millions of people. Maybe even pushing over a hundred million. Start at World War 1 and do the math. A hundred million people dead. People didn't start those wars. Businesses didn't. Fucking governments did. And tens of millions of people are dead for it. I suppose you are proud and support that too?