Obama Taps Fifth RIAA Lawyer to Justice Department

Hk,

> Also, in Bob's opinion, if mr. Bernanke & friends were to create ten times the amount of money currently in roulation resulting in his dollars becoming worthless due to inflation, they don't deprive him of any property since he still has his dollars / physical paper.

I'm amazed, actually, at the lengths folks are going. Please stop telling me what my opinion is, I will gladly give it if asked.

Bernanke and friends have one thing I do not have: A government granted monopoly on the printing of "money". Legal Tender laws. Now please take a moment and guess what I think of that, considering my opinion of other government grants of legal monopoly which have already been discussed.

Without those laws, their running their printers day and night does, in fact, not effect me unless I choose to utilize their funny-money. So you're half right.

But then, just running the copy machine is exactly what they're doing now. I don't think they're up to 10x yet, but don't worry, they'll get there. I have some 100 Trillion Zimbabwe dollar bills which I bought to frame, which is a wonderful way to memorialize the insanity of fiat currency.

They are robbing me, and you, by LAW.

I would love to get into a discussion of economics, but I don't know that Sander et. al. would let that get going.

> but Henry Paulson is gone now. Maybe there is some little hope.

Nope, he was replaced by someone from exactly the same mold, demonstrating very effectively the old saw, "Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss."

Caitlyn, I'm glad I've inspired you to reconsider your position. We may disagree, but I'm flattered that I've helped you refine your beliefs.

@jdixon: No, I understood perfectly. I wasn't alive in 1930. While I understand the effects of inflation I think the idea that the dollar is "pretty much worthless" is silly at best. Right now the dollar is still the currency which most investors outside the US choose to invest in. It's still considered the safest and strongest currency in the world. Of course, I am not a foreign investor. I am someone who buys groceries. My point was to say that the dollars have value assigned to them that is significant and accepted by most people in the world.

Bernanke and friends have one thing I do not have: A government granted monopoly on the printing of "money". Legal Tender laws. Now please take a moment and guess what I think of that, considering my opinion of other government grants of legal monopoly which have already been discussed.

Could you imagine the chaos if that wasn't a monopoly? I, for one, am very glad that the issuance of currency is a government monopoly. May it always be so.

Also, Mr. Bernanke doesn't own that monopoly. He was appointed to that position by someone who was elected (albeit somewhat indirectly through the electoral college) by the people of this country. In the U.S. we choose our leaders. If they do a lousy job we choose different leaders. It isn't an unchecked monopoly.

They are robbing me, and you, by LAW.

I completely disagree. In addition, as theft and robbery are defined in a society by the law, a legal act cannot be defined as robbery in any case.

You are already discussing economics. I could get into a long discussion about why Keynesian economics is necessary to prevent the current recession/depression from worsening. I would prefer, though, at this point, that Sander & Co. pull this thread that won't seem to die.

> Could you imagine the chaos if that {money} wasn't a monopoly?

Hahahahaha! Really, I have to ask, what isn't chaotic now?

When government had no such monopoly, specifically in the US before 1913, chaos was the opposite of what existed.

People have traditionally used commodities for money (the "gold" standard) in preference to fiat currencies, because fiat currencies collapse due to inflation. "Not worth a Continental", people wallpapering with Confederate dollars, wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread in Germany 1923, etc.

Without that monopoly, people are attracted to commodity money because it is stable. Silver, gold, copper, cannot just be printed. Some time I'll bookmark the graph that shows prices over time in the US, which shows a nearly flat line, slowly declining (from efficiencies in transportation, production, etc) prices throughout the 19th century up to 1913. Even the war between the states, the various supposedly terrible depressions and bank runs, show up as barely ripples in the general price level.

But once 1913 hits, the line does the Global Warming hockey-stick thing. Prices skyrocket, overwhelming anything seen before, with slow-downs and dips during the Great Depression that dwarf anything seen before, then right back to rising prices which has never stopped.

And getting government OUT of money is supposed to be a cause for chaos?

> I could get into a long discussion about why Keynesian economics is necessary to prevent the current recession/depression from worsening.

Keynesian economic policies are why this recession/depression is occurring, so what hope is there that you can convince me that more of the same will somehow help?

> I would prefer, though, at this point, that Sander & Co. pull this thread that won't seem to die.

There is a simpler answer: The button at the top of this very page that reads, "Unwatch Thread."

Quoting:I'm amazed, actually, at the lengths folks are going. Please stop telling me what my opinion is, I will gladly give it if asked.

You already have given your opinion long before, I just combined and introduced a new element in your opinion in a new innovative way.

Quoting:But then, just running the copy machine is exactly what they're doing now. I don't think they're up to 10x yet, but don't worry, they'll get there. I have some 100 Trillion Zimbabwe dollar bills which I bought to frame, which is a wonderful way to memorialize the insanity of fiat currency.

They are robbing me, and you, by LAW.

Aha, there you have it. If you and me are the copyrightholders (to money), than copying stuff which is copyrighted is all the suddenly robbery! When it comes to copying CD's, it isn't.

That's the point I'm making. Money and lottery lots are not much different than copyright (things which might be exchanged for other goods with certain chances); so why treat them differently? And property doesn't have to be physical to be something someone can be deprived of; because property is something cultural just as much as copyright is.

When you take away culture and law and only leave 'natural' property, the 2 year old children you were talking about have the same property laws as dogs and nations at war: Which is if I'm stronger than you are then all your property is mine and all the suddenly it looks like your property never really existed in first place.

Here in my country, to resolve this unwanted natural behaviour, people made laws and the state uses coercion to protect property. Other people - I believe Libertarians but I might be wrong - use coercion themselves to protect their property. It doesn't matter, it only shows property just as much as copyright only exists if you successfully protect it in some way.

> You already have given your opinion long before,

I find myself completely befuddled, then, as to why you decided to misrepresent it.

> I just combined and introduced a new element in your opinion in a new innovative way.

That's called lying.

> If you and me are the copyrightholders (to money), than copying stuff which is copyrighted is all the suddenly robbery! When it comes to copying CD's, it isn't.

We're not copyright holders to money. Your premise is false, your conclusion is void.

Money is a tool, the medium of exchange. The more of it in circulation, the less each is worth.

By dumping huge quantities of money into circulation, the exchange value of pre-existing money decreases, and that exchange value is the one and only use of money. The use of my dollar is impaired by their action.

My use of a music file is not decreased because anyone else, or everyone else, has none, one, or infinite copies of that same music file.

> And property doesn't have to be physical to be something someone can be deprived of

Again, my having a copy of something deprives you of NOTHING. It is a copy, it is not the one and only. I took nothing from you.

By making a copy I might have violated a contract. Your false example of a lottery ticket is an example of contract violation, since the contract that goes with the lottery ticket states that there is to be one and only one ticket presented for each one purchased, the original.

What Caitlyn has never understood is that I am not trying to say that the act of copying, or the simple fact of posessing a copy, is never illegal. Merely that it is not by itself wrong.

> Which is if I'm stronger than you are then all your property is mine and all the suddenly it looks like your property never really existed in first place.

The Hobbsian war of All against All. Yes, I know about that. However, you have failed to prove that that is the result of eliminating the government monopoly on coercion.

What I see around me every day is not a war of all against all. I see people cooperating, creating, providing for each other and prospering there by. The few and obnoxious intrusions by government coercion do nothing but interrupt that natural cooperation.

> Here in my country, to resolve this unwanted natural behaviour, people made laws

At least you have the order of operations correct. People created rules in order for cooperation to be facilitated. People who violate those rules are shunned, people who prove they cannot fulfill their contracts lose their "credit rating", etc.

> and the state uses coercion to protect property.

And if that is all they did, it would be difficult to argue against it. But it doesn't, it also is the largest violator of property rights and gets to define its own predation as "lawful".

Now back to the original argument: If copyright were still of limited duration, and had to be deliberately sought, then the destructive nature of copyright would be difficult to leverage against the benefits to a few that such "protection" affords.

> Other people - I believe Libertarians but I might be wrong - use coercion themselves to protect their property.

A false conflation of defense with coercion. What you are trying to assert is that people defend themselves with force, so the problem is not force itself. I couldn't agree more.

Coercion can be forceful, it can be merely threats. But coercion is not defensive.

The false equality in your assertion makes your conclusion false: Libertarians do not advocate coercion, even when they agree with the ends. The ends do not justify the means.

> it only shows property just as much as copyright only exists if you successfully protect it in some way.

Copyright only exists because a law says it exists. There is no law saying my pocket watch is mine.

That is why copyright is a government monopoly grant.

Dino,

> Too many self-describe libertarians leave out the "and let me prosper" part -- and that's a pretty important part of the whole equation.

I'd be very interested to know how you've reached that conclusion.

There are a lot of people who seem to think that it's a legitimate role of government to save them from the folly of their own choices.

Certainly, anyone who believes in such a role for government cannot be libertarian, since it requires taxing others for the benefit of a few.

> It provides a philosophical basis for legitimate government functions - things like police and armies

Neither of which are legitimate government functions.

You are welcome to try to support your assertion that these are "legitimate" government functions, I would very much look forward to it. What I expect is that it will come down to one of "because they always have been", "because those are the ones I like", or "because I say they are." I also expect that the usual folks will agree with you and the usual disparaging remarks about my "radical" idiocy will be made, due to my minority opinion. How wonderful it would be if it stopped there.

What were people doing 150 years ago before standing government police, I wonder?

Oh well. This is the argument that defines the difference between an anarchist and a minarchist, and has nothing to do with the destructive nature of copyright.

> as it is hard to prosper with a gun at your head.

Very hard, in my opinion, which is why I oppose regulation. It's hard to prosper with a gun at your head, even if that gun happens to be held by the state instead of a private thug.

At least it's not illegal to defend one's self from a private thug.

> It also provides a basis for legal recognition of property rights as it is hard to prosper when people are stealing everything you have.

Very hard, in my opinion, which is why I oppose taxation. It's hard to prosper when people are stealing everything you have, even if they happen to have badges.

At least it's not illegal to defend one's self from a private thief.

> But -- the "on my own" is often stretched beyond reason, as if the covenants we make for society to function (don't steal from me, don't kill me, etc) don't exist and don't matter.

That's why people who act that way are called "sociopaths" and universally shunned. Yes, even by me, and it has nothing to do with the existence of the state.

Well, almost universally shunned. Sadly, people who will do sociopathic things, like herding people into gas chambers, dropping bombs, murdering children, taking the homes of little old ladies, are actively sought by one institution: The State.