Oh, c’mon. Investors have to eat, too!
{{{I am not an animal!}}}
(Actually, did you stop to consider that, without the investments and profits, there would be no food?)
There’s a lot of people who’re just plain mean. That’s why coercion needs to be suppressed.
Excellent tymp.
Also a point of clarification, in cas I haven’t mentioned it. If you steal something from me you are personally hurting and insulting me. However there are other things you can do, that are socially acceptable, that would do the same thing. For example, driving slow in the fast lane, or framing my brother for a crime he didn’t commit.
**
Well. It is a little more complicated than this. Also, the corporation doesn’t lose revenue, it simply doesn’t gain as much profit as it would like. I haven’t seen a single case of a company going out of business or posting negative profit due to theft. Theft is such a minor component that it is considered a normal part of doing business. All companies take theft into account in their business plans.
**
or c) not pay as much of a bonus to the CEO, maybe 250 Million instead of 251 million.
**
True. However, price reduction comes from overproduction. The companies are producing more product than anyone wants or needs. It’s their own fault that prices have dropped. I have little or no sympathy for them.
**
I’ve fouund no evidence that this is caused by minor theft. It is instead a standard feature under Capitalism and competition. These companies that have to eliminate jobs still find time to go and give the fired CEO a big ole bonus.
**
No. They are stealing from the company.
**
Again, all you are doing is reducing the profit of the company. A company that bases it’s wealth on stealing anyway. Chickens coming home to roost and all that.
But if you own a business, it’s okay if we steal from it, right?
Yes, it is considerably more complicated than how I phrased it initially. However, I think I did capture the essence of what is happening in the event of theft. You have pointed out that a loss through theft is not a simple loss of revenue, but a reduction of profit. Well, it’s more complicated than that even. This is a loss of expected profit. Not meeting expected profits is devastating for a company. This could mean that the company would not have adequate funds to compensate employees. It could mean that the company would not have adequate funds to invest in essential market development activities. It could mean that the company would not have adequate funds to pay shareholders.
The theft itself is not so simple, either. When a product is stolen, the company loses more than just the immediate dollar value of that specific piece. When a single product is stolen, all products of that type lose value because the total price paid by the public for products of that type is reduced. The opportunity for sustained or increased profit margins is lessened. If the willingness of the public to pay prices that will sustain profits for a company wane, the company will seek ways of attaining or developing that product more efficiently at the expense of the laborer. Theft is a minor, normal part of doing business, but it is not negligible. Just because it is done, does not make it acceptable. If that were the case, I don’t think you would have posted this topic.
You have suggested that, rather than increasing price or downsizing a company, executives should be paid less. Most major corporations compensate their executives with options rather than high salaries. This means that the executives own the corporations. Why would they own these companies if they did not intend to profit from them? Why would they sacrifice themselves for the sake of their possessions?
Well, obviously somebody wants or needs these products. If that were not the case, people would stop buying them all together. Are you suggesting that companies should keep the prices of their products artificially higher than market value? That seems like a surefire way to ensure the broadening of class separation – a weird thing to see suggested by a commie.
Do you not see how this harms the common, honest laborer? What is the market for a laborer’s toils? Who is it that is willing to give something of value to the laborer in exchange for his toils? What is the laborer to do when his market has been destroyed?
Mr Feely:
It is somewhat absurd for the two of us to argue what Mr King’s real motivation is, but I think his threat to cease providing a service should the menas of distribution be abused is a pretty clear indication that he cares whether he receives compenation for his work.
As to open source software, the people who develop it are paid for their work. simply because it migt be provided free to an end user does not mean it was developed for free. In addition, free product is often used to build a relationship with a customer in order to turn them into an income source later. To argue that this somehow implies that all intellectual work product should be considered fair game is akin to saying that because the local club gives away coupons for free beer on weekends it must be all right to sneak cases out the back door.
There is a difference between someone giving you something and your taking it from him without his consent. I have tried to kep this discussion general, but if we must use Napster as an example ask youself this:
Why doesn’t Napster simply ask artists if they are willing to have their music traded freely and restrict its traffic to only music by those bands? Many bands have long histries of encouraging their fans to record and trade live music. I can easily see artists valuing the wide distibution and opportunity to build a fan base. However, if an artist fears the loss of revenue more than they value the potential benefits of Napterization then their work should be protected.
That seems a bit closer to the example of open systems development, doesn’t it?
I read an article that said perhaps the companies should purchased Napster instead.
I agree. However, it’s also clear that he is still motivated to create intellectual property even if some people (up to 25% of them) don’t compensate him for his work.
Some are, but I’d say the vast majority are not. From what I’ve seen, generally only the top people working on the largest and most useful projects get paid to do so. I have, for example, released several pieces of free software that I was not paid to create, one of which is used by several thousand people.
In any case, I agree that this model for the generation of intellectual propety is not generally applicable, although it does work in this situation.
Rather than getting hung up on the details of the examples I posted, I’d like to focus attention back on what I consider the important question. I didn’t get any nibbles when I posted it before, so here it is again (with minor revisions):
If it’s possible to have a system of intellectual property that is at least as good as our current one at promoting progress in science and the arts and which permits people to copy some intellectual property without payment in some instances, is it appropriate to call this behavior stealing?
I posit that it would not be appropriate to call it stealing either in the hypothetical system or the current one. Anyone willing to either take the opposite position, or to argue that the question is moot because such a system is not possible?
I thought of several different examples that I wanted to point out.
1.Parking
Did you know that the revenue from parking meters goes into a cities budget? The city plans the future budgets on expected revenue. Anytime someone goes and parks at that meter and stays even 1 minute past the time alloted, they are stealing money from the city. They are breaking the law. Not, only that but, they are taking money that would be used for social programs, money for schools, money that would be helping the homeless. If anyone in this board, has even one moral bone in their body, they need to go out and reprimand anyone they catch doing this. It is in fact your moral duty.
Of course that argument is silly. There are much worse things than staying an extra minute at the parking meter. Likewise there are much worse things than stealing. And true, they both take expected money from people. But it’s such a tiny ammount, that no one really cares. You haven’t given any proof that theft has actually caused even one layoff in any business in the United States. It really is a minor problem. Especially considering how many people are layed off just to give more money to the Executives. BofA just layed off 10,000 people. I can assure you it wasn’t because of people stealing bank pens.
Likewise, I remember a story from a little while back, the main problem for businesses is employee theft. That’s right, employees steal more than customers. So really, it’s the employees taking from the bosses, not customers taking from employees. Unfortunately, I can’t find the article right now. If anyone else could I’d be most apreciative. But, since you haven’t given me any evidence that theft equals layoffs, I don’t feel too pressed to find any.
That’s right. Everyone does it. And it’s destroying the environment. It’s a horrible thing. Yet, does anyone think that we should go and roundly reprimand the litterers? No. We go after the major polluters. The one’s who dump tons of toxins. And yet with theft. White collar crime gets a slap on the wrist. Theft gets you life in prison. Makes real sense. Of course I’m going to teach my children that they shouldn’t steal. Likewise, I’m going to teach my children not to litter. But, I’m not going to blow a gasket if they drop a baggie on the ground. And I’m not gong to blow a gasket if some college kid shoplifts a CD.
Feely:
Theft depends upon the concept of ownership. Ownership is defined and recognized by societies and cultures. Whether the system is more efficient is really irrelevant to the issue of theft. Intellectual property in our present society is developed under the presumption that the work product will enjoy certain protections of law. Anything that violates that implicit contract is theft. Should that implicit contract change (under your proposed new system, for example) then theere will quite likely be a change in the particular acts that can be called “theft”.
But until the implicit contract changes (which requires an explicit modification of the relevant laws and treaties) then the actions are theft.
Whatever percentage of folks who download the King novel without paying are stealing from the author. The fact that he knows some people may do so and is willing to accept a certain percentage of loss is not equivalent to saying that he condones their actions or does not consider them to be thieves.
Stealing isn’t a negative act, but unfortunately laws (either implicit or explicit) against stealing are inevitable.
Consider any group of people larger than, say, a hunter-gatherer group. At first, without a law, the most efficient thieves or brutes will have access to the majority of property. But as the group size grows and there’s more stratification, a few inventive Alphas will see that it’s lucrative to charge the little people for services. In exchange for some protection against outsiders, the Alphas will impose taxation. Hence you have a chiefdom type government.
oldscratch,
Sure, most theft is little more than an annoyance to any company that is being stolen from. Just as in the case of parking violations, no one suffers terribly. Also, people take relatively few measures to enforce the prohibition of such relatively minor crimes and offences. I think we all know, though, that rules and retaliation have little to do with the morality of an act. I am not going to blow a gasket over much of anything that the rest of the world might do. I don’t really care if you litter. I don’t really care if you steal from my company or anyone else’s. These things are but a minor annoyance that I am well prepared to deal with.
Does the fact that these acts are of minor importance make them any less wrong? Society hardly notices and takes little action when animals are abused. Does that mean that it is right to abuse animals? What about theft of property from individuals? If I take your favorite pen, you don’t really suffer. If I eat your last cookie, you’ll get over it. Why shouldn’t I do it?
To tell the truth, I am far from a perfect, upstanding citizen. I do things that are illegal. I do things that are immoral. I fully understand the effects of the actions that I take. I do not attempt to justify my actions by denying their effects. I recognize such an effort to be futile and foolish.
Tell me, please, why you intend to make the effort to teach your children not to steal? If theft is of so little importance, why bother? If theft is not wrong, why bother?
Would you invite into your home a man who declares that there is nothing wrong with stealing?
Well, if it were oldscratch and he promised not to start any revolutions . . .
Thanks Tymp. I guess.
Anyway. I might as well come forward with some more of my views. I view Stealing in a semi-negative light. I also view Moonies in a semi-negative light. I wouldn’t want my children to steal, because it’s unproductive, it turns people against you, and like moonies it carries a bad image.
I view Looting as direct reapropriation of wealth. Olentzero can probably speak more on that too. (Come on Olentzero, where are you).
I also view it in the same light as terrorism. I understand people’s motivations behind it. I’m not going to condemn the IRA when there are definete reasons behind their actions, at the same time I would argue that terrorism isn’t the righ answer. It tends to isolate you and not gain you the sympathy of others. Stealing is the same. But, if someone comes down on a moral trip condemning people for stealing, I’m going to go and defend them. In fact I think it’s the responsibility of most working people to do so.
Unbelievable. So if a gang of thugs were to loot your home, it would be okay?
It is the responsibility of most working people to steal? Or it is the responsibility of most working people to defend thieves?
Either proposition strikes me as absurd, but I was wondering which to criticize.
**
So, Mr. Oldscratch, we meet again. But this time the advantage is mine! Hahahahha…where was I?..oh, yes…
Um, where is it social acceptable to frame your brother for a crime he didn’t commit? I mean, this might have happened, and the guy who did it got away with it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s “socially acceptable”. If the guy who did it was proven guilty he’d go to jail, be fired etc., right?
**
Of course prices drop! But we capitalists aren’t concered for the poor businessmen whose profits have gone down because of competition…we’re overjoyed! That’s how capitalism works…those sucker businessmen have to lower prices over and over again if there is too much supply. This is good. Oversupply: prices drop, businesses destroyed, capitalists lose their shirt…and the larger system benefits because we get to take advantage of the lower prices. Prices fall until supply decreases or demand increases. Capitalism won’t work unless the capitalists lose money if they bet wrong on what to invest in.
**
Are price increases an inevitable result of capitalism? No. Price decreases are just as likely.
Now, why is it wrong for the owners of a company to pay the guy they hire to run it anything they want? If I hire you to do a job, the price of your labor is a mutually agreed upon amount. I don’t steal from you, you don’t steal from me…as long as we have a free choice.
If sucker investors want to throw away money paying worthless CEOs, it’s their funeral. Companies that compensate management realistically are a better return on investment.
Companies that cut salaries are not stealing. Companies that raise salaries are not being compassionate. Look, oldscratch, the beauty of capitalism is that it allows all kinds of social goods to be produced…without requiring the producers of those goods to be noble, kind, courteous, or altruistic. The supermarket who sold you the loaf of bread did so selfishly. The trucker who transported the bread did so selfishly. The baker who baked the bread did so selfishly. The miller who produced the flour did so selfishly. The farmer who grew the grain did so selfishly. Now, because of all this selfishness and greed, you get to buy your bread at the lowest price in history in absolute terms.
But back to your OP. What is wrong with stealing? After all, what “right” do we human animals have to various chunks of minerals or what have you?
Property rights are a creation of human beings, not gods or deities. In a state of nature, there are no property rights. If you bash Thandarr over the head with your club, you get his stuff. If the Mongol horsemen ride over China, they take the Chinese stuff. We can appeal to their sense of morality, but they won’t listen, we have to fight them for it. So in a natural setting, the owner of an object is the one who can take it and hold it by force.
But, there is a better way. What if everyone in the tribe agreed not to bash each other over the head and take each other’s stuff? If you find something in the forest, you keep it. If you make a basket, you keep it. Other people could take it away from you, but they agree not to…in exchange for you agreeing not to take things away from them. So on a person-to-person level, we agree that not stealing is good, because if we agree to that, our stuff is safe, and we don’t have to fight all the time.
But we also have an incredible social benefit, beyond the individual benefit. We not only benefit because our stuff isn’t stolen, we benefit if our neighbor’s stuff isn’t stolen. How can that be? Well, if the little guys aren’t worried about the big guys taking their stuff, it turns out that they produce more stuff. Why make a basket if Thandarr is just going to take it from you?
Suddenly people are more productive than before. Suddenly we can have division of labor, agriculture, etc etc. None of this is possible if you allow “stealing”.
Why is Russia so poor now? Is it because of capitalism? No, it’s because no one is safe. Their is no protection against theft. Why produce anything if you can’t keep it? Capitalism is impossible without the rule of law. The law doesn’t have to be perfect, but the more sure you are that you will get to keep the fruits of your labor, the more labor you will expend, right?
This is the basic premise of property law. How is it “right” for one person to “own” a piece of land, or a car, or a song, or a factory? We do it that way to maximize the amount of goodies.
Now, intellectual property is the same way. We recognize some things as intellectual property, not because the inventors deserve money or anything, but because if we give inventors more money we get more inventions. Inventors like money, society likes inventions, everyone is happy.
If the laws are used to stifle innovation, then they should be changed. I can’t see any social benefit to allowing patents of business models, for crying out loud. But intellectual property laws don’t have to be perfect…just good enough so that we keep getting more books, more software, more this, more that. It doesn’t matter to me that the innovators are rewarded, it just turns out that this is the best way we’ve discovered to run things.
“I also view it in the same light as terrorism. I understand people’s motivations behind it. I’m not going to condemn the IRA when there are definete reasons behind their actions, at the same time I would argue that terrorism isn’t the righ answer. It tends to isolate you and not gain you the sympathy of others.”
It also tends to hurt and kill people. There are non-violent ways to achieve ones ends: case in point, Gandhi. When one chooses violence to achieve an end, that person says with his/her actions: “My agenda is more important than your right to life (or property, or whatever is on the receiving end of the terrorism).”
true on the terrorism. But, there are two types of violence. The violence of the oppresser and the violence of the oppressed. The violence of the oppressed can be justified. Slave uprising were violent and killed innocent people. However I completely understand them. The violence of the IRA is very very different from the violence of the Protestants and British.
It’s nice that you can divide people into oppressors and oppressed so easily. I don’t see how you can compare the catholics in Northern Ireland to slaves and Protestants to slaveholders.
A slaveholder is a thief…he is taking my labor by force. How is setting bombs in pubs the same thing? Yes, sometimes violence is justified. If someone attacks me, I am justified in fighting back. But I am not justified if I attack other people, am I? What if the guy who attacked me was retaliating against something a third party had done to him? Am I justified in shooting your mother because you shot me? Or am I only justified if I shoot you?
So, if you were sitting in an Northern Ireland pub having a pint, and a bomb went off and maimed you…would it make any difference to you whether it was an IRA bomb or a Ulster bomb?
No. It is not the violent person’s status as oppressor or oppressee that makes it right or wrong. It also counts on what violent acts the person does.