From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 07:20:24 MST
Michael Dickey wrote:
In what kind of
> situation could anyone ever actually own all the farmland in a
> country? A massive communist or socialist state is the only place in
> which such a thing has ever happened.
Rafal said
"### This is incorrect. There were many despotic monarchies where the king
owned de iure all land, and merely rented it to his vassals. Smaller
countries were frequently owned by a single family. In socialist st"
And Damien said -
"... uh, ever hear of feudalism? The land reforms various Latin American
countries performed in their socialist periods were breaking up the huge
landholdings of colonial times and distributing them to the peasants who'd
been working them."
------------
My apologies, you are of course both correct. So I should have said massive
socialist / communist states or states with corrupt despotic dictators that
do not respect property rights of individuals. Of course this was a minor
point in my post, but thanks for rapidly correcting my error.
Damien, did these 'socialist' land reforms in Latin American countries grant
ownership rights to the peasants?
Without restarting the
> whole bill gates debates, replace him with any wealthy person
> producing a product, and to remove the issue of intellectual property
> rights, consider someone who manufactures lollipops, for instance.
Rafal said - "### This is like saying, let's stop talking about Mr. Dahmer,
replace him
with a man who didn't kill anybody and ate beef only. The irrational,
economically ruinous use of copyright law is the main issue here, not the
exact amount of cash amassed by Mr Gates, to the detriment of the economy."
There seems to be some dispute what the topic is and this thread has
frequently split between the validity of IP laws and the fact that one
person can be allowed to a mass so much wealth. Damien's analogy
specifically compared property ownership with IP laws, I have said all along
that I can not comment to the validity of IP laws, I have heard a lot of
arguments for and against, but have yet to make up my own mind (having a
patent myself, I may be biased). You think the main issue is copyright laws
because that is your area of concern, apparently, but that is not what I
have been arguing. Please re-read the thread and youll see the different
discussions. This discusion may not *to you* be about the ability of a
person to amass wealth, but it was to me and many other people in the
thread. If you think a person has the right to amass a great deal of wealth
without IP rights helping him out, then we are in agreement and can have no
further productive discussion, if your intent is to debate the validity of
IP laws in relation to Gates amassing wealth, I have nothing productive to
add to that discussion either.
For reference sake, the thread started with Alexander Sheppards email
'Replies to Ron h and John Clark regarding the nature of socialism,
capitalism' (continue to read to see the origination of this thread, if
not, disregard the rest of this message)
Michael
------------------------
In which he said "(Reply) Capitalism, as in the modern system of
concentrated industrial control under capitalists (this is different from
pre-capitalist trade or "free markets" as advocated under Smith) has nothing
to do with keeping the fruits of a person's labor. Do you think the fruits
of Bill Gates labor is really all that $50 billion? Nor does socialism,
except possibly for market socialism, which is something an oddity, favor
such a thing. Rather it says (at least if is using self consistent concepts,
that is, libertarian
socialism) that because the distribution of resources necessarily affect the
conditions of the individuals who use them, then if a person has decided to
produce excess resources, then those who are affected by the existance of
lack of such resources ought to able to decide for themselves if they need
them or not (in a way which is reasonably consistent with the needs of the
group)."
To which I replied In the first email titled 'RE: fruits of Bill Gates labor
worth $50 billion'
"Do you think the fruits of Bill Gates labor is really all that $50
billion?"
Do you think that the fruits of his labor are not? If not, how much do you
think they are worth? And how to you justify how much you think they are
worth? Is it just an arbitrary whim? If it is, why is it more valid than
the arbitrary whim of the millions who use the fruits of his labor for their
own productive gain? If 1 million people all think his product is worth 10
dollars to them, then he now would have 10 million dollars. What if 10
million people all think it is worth $100 dollars to them? Who are you to
argue with them? They chose of their own free will to value his product at
$10, or $100. Would you point a gun at their head and force them to
de-value it?
The only options here is a centralized group determining how much his
products are worth, at the end of a gun no less, or each individual deciding
of his own free will how much it is worth to them (by buying or not buying
his product)
----------------
At this point the discussion rapidly segregated into an ethical / unethical
debate of Gates behavior, where I was speaking specifically of an individual
amassing wealth. It is clear from Alexander Shepperds first post that he
was not speaking merely of IP rights, unless he considers 'capitalism' just
another way of saying 'IP rights'
The following two messages of that thread were centered on the ability of an
individual to amass wealth, not IP rights.
Not more than a few messages later in that same thread, I specifically
stated (waaay back on 11/15)
"I have no doubt that many people dislike what Miscrosoft has done and is
doing and what it has done at Gates leading, but this is secondary to the
nature of question that Alexander implied, and I am not informed enough to
intelligently comment on the moral / immoral aspects of Bill's behavior.
Replace Bill Gates with any millionaire or billionaire and ask yourself the
same question that Alexander is asking 'Is his labor really worth $x billion
dollars' and that was the topic of this discussion."
This is exactly why I used the lollipop analogy. This discusion may not *to
you* be about the ability of a person to amass wealth, but it was to me and
many other people in the thread. If you think a person has the right to
amass a great deal of wealth without IP rights helping him out, then we are
in agreement and can have no further productive discussion.
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:37 MST