I never even thought about this until I read this over at the Daily Paul. Jon Stewart to Ron Paul: Is there an example in history of free market working? | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty
Yea...as if the government doesn't regulate PayPal through 3 separate agencies and force it to fine and reimburse certain customers according to guidelines set by the FDIC. Not sure if I'm missing something, but this article is quite ridiculous..should be taken off the Daily Paul site, it makes supporters of the free-market look uneducated.
A good example of a free market would ironically be the OWS camp at Zucotti Park. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpPoGkwx6OE]Anarcho-Capitalism at #OWS - YouTube[/ame]
I honestly had no idea there were any regulations on the internet in the us...can I get some links or something.
The Internet is unregulated. Most of them still think it's a mystery box with series of tubes. The rate of progress on the Internet outpaces the rate at which they can create legislation. I would cite SOPA as an example of legislation meant to regulate the Internet. That's their foothold. If they can justify that, they can justify shutting down foreign book sites, pharma sites, hell even wikipedia could be in trouble for copyrighted material. The Internet is an excellent example, up til recently they've tried to apply regular law to the Internet and they just don't have the power to do so
your freedom is already being violated due to megacorporations selling and trading your personal data... sorry to say but there's a 95% chance anyone can find your SSN and much more online due to the negligence corporations practice.
If your not from the US then I guess this is understandable. Ever hear of Napster? Boom regulated. There are far more examples. I would recommend trying this neat little invention called Google.
Of course Napster was shut down. Free markets do not allow pirates to steal from the productive members of society.
But if you want to talk about the free market: "Copying isn't theft, and it isn't piracy. It's what we did for millennia until the invention of copyright, and we can do it again, if we don't hobble ourselves with the antiquated remnants of a censorship system from the sixteenth century." — Karl Fogel Copyright infringement is not stealing, and copyright law is against the free market: it is a system government sponsored monopolies. Copyright law is routinely abused to suppress free speech and other individual freedoms, it is abused by recording companies to exploit artists, it is abused by governments to control information. Copyright law is not only evil, it is also stupid, and should be ignored by anyone that believes in a free society and free markets. Bach, Shakespeare and Michelangelo didn't need copyright, we don't need copyright. Copyright infringement is a victim-less crime, nobody has a right to have a monopoly on ideas or information, you have a right to keep your ideas and information private, but if you make them public, they are not your private property anymore. Copyright also is in direct conflict with one of the most fundamental principles of a free society: free speech. Copyright has been used again and again to censor and silence critics, once more failing its supposed real purpose.m
I've tried googling it, but I haven't really found anything. Obviously I would try there first before waiting for someone to respond on a forum lol And basically from what I can tell, the internet is hardly regulated. It may be a little bit, but not even fucking close to off the internet. You can set up a website, put products up for sale, and you could run a business off the web without complying with any regulations basically. If you're in the US do you have to pay taxes if you did something like that? I am correct or is this not true?
I respect people who believe this is a violation but I just don't see how. You voluntarily go online and to their sites, you have the options to browse anonymously and private information, like SSNs, just aren't that freely available. If Facebook just made all their data on their users open to anyone people would STILL have the freedom to leave or stay. I think maybe you think corporations are more powerful than they really are. Maybe the security they have in place is just the best they can do?
PayPal Confident in Meeting Regulatory Challenges That article is from 2005, I can only imagine what they're doing now.. Who exactly is they?? If you're referring to Congress, it doesn't matter what they know about the internet. The sponsors of the bill will work with committee consultants and reps from the DHS, FDIC, etc. How do you think they pass bills relating to other subjects? Do they really know anything about horizontal fracture drilling or clay farming or solar distillation?? But I do agree with SOPA being a failure, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is pretty much the same thing and any sites that have been shut down through the DMCA have reopened under private domains...
This guy was one of them but he's no longer with us: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE]Series of Tubes - YouTube[/ame] And you're right, the lobbyists write the law. I suppose my point is that legislation on it won't really move forward until the politicians know enough about the Internet to know how much they can milk the lobbyists for. Right now the longer they hold out the more they can get. As soon as one bill gets through the value of that corruption goes down. Basic S&D. After one passes there will be a surge of Internet legislation that goes through as politicians try to get as much as they can before it devalues.
Seriously dude!!! That sounds like a free loader mentality. They are going to call you a liberal or Democrat soon. I think there should be time limits on copyright so that an individual CAN benefit from his idea for a period, THEN the gloves come off. Yes, AND Bach, Shakespeare and Michelangelo died poor! So the guy who invents the engine that runs on water, should NOT get any benefit in your world?? That's messed up!!
Democrats and Republicans are both huge supporters of copyright. The poster is right, copyright is an artificial invention that creates an artificial level of demand by restricting the supply of goods/services. They do have time limits to things like patents. I don't think cancer sufferers would be too pleased having to wait for the patent to wear off to get access to a patented cure for cancer. You don't need a copyright to benefit from your invention. Even now, most inventors don't see the majority of the profits from their inventions. I imagine he benefits from his engine that runs on water. It's not for us to decide what he deserves for his invention, he only deserves what people are willing to give him. For me, the patent and copyright argument is old and defeated. No one is born with thoughts or ideas in their mind, the ideas and things you produce are largely the result of influences outside yourself. The majority of inventions today rely on knowledge pioneered in the past - why don't those people who contribute get a cut of the copyright or patent? How could you ever patent a song on an electric guitar without giving Les Paul a cut? How could you credit Les Paul with crediting Edison? How could you credit Edison without who the heck invented math? Knowledge is the culmination of man's progress while on this planet. Restricting access to any of it is an unnatural crime in my mind.