Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Taylor Swift
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Taylor Swift (Read 204 times)
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 9422
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Taylor Swift
Nov 18th, 2019 at 4:16pm
Print Post  
So she's all upset that she doesn't own her first six albums, but neither she nor the media, including Fox News, even mention that her label signed her and took the risk.  She could have owned her music, they would have paid her less.  She wanted more money instead.  That's fine, but now she wants to renege on the deal and own the albums anyway.  Of course they own what they paid her to create as the higher paid employee she chose to be than her taking the risk and reward herself.

It's like LBM wanting to drive on the roads and he does all the time, but not have to pay for them.  She wants to get paid for the albums, then own them anyway.  LBM doesn't want to pay for the roads, then drive on them anyway.
Greed is greed.

And of course Pocahontas smelling a chance to get government in on this proposed legislation regarding artists owning their own material.  If they do that, then they will get PAID LESS.  There is no free lunch.  Democrats are so stupid.   Sheesh, LBM, WTF?  Do you people ever think anything through?
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6240
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Taylor Swift
Reply #1 - Nov 18th, 2019 at 4:49pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 4:16pm:
So she's all upset that she doesn't own her first six albums, but neither she nor the media, including Fox News, even mention that her label signed her and took the risk.  She could have owned her music, they would have paid her less.  She wanted more money instead.  That's fine, but now she wants to renege on the deal and own the albums anyway.  Of course they own what they paid her to create as the higher paid employee she chose to be than her taking the risk and reward herself.


All true.  That is what capitalism is, the company provided everything but the labor and they paid her for it. 

She sure was cute on SNL, though.

Quote:
It's like LBM wanting to drive on the roads and he does all the time, but not have to pay for them.  She wants to get paid for the albums, then own them anyway.  Greed is greed


No, it isn’t like that at all.  I am forced to use the roads that the government built on stolen land using stolen money.  I am blocked in by them.    I cannot even fly an ultralight helicopter to avoid the roads because they are banned in urban areas.

Not wanting to be forced by pay for something I am forced to use is not freeloading, it is an objection to free loading.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 9422
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Taylor Swift
Reply #2 - Nov 18th, 2019 at 4:53pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 4:49pm:
No, it isn’t like that at all.  I am forced to use the roads that the government built on stolen land using stolen money.  I am blocked in by them.    I cannot even fly an ultralight helicopter to avoid the roads because they are banned in urban areas.

Not wanting to be forced by pay for something I am forced to use is not freeloading, it is an objection to free loading.


You ran away last time I asked you this, but how would private roads be any different?  Land is two dimensional.  If Cleetus and Grover own the land next to you, then you are still penned in. 

And how do you own your land anyway?  Who said you own it?  Cleetus and Grover are allying and decided that you're on their land.  They have their friends who agree with them, Smith and Wesson.

Not that it matters anyway, the Chinese, Russians and Canadians are getting ready to invade since we don't have a military.  They aren't as impressed with your dog as you are ...
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6240
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Taylor Swift
Reply #3 - Nov 18th, 2019 at 5:21pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 4:53pm:
You ran away last time I asked you this, but how would private roads be any different?  Land is two dimensional.  If Cleetus and Grover own the land next to you, then you are still penned in. 


For one thing, the owners of privately owned roads would not claim the right to ban me from using my ultralight.  Roads and land are “two dimensional” in the way you mean the word, but travel can be accomplished using the third dimension.

But, yes.  Privately owned roads would block me in.

Which is why I support only allowing land to be owned in parcels that do not block public right-of-way.  I’ve explained this many times, I’m sorry it is too hard for you.

Quote:
And how do you own your land anyway?  Who said you own it?  Cleetus and Grover are allying and decided that you're on their land.  They have their friends who agree with them, Smith and Wesson.


Government was the originator of the concept of privately owned land.  Government started with controlling territory by rulers.  The rulers gave responsibility for sub-territories to vassals.  That was feudalism, the origin of government.  Later, rulers and their vassals realized they could sell parts of their territory to civilians as privately owned land and then they could require the civilians to keep paying them to protect that privilege of owning land.

So, the answer to your question is that government says I own my land.  Since I cannot own land without government, I am perfectly happy to pay for the protection government provides, through a yearly deed registration fee.  You could call that fee a “property tax” and get no argument from me.  So long as government’s only sanction if I fail to pay it is to remove my title to the land that it granted me.

As I have said,  land ownership impedes on the right to travel freely.  It is my one compromise with aggression because land ownership has so many benefits.  It is the foundation of civilization. 

Quote:
Not that it matters anyway, the Chinese, Russians and Canadians are getting ready to invade since we don't have a military.  They aren't as impressed with your dog as you are ...


Happens ALL the time!

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 9422
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Taylor Swift
Reply #4 - Nov 18th, 2019 at 6:09pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 5:21pm:
Which is why I support only allowing land to be owned in parcels that do not block public right-of-way.  I’ve explained this many times, I’m sorry it is too hard for you


LOL, actually, this sailed over YOUR head yet again.  I completely understand the rule you said, what you didn't say is who's going to enforce that?  Who is going to prevent people from owning your "right of way?"  The imaginary police department in your fantasy world?  The one with no money?  There are no police, no cops, no one is interested in begging you for money you aren't going to give them.  There is a security force owned by millionaires.  They're knocking on your door now with an eviction notice.  Cleetus and Grover paid them to do it
.


Little Big Man wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 5:21pm:
Government was the originator of the concept of privately owned land.    Since I cannot own land without government, I am perfectly happy to pay for the protection government provides, through a yearly deed registration fee.  You could call that fee a “property tax” and get no argument from me.  So long as government’s only sanction if I fail to pay it is to remove my title to the land that it granted me


And who is going to make that government's "only sanction?"  The government you won't let build roads because you don't trust them will of course honor your limit on their power.

You show how ridiculously stupid your argument is over and over.  You can't trust limiting government, yet your whole argument is government can be limited
« Last Edit: Nov 19th, 2019 at 6:29am by kaz »  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51229
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Taylor Swift
Reply #5 - Nov 18th, 2019 at 7:24pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 4:16pm:
So she's all upset that she doesn't own her first six albums, but neither she nor the media, including Fox News, even mention that her label signed her and took the risk.  She could have owned her music, they would have paid her less.  She wanted more money instead.  That's fine, but now she wants to renege on the deal and own the albums anyway.  Of course they own what they paid her to create as the higher paid employee she chose to be than her taking the risk and reward herself.

It's like LBM wanting to drive on the roads and he does all the time, but not have to pay for them.  She wants to get paid for the albums, then own them anyway.  LBM doesn't want to pay for the roads, then drive on them anyway.
Greed is greed.

If she owned them, she could lease the rights in various ways... I wonder who advised her?

Of course sometimes a big chunk of guaranteed money up front is the best thing you can do. From time to time, the people guaranteeing that money don't get it back, then you win!

If she sold her songs, and wants to buy them back, I see no problem.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51229
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Taylor Swift
Reply #6 - Nov 18th, 2019 at 8:10pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 4:16pm:
And of course Pocahontas smelling a chance to get government in on this proposed legislation regarding artists owning their own material.  If they do that, then they will get PAID LESS.
Not always. Sometimes retaining ownership will pay off in spades. Smiley

The point is, people must be free to choose. For themselves. Not for others who are not their children.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51229
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Taylor Swift
Reply #7 - Nov 18th, 2019 at 8:22pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
Who is going to prevent people from owning your "right of way?"
Stealing it you mean?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12073
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Taylor Swift
Reply #8 - Nov 18th, 2019 at 9:53pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 5:21pm:
As I have said,  land ownership impedes on the right to travel freely.


Yeah, but... you're really talking about a positive entitlement to get from A to B here. If you really have that, and you wake up one day and decide you want to go to Vulcan, I would have to give you my warp-capable ship.

If a mountain does not aggress upon you by impeding your progress to the other side of it, I would think that property ownership does not aggress upon you either, for the same reason.

Since you already admit that you're compromising with aggression, it doesn't really hurt you that the aggression should be on the other side: The one that wants the strips left be, not the one that allows land claims in the first place.

kaz wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
And who is going to make that government's "only sanction?"  The government you won't let build roads because you don't trust them will of course honor your limit on their power.

You show how ridiculously stupid your argument is over and over.  You can't trust limiting government, yet your whole argument is government can be limited


As far as I see, this refutes every libertarian argument equally. Each wishes the government would play by a certain set of rules and not grow beyond that.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12073
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Taylor Swift
Reply #9 - Nov 18th, 2019 at 10:27pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Nov 18th, 2019 at 4:16pm:
Of course they own what they paid her to create as the higher paid employee she chose to be than her taking the risk and reward herself.


Well, yes. But I think there's still a reasonable discussion to be had about what that ownership means, since it's ownership of something intangible.

IP was only written into law in the first place under the pretence of helping the little guy, who would never be able to profit from his ideas without it. Those with more money, preexisting infrastructure, and bigger established presence in the market would snap it up, produce it better, and the inventor would get nothing.

I, for one, am glad of the pretence, because whether or not it helps "the little guy" I believe it is still property, and ought to have always been considered property. If that argument was needed, so be it. Just keep in mind that once other ways are found to make sure the little guy never profits (like making sure only songs you own are successful, see video) other, less libertarian laws may come about that don't protect property, but instead violate it.

That's why if you're into compromising, I don't think it would be terrible to say that if you own IP, you own some percent (perhaps 50, or even 80) of the profits from the use of that IP, but not the right to flat-out prevent people from using it. I would even support the IP's owner being able to dictate that the copycat can't undercut him, to prevent people from sharing the IP without profit at all and just crashing the value.



(Skip to 13:34 for the relevant bit.)
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Taylor Swift
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy