Armacing

Of course, we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge that Tesla has been a major recipient of government subsidies: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html This is not the kind of clean energy revolution we need... this is another misguided government project.

Rather than refrain from discussing it, why not address the issue head on? Since you love Memphis, you should start a "Memphis v/s Nashville" thread in the coffee house where we can all weigh in and settle this issue once and for all.

Now that you've had the benefit of seeing the dialogue between me and two other posters, how do you feel about the issue of IP?

Finland agrees with you: https://youtu.be/kYpiK3W-g_0

When it comes to fusion, I'll believe it when I see it. They have been saying since the early 1990's that we are on the cusp of a Fusion breakthrough, but so far - nothing. The other thing about Fusion is this: If someone finally cracks the code that will mark the start of human colonization of the moon...because the best source of tritium is the moon. So that's another thing that makes the lack of progress on fusion so frustrating.

I saw the pumps running one time for Pinnacle... I was hoping that was a one-time utility-related problem, but what you say makes sense. That is a major design flaw by the engineers!

I'm disappointed by the fact that we haven't seen the dawn of Nuclear Fusion power within our lifetimes. That would be the holy grail of clean energy because the "waste" material is helium, which is useful at birthday parties. Also, I think more people will be motivated (or forced?) to provide power for their own homes in the future and live "off-grid". Hopefully advances in wind, solar, geothermal, and battery technology will mean the long-term end of things like electrical grids and gas pipelines. Of course, all of this advancement should happen strictly within the framework of the free market, so I am steadfastly against any government incentives or tax breaks to encourage changes in consumer behavior.

I definitely think you should be allowed to earn the maximum income possible from your song-writing skills and the tools you use to perform that trade. However, I don't see an objective reason give preferential treatment to your skills over someone else's skills. Your earnings should be obtained within the framework of peaceful and voluntary trade. If there is someone out there who is talented at recording songs, making copies of songs, and talented at selling copies, then that person should be allowed to perform their trade without interference from the government. If that person has invested in recording equipment and CD-making equipment, then it would be wrong to restrict how that person uses their own property to conduct their business. I would argue that from the perspective of that person, your attempt to take a portion of their earnings through the vehicle of government-enforced IP is more akin to stealing than their sales of your song. Why do I say that? Because you are the one relying on violence (police force) to obtain your money. In contrast, the act of recording a song and selling copies is non-violent.

Always happy to oblige!

Ideas should not be "protected", they should be shared and spread without limitation. When you say "protected" you are talking about the author's income stream. And I'm saying that's up to the author to determine how to leverage their skills in such a way that they obtain monetary gain. It's neither the government's right nor responsibility to help the author earn a living. On the other hand, it *is* the government's responsibility to make sure nobody is treading on the rights (life, liberty, property) of the author and preventing them from earning a living. See the difference? By the way... when I say "Property", I mean physical property that can be exclusively possessed by an individual. Ideas and information are not physical property - anybody can possess, share, and use them - either altruistically or for monetary gain. We need to look at this phrase again because it is so interesting to see how you think about this subject. The order in which they are written is just the syntax of the language. How can you say that is not an "idea" in the classical sense of the word? Are words not first formulated in the mind before they are written? Sorry, I put this in an edit of my previous post after you had already started responding. Here's what I said: Why don't they wait for someone else to publish it? At that point, the market would already be flush with your new novel and the competitor publishing house would be playing catch-up. Yes, they can do it, sure, but so much of a publisher's reputation comes from publishing new material by in-demand authors. A lot of consumers want the book right away and don't want to wait for the knock-off copies to come out. Some consumers who want to pay less will wait for the price to come down - maybe that even results in a wider pool of interested readers who decide to buy the next book right away for the extra cost. Now adding something new to this section: When you say "some publishers in this scenario might pay an author something" - THAT. That right there is the author's income, as dictated by the free market. At least as far as we have been able to imagine within the post-IP publishing industry hypothetical scenario we have constructed. Maybe other revenue streams for the author would arise in the real world, but absent that, you have identified a way for authors to still get paid. Would they like to be paid more for the work they do? Yes, but as the saying goes: "Join the club".

It only sounds ludicrous to you because you have been indoctrinated your entire life to believe otherwise. In your book scenario, please tell me why someone with a photocopy machine can produce books cheaper than you and your publishing house can. Using a copier to produce books en masse sounds ludicrous to me - yet that is the scenario you have presented. Why would a publishing house pay authors? Oh, I don't know, maybe to have new literature to publish, which is demanded by consumers? Edit: Expanding on that last part: Why don't they wait for someone else to publish it? At that point, the market would already be flush with your new novel and the competitor publishing house would be playing catch-up. Yes, they can do it, sure, but so much of a publisher's reputation comes from publishing new material by in-demand authors. A lot of consumers want the book right away and don't want to wait for the knock-off copies to come out. Some consumers who want to pay less will wait for the price to come down - maybe that even results in a wider pool of interested readers who decide to buy the next book right away for the extra cost.

A copyright is just a patent for a particular type of product. The difference is purely in terminology, but the economic scenario is identical: right to produce a CD, right to publish a book, right to provide an online streaming service and make ad revenue. It all involves "IP owners" asking the government to stop someone from engaging in their business activities that involves using their property and skills. It really speaks to the level of indoctrination we (as Americans) have been subjected to because the knee-jerk reaction is "hey, that song is not their property, it belongs to the artist". The harsh reality is that is just simply not true. Anyone who proposes to make their living off of a product or service that is easily copied bears the responsibility for figuring out how to bring that product/service to market in a profitable way. It is not the government's responsibility to ensure the success of any one business or industry. Everyone needs to figure out their own business model in the free market without the exclusive legal right to engage in a given trade. If they succeed (which is not guaranteed), it will be due to their own hard work, skill, business acumen, and as always - a little bit of luck. Ahh, but you have glossed over the fundamental (and crucial) difference between a "de facto" monopoly and a "de jure" monopoly. If a monopoly happens to arise in a free market that must mean that the monopoly organization has found a way to provide the product or service better and cheaper than anyone else. If they ever falter in that role, the market will encourage competitors to rise and de-throne the market leader. In contrast, a government-enforced monopoly can persist as long as their political influence allows them to, regardless of their efficiency or how well they serve the consumer. Soviet Union, anyone? No, this doesn't follow at all from what I said. If a person is a talented artist they just need to be part of an organization (or have a business relationship with one) that has the technical and commercial capability to profitably bring the artist's work to market and fend off competitors. The answer is more business, not more government. Would that mean more work for the artist? Maybe... but it's a small price to pay for freedom. Exactly! See? You do understand. Uhh, correction. *You* are the one who is artificially using government police power to shift "wealth and power" away from the default free market structure into the hands of the "IP owner". Your comment about how wealth and power would shift away from the IP owner is merely an acknowledgement of the fact that IP represents a granting of monopoly rights to the IP owner by the government. Yes- absolutely - guilty as charged. I'm advocating taking away this government granted monopoly and all of the wealth and power that comes with it. But if you think a couple steps ahead you will realize that the party to benefit from this change is not the manufacturer or the retailer; it's really the consumer. That happens today even with IP. Actually, the problem you describe above may be made worse by IP. Ever heard of Patent Trolls? Except today all the money and effort goes towards lawyers and legal battles. At least in my scenario all of the money and effort goes towards trying to please the consumer and corner the market. A focus on freedom.

That's cool. Sincere question here: How do you reconcile the live and let live approach with the government-enforced monopoly attributes of today's IP system?

When they say "activations" are the talking about contracting multiple-drug-resistant tuberculosis? I can't tell from the flyer...

Can you imagine if we get cranes up for MGM, Amazon 2, Alcove, Gibson, and Prime all at the same time? We would have to re-name that neighborhood "Little Dubai".

I hadn't been to The Arcade in over a year, but I went there a couple weeks ago and here are my observations: 1) Phillyman Cheese Steak - out of business 2) Jimbo's Sushi - closed but apparently planning to re-open later? 3) Red Perch Australian Fish - out of business 4) House of Pizza - Still in business, but the lunch crowd was very small. Dinning room closed, so it is carry-out only now. Also, they fired all of their employees and only family members work there now. 5) Ethiopian Restaurant - out of business 6) Urban Juicer - still in business 7) Kitchen Downtown - still in business 8) J. Gumbo's - still in business 9) Random Hot Dog restaurant (can't remember the name) - still in business 10) Maggie's Cafe - still in business 11) Gyro place (can't remember name) - still in business 12) Oriental Lunch - out of business (I think, memory fuzzy on this one) Also, not in the Arcade but near the 4th Ave. entrance: 13) Khan's Mongolian BBQ - closed for lunch now, but apparently they still open for dinner. 14) BAAM Burger - out of business Further down 4th Ave. : 15) Dunn Bros. Coffee - out of business

You've got it backwards. Ultimately it comes back to freedom, and the money it brings. If they resident's property rights had never been taken away by the government (zoning laws), then the resident would have the freedom to utilize their property in a way that benefits them the most.

First off I will say that there is disagreement among libertarians about IP, but based on my time at the Mises Institute, there are a good many libertarians within the Austrian Economics sect of the party that strongly disagree with the concept of intellectual property. It breaks down like this: 1) Each person has the right to think any ideas they want, so right off the bat the term "intellectual property" is misleading because you can't own an idea. 2) Each person has the right to engage in free & peaceful trade with other members of society by using the property they own and the skills they have to meet consumer's needs in the market. 3) Throughout human history, humans have exchanged ideas and learned new techniques from others. Indeed, the whole point of competition in the market is based on one business finding a better way to serve customers, and then customers favor that business, thus causing other businesses to also begin offering the service/product that is demanded by customers - - possibly at a lower price than the first business that had the original idea. Thus consumers get more of what they want at a cheaper price, which is basically the entire reason why competition is so good for consumers. 4) What is IP, really? Actually, it is a government-enforced monopoly for one party who has enough resources to cover high legal fees and navigate the bureaucracy to obtain their monopoly. All of that effort and expense to obtain and maintain the monopoly provides zero value to the consumer. 5) Why does someone claiming IP need a monopoly? Basically, because they are terrible at bringing the product they invented to market. Proponents of IP often admit this when they say "without IP the inventor wouldn't be able to recoup the cost of their R&D". Think about that statement for a second. Even if they are first to market with a valuable new product/service, they are still unable to use that advantage to create a profitable business? Why should the government grant a monopoly to someone so incompetent? 6) "But Armacing, if someone just copies that new idea they can sell it for less because they don't have any R&D cost to pay back, so nobody will ever innovate due to lack of pay-back" OK, let's run with that argument: Say I come up with a new product and I don't patent it. Then I start selling it and within a month I notice that you have copied my design 100% and are selling the exact same product for half the price. Funny thing about that: When I first brought the product to market my profit margin was 500% because of no competition. But now I need to cut my margin to at least 250% to match your price. I'm still making money, still earning back the cost of R&D. But maybe I decide to drive you out of business, so I lower my profit margin to 100%. Oops, looks like you can't make money at that price because you suck at manufacturing, so now you are gone and maybe I raise the price to 150% margin and see if you come back or not.... nope, you didn't come back. How about 175%? Hey, you're back in business and matching my price. So, back down to 150% and you're gone again. Basically I found out what your cost of production was and drove you out of business, but I still have a margin - still winning! 7) "But Armacing, what if I actually lower my price below your cost of production after I stole your idea" Well this one is easy: That means that I suck at manufacturing and the market needs you to put me out of business so your company can be the one to bring this in-demand product to market at the lowest possible price. If the government keeps me in business with a monopoly in that case they would only be propping up an inefficient manufacturer who is not serving the consumer with the best product at the best price, thus waste & inefficiency creep into the system and everyone's standard of living has been lowered. As always, whenever violence is introduced into the peaceful free market (in this case, patents are enforced by government police power), the result is a diminished capacity for wealth-creation in the economy due to inefficient allocation of scarce resources. 8) What does all that mean? If all laws related to IP were repealed, a certain small number of people would be poorer, but society at large would be richer. However, I should state here that I don't favor the elimination of IP on the grounds that it raises the standard of living (even though it would). I oppose IP because it is an authoritarian restriction (enforced by violence) on the freedom of individuals to peacefully engage in free trade using all private property and skills they have at their disposal. That ideal is a fundamental right regardless of any particular economic outcome.

Good points, and you're probably right. Also, I find it notable that you mentioned Air BNB's as a pro for Nashville considering all the effort the city has made to limit the number of Air BNB's. Personally, I think all of the anti-Air BNB regulations are promoted by the hotel industry in Nashville. No joke, I was downtown a week ago and I saw an actual pile of feces on the 5th Avenue sidewalk.

I love how there is just one ray of light shining onto this collection of glass blocks that appear to be purposefully arranged to look haphazardly strewn across the floor. The artistic qualities of this photo make it both one of the best and funniest pictures I have seen on here in a while... to say nothing of the context of the discussion. Bravo!

Did Tony run out of funding or something? I just get nervous when these excavated sites suddenly look abandoned. Probably PTSD from the whole Lake Palmer fiasco... but then again.... across the street is the abandoned MGM excavation. The fear is real!!

I guess bachelorettes are Nashville's target demo, but honestly I can't figure out why the come here. Is it all just hype and marketing, or is there something about Nashville that is intrinsically conducive to a successful bachelorette party?

I am also in favor of it. I just found it odd that the poster would bring up Barcelona out of nowhere... like is that just a place they went on vacation or do they really keep up with what's going on there? There's a libertarian thread in the coffee house, I just bumped it to the top by responding to some old posts. I'm always up for a discussion on any topic there!

You just have to keep voting Libertarian in every election and tell your friends & neighbors to do the same. Then one day: Boom. You can buy your fentanyl and cocaine at Walgreens. Did you mean to write "Love Government"? What does "Live government mean"? But, no, I do not love government, and that should be obvious based on the title of this thread.

They are not "destroying" other retailers. They are out-competing them. Destroying them would be setting fire to their stores or lobbying the government to put their competitors out of business. Simply convincing consumers to switch to Amazon cannot be described as "destroying" other retailers. The market is supposed to work that way. Consumers make the choice of who grows and who shrinks, not retailers. Lot's of retailers were way bigger than Amazon for decades... why didn't they launch an online retailing platform and conquer that space before Amazon? Answer: Lack of creativity and stagnant corporate culture/structure that punished innovation and rewarded Yes-Men who said that everyone above them was always right. Those are precisely the same things holding them back from competing with Amazon today and those are precisely the reasons they deserve to go out of business if they can't keep up with Amazon. As a consumer, I can't wait for the day my purchases are delivered by drone. But I could really care less if it's an Amazon drone or a Dollar General drone... so word of advice to any retailer that wants to beat Amazon: Be first with the drones!