Posts Tagged politics

The Lost Art of Sharing

Where do the lines stand? We now live in an age where borrowing, copying and reusing creative works is the rule. From music remix culture to the more current trend in lifting authored written works for use in new publications, the boundaries of fair use and appropriation are blurred through the lens of this new participatory culture.

As the debate stands, there are quite a few sides to join. In this essay we will examine the scope of the copyleft movement and identify the beneficial aspects of adopting a Creative Commons-style approach to appropriation. In doing so, we will gain support from original copyright provisions in the United States Constitution as well as current real-life examples of the benefits. In appropriation of others’ works, it is important to respect the copyright holder’s rights. At the same time, in order for creative culture to progress, creators must be open to allowing their works to be referenced, used, and incorporated into new art forms.

Modern copyright law is a far cry from its roots, and provisions on fair use are not so fair. The United States Constitution declares,

“The Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (Article I, Section 8, emphasis mine)”

Today, copyright provisions last too long and in turn stifle the “Progress of Science and useful Arts.” In 1998 the time limit became the life of the author (or creator) plus 70 years with the passing of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. As Marc Garcelon (2009) points out, this is far longer than the “original 14-year limit that copyright established in 1790 (p. 1308).” In doing so, Congress further blurred the distinction between ideas and expression that Thomas Jefferson originally intended in writing the constitution (p. 1308). (more…)

On the New Health Care Law

I was going to write out a nice post with a summation of the things I don’t like about the new bill-become-law, but you know what? Other people have written these thoughts down in better ways than I will, expressing the same concerns and informing new ones that I have. I’ve written in the past about how I am not a fan of government-run health care. This isn’t to say I am against universal health care in general–it’s just that I have little faith in central government to dish it out fairly, cost-effectively, and beneficially. Why is that? Look at their track record with other programs.

Dr. John Mark Reynolds wrote a great overview of why he supports universal health care–just not the current health care legislation. He mentions something about Conservatives that I think is worth quoting because around these decision-times there tend to be memes that start floating around that over-generalize the Conservative mindset (note: I mean actual Conservativism–not the fiscally irresponsible, arrogant shell of the past decade’s Conservative thought). I don’t consider myself a full-on Conservative, but I definitely lean toward proven values and responsibility. Here is that piece, and I’d encourage you to read the rest of his reasons.

Conservatives are not all libertarians. We recognize that some government help may be necessary, but also know that at some point help becomes a hindrance. Health care is not the only good thing in a society. There are also the values of the soul: liberty and happiness. It is the American and Christian idea that too much government can stifle the soul of a man.

Why I Support Universal Health Care – The Scriptorium Daily, John Mark Reynolds

Time to Weigh In

Well, everyone else is talking about economics and the stuff going on with the now $838 billion stimulus bill, I figure after a few Twitter conversations I should weigh in a little. Because, as @matthewgood says: Everyone is a macroeconomics expert right now.

And he’s right. The past few weeks and even back before the first bailout was issued, everyone was espousing their ideas, waxing intellectual on the topics of how the government should spend money, where it should go, how big that number should be, etc. There are a few differing camps and they seem, often times, to be broken up between the more liberal and more conservative. That line between Democrat and Republican is always rough and each side claims to have proven results in their case.

As far as macroeconomics go, it’s pretty simple really. While in Washington state last month, I talked to my cousin Josh (who has a doctorate in political science and teaches at SUNY Buffalo) about this stuff a bit. We carried the conversation over to facebook via a few articles we’d read, and he explained that it doesn’t really matter where the money goes or how it’s spent, it just matters that it is. “It’s Keynesian economics 101,” he told me. Just by spending that money – wherever it may go – we’ll increase GDP and thus revive the economy.

I trust my cousin more than most people on these issues–mainly because he’s been into politics for as long as I’ve known him, and now has a doctorate in poli-sci–but, being me, have to question that line of thinking. Now, there may not be a question of whether spending that money will start some motion, the question lies in how effiicient that spending is going to be. Because large spending didn’t seem to help out during the Great Depression or with the New Deal, didn’t help during the Panic of 1893, and hasn’t helped more recently with stimulus checks and automotive bailouts.

The two differing sets of ideology are summarily this:

Free Markets should exist outside of government meddling and be allowed to run their courses no matter what.
Government should have a say in how Free Markets are run and step in at any time to fix things.

I am not opposed to government regulation, but I am opposed to bad, arbitrary government meddling. A lot of our problems now are due to 1.) The unethical behaviour of those with the most power (I lump in certain politicians), and 2.) Poor or inefficient regulation. I think regulation can be good, if it’s done intelligently. But so far, we don’t seem to have a good track record with knowing how to regulate markets effectively. This has gotten to the point where we now need to re-regulate our regulations in order to fix what’s been screwed up in the first place by regulatory legislation.

So, starting with the first problem I’ve pointed out above, those with financial power have abused the markets to better their positions. This is seen in the mortgage crisis, bad loans, automotive collapse, the stock markets, etc. In a capitalistic system of free markets, you would normally allow this collapse to take place in order to build a better system the next time around. That’s the phenomenon that will inevitably happen in a system left to its own devices.

Here in America though, we believe everything has to be constant (except, apparently when it comes to presidential campaign marketing – though that’s another topic for another time), so we meddle with those markets by instituting legislation. Sometimes it works, more often than not it just bogs down the system, making things more expensive. We push legislation into effect to stop global climate change – regardless of whether the science is *actually* valid, and regardless of whether it matters. We think we have to keep a static system, that any change is bad.

I contend that when industries or companies fail due to their misdeeds, newer, better, more innovative identities will take their places. That’s how the system is supposed to work. GM goes under because their cars aren’t selling. Their cars aren’t selling because the company hasn’t been smart enough to make the cars people want to buy. Whose fault is that? Who should take responsibility? If they disappear will not a newer, smarter, more appealing car manufacturer take their place?

Instead we take tax-payer money and put it back into an industry, that has been failing for a while, to keep it alive just a few more years. To give them another chance. That’s not responsibility, that’s stupidity. That’s gambling. (more…)

Throwing Money Doesn’t Fix the Problem

I’ve had this discussion with a few people, including my good friend Danny, and keep coming back to the point that spending more money has not yet helped in times of economic crisis. Bush shouldn’t have thrown money at the problem with his “economic stimulus plan”, no bailout has helped, and now our leaders are trying to pass a plan to spend, at the moment, $800 billion. That will surely rise to over $1 trillion after everyone get their say, their earmarks, their pork.

I still don’t understand why the President’s (any President) economic advisers are given more weight that Nobel Prize winners, active researchers, and other leading economists who have no party affiliation and no reason to spread doom and gloom.

More money hasn’t yet fixed the problem. Not now, not during the Great Depression, not during the Panic of 1893. We need smart, efficient spending, tax cuts, regulation reform/scaling back, and we need businesses who made poor decisions to be allowed to fail.

CATO took out this ad yesterday and I thought it was pretty interesting. Click the link to see the 200 signatures of economists who signed the petition.

Fiscal Reality Central.

“There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.”

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

On This Inauguration Day

Remember:

Image

Funny

Signs of the Times

Some cartoons for you.

When Reality Becomes a Dream

“When you choose to serve — whether it’s your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood — you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That’s why it’s called the American dream.” source

Barack Obama’s new (and fantastically designed, I might add) change.gov is messing with us. That, or his team is pretty confused about dreams vs. reality. Apparently, according to them, the guarantee to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that was written into the Declaration of Independence is a dream. The American Dream.

But that isn’t the American Dream and never has been. Looking past the fact that they are turning a reality into their version of compulsory volunteerism, we have problems with history. “The American Dream” has always been about upward mobility.

“The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

-James Truslow Adams, (Epic of America, 1931)

Adams happened to have coined that term, “The American Dream.” Now, instead of perpetuating the ability for any American to make whatever they want of themselves “regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position,” we will be brought to one level – or at least be brought closer to that one level.

Through taxation and redistribution of wealth to welfare programs and doing to college what we’ve done to the public school system, all men will not just be created equal, they will all be on the same level.

That’s not my real point though. My main point is that Obama’s team has a misunderstanding of these phrases they are throwing around. That, or they are hoping to continue rewriting the expectations and understanding of the American people, many of whom voted based on an image, a race, or the chance to “be a part of history.”

Quote

The bad news for us is that your “supporters” already have their grimy hands out and they are awaiting their “daily bread” which will be systematically (read: illegally.) taken from those who used to work for themselves and their families, but who now unfortunately work for your collectivist liberal government.

source