CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is this a fault of government or bureaucracy?
Technically, any lemonade stand -- even one on your front lawn -- must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state's public health division. But county inspectors are unlikely to go after kids selling lemonade on their front lawn unless, he conceded, their front lawn happens to be on Alberta Street during Last Thursday.
When I first heard this story, I thought to myself, "it must be a joke" and then, "the libertarians are going to have a heyday with this."
So, as the story illustrates, in some cases government bureaucrats seem to apply the full letter of the law even in obviously touchy situations. What do you, the CreateDebate community think of this? Is it the fault of poor regulations? Lack of common sense? Too much government? Not enough oversight? Media picking up and emphasising any story? Let's hear your opinions.
I could go either way on the idea of needing certification to run a commercial operation at a public event.
But regardless, in edge cases like this, it comes down to the individual. No system of rules can replace an intelligent judge. The inspector just made a bad call. I'm gonna go with "Lack of common sense".
But regardless, in edge cases like this, it comes down to the individual. No system of rules can replace an intelligent judge. The inspector just made a bad call. I'm gonna go with "Lack of common sense".
This is what I was thinking. It often seems in these situations that an idiot was behind the clipboard, or a greenhorn.
The real fault falls burden onto the government; it is the incompetent elected officials, who are on a perpetual crusade for government expansion at all corners of life. The bureaucrat stooge was just doing his job and following protocol, but he was applying the law in touchy situations in abusive manners by attacking a seven year old girl. This is pretty typical of government.
Applying the full letter of the law even in touchy situations goes both directions, there is government abuse as was in this case and this case as well as government negligence where government completely ignores the law for special backroom deals.
The government abuse is exceedingly obvious and overt, and it represents an obvious correlation of overbearing government regulation. These meaningless regulations typically targets minor offensives.
Unfortunately, the little girl saw first hand the abusive power of the government where only the government grants permission to who will be offering goods and services even though people are willing to pay.
Not only does the government regulate commerce on the supply side, but the new health care bill is only the beginning of regulating commerce on the demand side.
The bureaucrat stooge was just doing his job and following protocol, but he was applying the law in touchy situations in abusive manners by attacking a seven year old girl. This is pretty typical of government.
Couldn't it just be a case of individual stupidity rather than an indicator of a common issue?
Applying the full letter of the law even in touchy situations goes both directions, there is government abuse as was in this case and this case as well as government negligence where government completely ignores the law for special backroom deals.
This gets back to a discussion we had earlier, barriers to entry. Wealthy businesses may fund or back laws and regulations which make it prohibitively difficult for entering a market niche because they can afford to pay the expenses while small businesses cannot.
Unfortunately, the little girl saw first hand the abusive power of the government where only the government grants permission to who will be offering goods and services even though people are willing to pay.
It may be the case here, that while the bureaucrat took the blame for lack of sense, he merely serves as a shield to the powers that be which create these regulations out of malice.
Not only does the government regulate commerce on the supply side, but the new health care bill is only the beginning of regulating commerce on the demand side.
The new health care bill on the other hand makes sweeping reforms that help most consumers and workers.
Couldn't it just be a case of individual stupidity rather than an indicator of a common issue?
How can you blame the little guy? Where was the union to protect this poor soul? You always support the little guy, yet you blame him because of the bureaucrat mess of red tape due to inept high government officials who think more rules and regulations are the solution yet the problem. Again, where is it his fault? I am sure the rules and regulations mention please avoid all 7 year old girl lemonade stands.
Wealthy businesses may fund or back laws and regulations which make it prohibitively difficult for entering a market niche because they can afford to pay the expenses while small businesses cannot.
This I agree. Good, you are now understanding the underwriting of a private monopoly.
It may be the case here, that while the bureaucrat took the blame for lack of sense, he merely serves as a shield to the powers that be which create these regulations out of malice.
Blaming the little guy is unproductive and passes the buck. The biggest problem with government particularly from my standpoint is the lack of responsibility and blame of incompetence and unproductive laws or regulations.
No one is to take blame except the little guy because everyone passes the buck, and nothing changes to fix the problem; thus it continues.
The new health care bill on the other hand makes sweeping reforms that help most consumers and workers.
Not when the Republicans take the House in November, and it is repeal it.
Not that I am Republican.
Plus, it regulates or forces commerce of the demand side; that is irrefutable. The government loves to regulate the market.
How can you blame the little guy? Where was the union to protect this poor soul? You always support the little guy, yet you blame him because of the bureaucrat mess of red tape due to inept high government officials who think more rules and regulations are the solution yet the problem. Again, where is it his fault? I am sure the rules and regulations mention please avoid all 7 year old girl lemonade stands.
She (the inspector) could have exercised common sense.
This I agree. Good, you are now understanding the underwriting of a private monopoly.
As long as you understand that they also form as the wealthy naturally buy government favours too.
Blaming the little guy is unproductive and passes the buck. The biggest problem with government particularly from my standpoint is the lack of responsibility and blame of incompetence and unproductive laws or regulations.
We can always file complaints and get them fired, though...
Not when the Republicans take the House in November, and it is repeal it.
I hope not. However Republicans as of late are more about serving their financial interests (which happen to be businesses like insurance companies that fund them).
Plus, it regulates or forces commerce of the demand side; that is irrefutable. The government loves to regulate the market.
Remember what I said though. Businesses like to regulate the market, they use government to accomplish this and the government takes the blame.
She (the inspector) could have exercised common sense.
If it is common sense, what is the need of the rules and regulations?
As long as you understand that they also form as the wealthy naturally buy government favours too.
Sure, in the tax code, not regulations.
I hope not. However Republicans as of late are more about serving their financial interests (which happen to be businesses like insurance companies that fund them).
The new health care bill will only increase premiums. How? If you demand more coverage, it costs more. Just like if you buy auto insurance with all the benefits, it costs more.
Businesses like to regulate the market, they use government to accomplish this and the government takes the blame.
Of course, business wants to regulate the market, businesses want to corner the market share, yet the only way to accomplish this is with the help of the government because laws and regulations hinders competition.
Government should take the blame because of continuously failed laws and regulations, the government is so stupid to understand this.
If it is common sense, what is the need of the rules and regulations?
Rules and regulations keep people in line when something they do is against the wishes of the majority.
Sure, in the tax code, not regulations.
Serious question: have you ever followed copyright with relationship to the internet and peer-to-peer networks?
P2P threatens the model of a number of invested companies, and so they have been lobbying for about two decades to create more invasive copyright laws. For example, it used to be that they had to establish your guilt in the traditional legal sense, but then simple IP addresses became admissible evidence. Then it became a crime to even discuss how to circumvent copy-protections, let alone actively removing or breaking them. Now they are forcing ISPs to monitor your traffic for copyrighted works, and websites like youtube are culpable if someone uploads copyrighted content to them.
What has this done? The internet has the potential to bring cultural items like music, games, videos and books to everyone in unlimited quantities. It is a disruptive technology. However the wealthy powers that be have way, way more say in the matter than the hundreds of millions of people who share copyrighted works every day. Something that could sate our collective greed has been made illegal, and the means to take the production of arts from companies back to individuals has been fraught with lawsuits.
The new health care bill will only increase premiums. How? If you demand more coverage, it costs more. Just like if you buy auto insurance with all the benefits, it costs more.
It eliminates a number of loopholes that companies were using to disqualify people, and it forces large businesses to provide benefits. Both of these things are not in the interests of insurance companies, because the first causes them to cover more people they are opposed to, and the second introduces competition with them, as I understand it.
Of course, business wants to regulate the market, businesses want to corner the market share, yet the only way to accomplish this is with the help of the government because laws and regulations hinders competition.
Government should take the blame because of continuously failed laws and regulations, the government is so stupid to understand this.
If businesses involve government then no matter how free the market is initially, it will become regulated. The failed laws and regulations are often due to business interests. If we divorced business from government, like how we divorce religion from government, the problem could be fixed.
If businesses involve government then no matter how free the market is initially, it will become regulated.
Business only involves government to gain advantage in the market. That is why they seek government bailouts and regulations.
The failed laws and regulations are often due to business interests.
Wrong, who writes and enacts the laws? Government. Government thinks the need of regulations are important because they believe that they smartest people in the world, but time and time again, they have always failed miserably.
If we divorced business from government, like how we divorce religion from government, the problem could be fixed.
Government out of business and religion out of government is good, but religion is not the problem of the world, the problem is lack of freedom and liberty in free markets.
Since globalization, it has allowed most humans to pursue their own interests freed humans from wars except for those who people create wars within their own minds such as Bush in Iraq and Obama in Afghanistan. Free markets allow people who hate one another can trade peacefully, and that is the power of the market. During the Cold War, nobody traded goods or services among enemies. WHY? NO FREE TRADE
Gee, thanks for the defintion of rules and regulations.
The minority is at the mercy of the incompetent majority.
You asked a question and I answered it.
Do you think it is right to steal their intellectual property?
They defined the concept of copying their files as theft both legally and culturally using their influence over media and lawmakers.
Most people do not seem to feel it is theft, or that if it is theft, the crime is unimportant because the company loses no property or wealth in the process (the thing about data is that copying it doesn't delete the source, and the copier pays for his own bandwidth).
In other words, the internet changed everything here.
P2P is stealing property.
I'm surprised that you, mister stereotypical libertarian, would think this. After all, in a free market, P2P would be considered a disruptive technology that delivers digital goods in far higher quality, and unlimited quantity compared to the business model of hard media that these companies were using.
You should be arguing in favour of P2P because even if it is theft, you are amoral and theft doesn't matter to you as long as it isn't your own property, since you're also selfish. Since you're selfish, you should be perfectly happy with P2P, since it gives you whatever you want with no regard for others' opinions.
Basically, you're arguing for regulations and government intervention by calling P2P theft. A free market doesn't care about Intellectual Property, since that is an abstract concept that exists purely as regulation.
Private companies ration care, but the government rations care as well.
You're talking about Medicare and Medicaid right? That's part of it, the bill didn't introduce them but put more money towards them, as well as adding restrictions to private coverage.
Business only involves government to gain advantage in the market. That is why they seek government bailouts and regulations.
Correct, so a free market must become a regulated market naturally.
Wrong, who writes and enacts the laws? Government. Government thinks the need of regulations are important because they believe that they smartest people in the world, but time and time again, they have always failed miserably.
Remember what you said previously:
Business only involves government to gain advantage in the market. That is why they seek government bailouts and regulations.
They seek privileges from government and this leads to unfair laws and regulations, protectionism, barriers to entry, and a bloated system, which you blame on government alone when it's clear that the businesses are pulling the strings.
Government out of business and religion out of government is good, but religion is not the problem of the world, the problem is lack of freedom and liberty in free markets.
We already established that businesses will naturally make a free market into a restrictive one.
Since globalization, it has allowed most humans to pursue their own interests freed humans from wars except for those who people create wars within their own minds such as Bush in Iraq and Obama in Afghanistan. Free markets allow people who hate one another can trade peacefully, and that is the power of the market. During the Cold War, nobody traded goods or services among enemies. WHY? NO FREE TRADE
It's actually a lot more complicated than this. You're using really simplistic thinking.
I'm surprised that you, mister stereotypical libertarian, would think this.
Obviously, you have no idea what libertarians represent. You make perceptions without having a clue.
After all, in a free market, P2P would be considered a disruptive technology that delivers digital goods in far higher quality, and unlimited quantity compared to the business model of hard media that these companies were using.
That is not a free market. What you are describing is the black market?
In a free market, consumers voluntarily exchange goods and services using commodities or notes, or something with monetary value.
You should be arguing in favour of P2P because even if it is theft, you are amoral and theft doesn't matter to you as long as it isn't your own property, since you're also selfish. Since you're selfish, you should be perfectly happy with P2P, since it gives you whatever you want with no regard for others' opinions.
Man, get a clue.
Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property.
Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.
Basically, you're arguing for regulations and government intervention by calling P2P theft.
Since it is in violation with the definition of property rights
A free market doesn't care about Intellectual Property, since that is an abstract concept that exists purely as regulation.
After these statements, your incompetence and ignorance has reached new levels.
"A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property."Free Market
You're talking about Medicare and Medicaid right? That's part of it, the bill didn't introduce them but put more money towards them, as well as adding restrictions to private coverage.
More Medicare and Medicaid will only lead to more expensive health care because of its fraud and inefficient use of resources.
Correct, so a free market must become a regulated market naturally.
No, they use the government as a means to gain advantage in the market. Without government, it is a free enterprise system.
They seek privileges from government and this leads to unfair laws and regulations, protectionism, barriers to entry, and a bloated system, which you blame on government alone when it's clear that the businesses are pulling the strings.
It is still government because they are willing to give it to the businesses.
It's actually a lot more complicated than this. You're using really simplistic thinking.
Actually, it is not, you make it more complicated.
Obviously, you have no idea what libertarians represent. You make perceptions without having a clue.
Libertarians are pro-business, anti-consumer and anti-worker.
In a nutshell.
That is not a free market. What you are describing is the black market?
No, I am describing P2P as a legitimate means to distribute a good in a way that is cheaper than competitors (retail stores and in some cases online stores), and seemingly without limit.
In a free market, consumers voluntarily exchange goods and services using commodities or notes, or something with monetary value.
Correct. P2P is an extension of the internet, which is made accessible by ISPs. You are trading money in exchange for bandwidth, and that bandwidth allows you to acquire goods much more readily, more cheaply, and in some cases in higher quality, than what the entertainment companies provide.
I'll give you some examples. Do you remember System Shock? It's a fun game, but very old. In the traditional market, I'd buy the disk, and get a game. At some point demand falls and so System Shock is no longer sold. What if I break my CD-ROM twenty years later? I still like that game, guess I'm screwed. Well thanks to P2P I can get that game again, as long as someone has the file on their harddrive. The company no longer offers this service.
Another example. I like Red Alert, and want to buy Red Alert 3, but I can only install the game 3 (or was it 5?) times before I have to ask EA for permission to install it again, each time. Further, they charge about 50$ for this. If I go onto Bittorrent I can acquire the game at the cost of my monthly ISP service, and download a patch that removes this installation limitation. Suddenly I have a game that I can install as many times as I want. This is improved over the former product.
Another example. CSS is a DVD encryption scheme that relies on a part of the disk to get the decryption keys. If that gets damaged you lose your 20$ purchase and have to buy another. Further you can only play your disk on legally authorised devices. P2P lets me download DVDs without CSS, which means the data is indestructible and I can play the video on any hardware I like since it isn't encrypted. This is a superiour product.
The examples are endless, where granting IP protection causes a market of inferiour products (and untapped potential) to exist. If IP wasn't mandated by the government, P2P would have overtaken the sale of hard media, devices would be interoperable with more formats, and someone would have figured out that sweet spot of price versus quality to make a fortune off of the ability of the internet to cheaply stream and transfer digital content. Allofmp3 actually came close to this, a Russian MP3 store who provided cheap rates for high-quality songs, but our government pressured the Russian government to close them down because stores like the Apple store like to charge dollars for encrypted music.
Man, get a clue.
Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property.
Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.
Intellectual property is a construct maintained by wealthy interest groups to sustain a market bubble. The internet has started to burst it, because it reveals the massively inflated prices that IP-owners have set, and provides the same goods for almost free.
Since it is in violation with the definition of property rights
This is funny because you're arguing for government regulation on the behalf of business interests.
After these statements, your incompetence and ignorance has reached new levels.
"A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property." Free Market
IP is maintained strictly through regulation. It is an unnatural system because ideas and creative processes produce something with unlimited quantity. IP is a government-sanctioned artificial shortage. It flies completely in the face of free-market ideals.
More Medicare and Medicaid will only lead to more expensive health care because of its fraud and inefficient use of resources.
Some people cannot afford insurance and this gives them the ability to afford medicine.
No, they use the government as a means to gain advantage in the market. Without government, it is a free enterprise system.
So you want an anarchy now? No central authority?
It is still government because they are willing to give it to the businesses.
Governments are people. People will take money when it comes their way. That's why businesses can buy favours.
Libertarians are pro-business, anti-consumer and anti-worker.
Wrong, how many times are you going to guess wrong?
Libertarians seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
No, I am describing P2P as a legitimate means to distribute a good in a way that is cheaper than competitors (retail stores and in some cases online stores), and seemingly without limit.
As of right now, there is no way. P2P has no legitimate exchange system, so it is not even a black market, it is stealing.
Intellectual property is a construct maintained by wealthy interest groups to sustain a market bubble. The internet has started to burst it, because it reveals the massively inflated prices that IP-owners have set, and provides the same goods for almost free.
I give you a key example of government's responsibility, yet you ignore for some wealthy conspiracy. Oh, please, it is their property, nobody forces you purchase the product if you think it is unfair, don't buy it.
This is funny because you're arguing for government regulation on the behalf of business interests.
Apparently, you forgot what government regulation or don't know what it really is.
Regulation is controlling human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions.
Intellectual property is not government regulation. It doesn't control human or societal behavior. IT IS PROPERTY. JUST LIKE YOUR HOME OR CAR. If someone attempts to steal it, the government is there to protect it. IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
IP is maintained strictly through regulation. It is an unnatural system because ideas and creative processes produce something with unlimited quantity. IP is a government-sanctioned artificial shortage. It flies completely in the face of free-market ideals.
YOU CAN'T READ.
"A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property." No, it flies completely in the face of stealing.
Some people cannot afford insurance and this gives them the ability to afford medicine.
Sure, some people will get insurance at the expense of those who already pay for health care insurance. Now, some people can live on government welfare checks and get free health care. What a deal Obama cooked up with the new bill?
Maybe, I should quit my job. Health care isn't a right, it is a product.
So you want an anarchy now? No central authority?
WTF? Free enterprise system is a economic system with no barriers to entry.
Governments are people. People will take money when it comes their way. That's why businesses can buy favours.
Wrong, how many times are you going to guess wrong?
Libertarians seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
Unless the business values contradict the workers' values, then you take the side of business, because the poor are lazy bums.
As of right now, there is no way. P2P has no legitimate exchange system, so it is not even a black market, it is stealing.
I already told you:
You pay for broadband access, which gives you the ability to download data from others. You are paying the ISP.
You also seem unaware of paypal and similar.
I give you a key example of government's responsibility, yet you ignore for some wealthy conspiracy. Oh, please, it is their property, nobody forces you purchase the product if you think it is unfair, don't buy it.
All of these are examples of wealthy and influential people effectively writing the laws for the rest of us. You'll note that these laws impose upon the majority something that is mostly disagreed with. In other words, the majority of independent artists and computer users would not support legislation that extends copyright duration to 75 years after death of the owner, or makes bypassing copy protection illegal (have you ever used ffmpeg and mplayer based media players? they often have a built-in dvd decrypter so they can play DVDs, have you ever used homebrew software on your game console?), and few would support the tangle of patents which makes it illegal to use ffmpeg and mplayer in many countries (these are media players that enable a user to play all sorts of formats since the authors reverse engineered many proprietary formats).
Despite the fact that these groups and their laws make it stiflingly difficult to make legitimate software and websites involved with multimedia, they have the ears of lawmakers and we do not.
That's why many of us never buy films or games put out by them. It is the fault of society that these companies exist as powerful as they are now. They are writing laws against our interests and suing their own customers. We need to stop buying anything from them, starve them of income.
Intellectual property is not government regulation. It doesn't control human or societal behavior. IT IS PROPERTY. JUST LIKE YOUR HOME OR CAR. If someone attempts to steal it, the government is there to protect it. IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
Property exists in tangible form that may be exchanged, always with the consequence that it trades hands, meaning if I give you my property, I no longer have it.
Intellectual Property is another name for ideas, inventions, patents, thoughts, etc. being treated like property so that a market may exist to make money from their distribution. I say distribution because the critical thing which separates Intellectual Property from Property is that one is tangible, limited, while the other is intangible, unlimited. An unlimited thing has no intrinsic value to it. You know the concept of supply and demand? It only works when goods are limited, this gives those goods intrinsic value. If anyone can take your idea and tell others about it, with no loss in quality or accuracy, your market ceases to exist. Therefore governing bodies must make the exchange of ideas regulated, add durations to these regulations, add penalties and criminal punishments.
So no, IP is not like your home or car. If someone steals either, you no longer have it. If someone steals you idea, you still have it, forever.
As I said before, this is a crucial difference. If IP has no form, it can exist forever, no one can steal it. The idea of stealing it is a legal concept because it wouldn't naturally exist in the real world. IP is an artificial market, it is a volatile market idea because as soon as ideas are disseminated in a way that outpaces their sale, the market crashes. This is precisely what ACTA, DMCA, and modern copyright are all about. They are trying to desperately keep this market from crashing. Billions of dollars are being thrown into it, used to buy political favours, used to convince you through public relations propaganda that Intellectual Property is like normal property and that stealing it is like stealing cars, millions of dollars are spent on software to try and actively impede copying, and hardware for the same purpose, and teams of people who scour the internet looking to jam up P2P networks and prepare lawsuits. IP is being maintained through opinionmaking, fearmongering, technology, and lawmaking.
"A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property." No, it flies completely in the face of stealing.
Property, not intellectual property. They are not the same.
Sure, some people will get insurance at the expense of those who already pay for health care insurance. Now, some people can live on government welfare checks and get free health care. What a deal Obama cooked up with the new bill?
Healthier people make a more productive economy. This is statistically supported. If you're really interested I'll dig up the link which supports this, but basically a society that has higher average lifespans, lower infant death rates, and better access to medicine is able to be healthier and work harder.
But I guess if paying a portion of your check to support a healthier and more productive society bothers you, you could always move to an African country where healthcare is a rare privilege.
WTF? Free enterprise system is a economic system with no barriers to entry.
Just another reason why government sucks.
Not only incompetent, but government is corrupt.
If you have a government or tribal authority or town elders, a free market will evolve into a regulated mess because the free market businesses will buy favours from those in power.
