Don't corporations own enough without owning random bits on some LaCie hard drive somewhere? Information is universal and it should be free. End of story.
No, information is not universal. Information is contributed by individuals whether paid for by corporations, or devised through his/her own means.
The free-market system depends on scarcity of information. You cannot profit from something that everyone has a right to. FreeSoftware companies are not an example of this. They profit from service (i.e. a collection of information services provided by said company to an customer.) or proprietary innovation (MS is an example of expanding public informat
"It's perfetcly possible to have a free market without scarcity of information."
Indeed it's required...
If price, quality, and history information isn't perfectly and universally available, it's not a free market.
So for example, trying to prevent the publishing of a shop's price list is an attempt to destroy a free market. People don't know enough to make a perfect choice, so the best supplier doesn't necessarily make the sales.
The free market depends upon the legitimacy of private property, and of the property owner's freedom to dispose of his property as he chooses.
If private property rights are abridged, you don't have a free market. If property owners aren't free to do what they want with their goods, you don't have a free market. It doesn't matter how scarce or abundant things are if private property rights are non-existent. It wasn't scarcity or abundance of material that made the Soviet economy so horribly broken; it was
Actually, the free-market system depends on the AVAILABILITY of information.
Buying, selling and investing decisions can't be rationally made in a socialist economy because all decisions are subject to the whim or politics of the current government. Thus scarcity, environmental effects, consumer preferences, quality and other information are largely unavailable to consumers and end users at every level, there is no mechanism to encourage increases in efficiency or productivity. Free market societies have to
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Sigh... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
The free-market system depends on scarcity of information. You cannot profit from something that everyone has a right to. FreeSoftware companies are not an example of this. They profit from service (i.e. a collection of information services provided by said company to an customer.) or proprietary innovation (MS is an example of expanding public informat
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't.
The free-market system depends on scarcity of material.
That material may be 'intellectual property', or it may be physical goods.
It's perfetcly possible to have a free market without scarcity of information.
Re:Sigh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed it's required...
If price, quality, and history information isn't perfectly and universally available, it's not a free market.
So for example, trying to prevent the publishing of a shop's price list is an attempt to destroy a free market. People don't know enough to make a perfect choice, so the best supplier doesn't necessarily make the sales.
Close (Score:1)
If private property rights are abridged, you don't have a free market. If property owners aren't free to do what they want with their goods, you don't have a free market. It doesn't matter how scarce or abundant things are if private property rights are non-existent. It wasn't scarcity or abundance of material that made the Soviet economy so horribly broken; it was
Re:Sigh... (Score:1)
Buying, selling and investing decisions can't be rationally made in a socialist economy because all decisions are subject to the whim or politics of the current government. Thus scarcity, environmental effects, consumer preferences, quality and other information are largely unavailable to consumers and end users at every level, there is no mechanism to encourage increases in efficiency or productivity. Free market societies have to