Sure, I assume we read the articles here, and some of us even do econ full-time and write books on it. So I assume most people here can rattle off a few ways that the state solves the problem of public goods under capitalism. (With a spectrum of more or less democratic ways to do it.)
And when I wrote, "It's simple now to have all the world's lit instantly available. As public goods," hopefully it's clear I meant "simple" in a tech sense, definitely not in a political sense. (It'd require like 10% of a revolution.)
So, my main point point is that it'd be nice to help radicalize pirates. Sure, tell tem they're being anti-socialist assholes if you wish, but also offer some link to a better way. Where producers can get compensated, and culture is a freely shareable public good.
As it stands, producers and consumers are getting suckered into flaming each other. Anti-solidarity.
All the best,
Tj
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:39 PM, andie_nachgeborenen
<andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Public goods still have to be paid for and created. The free rider/collective action problem is precisely that there is a strong incentive to free ride, leading to a suboptimal or no amount of public goods being created. Libraries, themselves public goods, supported by enforced collection of taxes, offer free access, electronic and other, to books at not much risk to the world's forests, and also pay for what they have in their collections. The technology and economics of publication in books as well as in music and video, the virtually costless (to the reader) availability of these things to anyone with a computer and access to the net, may threaten the ability of producers to be paid for creating this work, but don't be surprised by the predictable result. Even people who would prefer to distribute their work for free if they could afford it and who are altruistic enough (or motivated other than selfishly, and no sensible person or publisher goes into creating and distrib!
> uting lefty material to become rich) must still make a living, so the time they have for such work and their ability to do it, decreases markedly. Unlike musicians, writers and publishers of dense treatises on unpopular material cannot even hope to treat their published work as sort of a loss leader for live performance. So, morality aside, what are they and we to do?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Sep 11, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Tayssir John Gabbour <tjg at pentaside.org> wrote:
>
>> This topic leads to unnecessary conflict on socialist forums. Another
>> example of capitalism pitting consumers against producers.
>>
>> Obviously, we want people compensated for their work.
>>
>> And just as obviously, we want to end shipping dead trees across the
>> world. It's simple now to have all the world's lit instantly
>> available. As public goods. (If you want paper, go to the local
>> printer.) If you want to learn a topic, you could skim all relevant
>> books, picking out the most helpful explanations from each.
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>> Tj
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2012, at 12:43 AM, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps the problem is the writers who expect to get paid for their stuff,
>>>
>>> Imagine that!
>>>
>>> No one would seriously suggest that carpenters or nurses shouldn't get paid. But it's ok when it comes to writers and artists? Fuck that noise.
>>>
>>> Doug
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk