[WS:] A valid point, but of limited relevance. It applies only to digests of information available elsewhere, but it does not apply to original information, such as news reporting. It has been argued http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121017558785551.html, quite convincingly in my opinion, that restricting access to such information by putting it behind paywalls is harmful to society in a similar ways as restricting fire protection to those households that are willing to pay for it. That is, well informed public is essential for effective functioning of democratic governance, so restriction on information are harmful to that governance. Of course, oligarchs would disagree, but that does not make the argument invalid.
Don't get me wrong, I know why the paywalls are in place. However, that does not mean uncritical acceptance of the logic behind them (pardon the unintended pun) - which is the neoliberal logic of selective privatization.
This selective privatization works on two principles: that of imposing transaction costs on delivery of public goods to create profit opportunities for a select few, and that of privatizing benefits that accrue predominantly to oligarchs while socializing the costs of producing these benefits, and that of. Paywalls are one example of the first principle, other examples include privatization of social security, private health insurance, private education, farming out government functions to private contractors and similar forms of public-private "partnership" scams (see my post on it http://wsokol.blogspot.com/2013/03/public-money-private-pockets.html).
Bailouts of failing banks and corporations, or not taxing polluters for the environmental damage created by their operations are examples of the second principle.
We hear this drivel all the time - poor banksters and businessmen, they work so hard, they need to be compensated for their valiant efforts. Any self-respecting leftists should challenge this received neoliberal "wisdom" instead of finding excuses for it.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:26 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
> You are paying for the medium through which it is delivered, not the
> information. Because you could get your hands on the study and the NYT
> through the library - for which you pay, of course, through taxes.
>
>
>
>
> At 05:27 PM 10/9/2013, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>> Doug: "Why do you think you have a right to it for free? And not, say,
>> food?"
>>
>> [WS:] Because information is public good
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Public_good<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good>and food is not.
>>
>> And while we are at that, if driving is free, for the most part, why can't
>> be information? Or food? Food is also a right not an entitlement.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Oct 9, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Doug: "Spoiled entitlement."
>> > >
>> > > [WS:] Access to information is a right not an entitlement.
>> >
>> > The NYT spends something like $300 million a year gathering news. As
>> long
>> > as we live in a capitalist society, someone has to pay for it. Why do
>> you
>> > think you have a right to it for free? And not, say, food?
>> >
>> > Doug
>> > ______________________________**_____
>> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wojtek
>>
>> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
>> ______________________________**_____
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>>
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
> ______________________________**_____
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."