>If humans want to get paid, then they are greedy? But if a corporation is greedy it is good? Why the dichotomy?
Both are greedy, and people in both sectors will happily convince the population to institute anti-free-market laws that give themselves a monopoly if we let them. That's what we let the unions do, when we passed laws making it illegal for employers refuse to employ unionized workers, or to negotiate with anyone outside of one once one emerges in their workforce and demands collective bargaining.
>I meant the free market created unions, by forcing humans to group together for self preservation.
Wages were rising at a rapid rate in the late 1800s, before unionization rates became significant, so no, the evidence clearly debunks your claim that the free market was harming workers. Unions were formed out of greed.
>Anecdotally, I have worked in Union plants, and Non-Union. I've seen union plant employees being very engaged and driving efficiency, and I've seen non-union (hence supposedly free and more incentivized by pay) beat down, insolent and checked out.
Anecdotally, I always hear the exact opposite from people who've experienced working in both environments.
>I guess you would be ok with something like the Government making a law to force MS Xbox and Sony PlayStation to have open protocols so games could be played across platforms?
Government does not have a right to use the threat of violence to compel people who are not defrauding or assaulting anyone to act a certain way, so no I would absolutely not be okay with it.
As I keep saying, I totally oppose regulations that violate the right of consenting adults to engage in mutually voluntary interactions. Offering a game system using a particular protocol is a mutually voluntary interaction and there can be no justification for prohibiting it.
I would support the government funding an open game system standard that various manufacturers would then choose to voluntarily adopt because of the technical superiority of that standard, or even purchases by the government from manufacturers adhering to it.
Got it. I miss-read your thoughts on open standards. So don't require corps to use open standards. But have government develop their own open standards and releasing it.
Still think it is a tall order to have wide adoptions of standards without a little bit of a 'stick'. High Definitions TV's wouldn't exist if the government hadn't mandated the change to that standard. A lot of companies resisted it.
Except for a few utopian cases like TCP/IP, I'd be hard pressed to think of any 'standard' that grew on its own without some enforcement.
Government can subsidize adoption of open standards until they've become the market standard. Even this clunky solution is better than the government assuming a right to interfere with how people use their own private property in mutually voluntary interactions.
Both are greedy, and people in both sectors will happily convince the population to institute anti-free-market laws that give themselves a monopoly if we let them. That's what we let the unions do, when we passed laws making it illegal for employers refuse to employ unionized workers, or to negotiate with anyone outside of one once one emerges in their workforce and demands collective bargaining.
>I meant the free market created unions, by forcing humans to group together for self preservation.
Wages were rising at a rapid rate in the late 1800s, before unionization rates became significant, so no, the evidence clearly debunks your claim that the free market was harming workers. Unions were formed out of greed.
>Anecdotally, I have worked in Union plants, and Non-Union. I've seen union plant employees being very engaged and driving efficiency, and I've seen non-union (hence supposedly free and more incentivized by pay) beat down, insolent and checked out.
Anecdotally, I always hear the exact opposite from people who've experienced working in both environments.
>I guess you would be ok with something like the Government making a law to force MS Xbox and Sony PlayStation to have open protocols so games could be played across platforms?
Government does not have a right to use the threat of violence to compel people who are not defrauding or assaulting anyone to act a certain way, so no I would absolutely not be okay with it.
As I keep saying, I totally oppose regulations that violate the right of consenting adults to engage in mutually voluntary interactions. Offering a game system using a particular protocol is a mutually voluntary interaction and there can be no justification for prohibiting it.
I would support the government funding an open game system standard that various manufacturers would then choose to voluntarily adopt because of the technical superiority of that standard, or even purchases by the government from manufacturers adhering to it.