I just couldn't resist posting a link to this article I just read in wired magazine. Enjoy the read ;)
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism?currentPage=1
I didn't like it. What did you think Magnus?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Me either, although I thought the slashdot responses to the article were the only thing wortwhile, as the article makes the completely idiotic mistake of claiming the internet as some sort of model or environment inherently friendly to communism (I was tempted to make a mindless rant on this in my blog, but took the high road of not stating the obvious), when in reality it is far more anarchistic, especially when you consider the efforts of the Free Software Foundation & Stallman. Read this article instead, it actually has references & isn't written by hipsters: "Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright" Aside from anti-propertarian stances it takes, I largley agree regarding it's arguments concerning the internet.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
My issue with it, is the article conflated voluntary collaboration as enforced participation with the socialism reference. For example, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a libertarian conceived site, with a libertarian marketing and participation methodology.
It's like the author doesn't even know libertarianism exists.
OMGZ THUH GUBERMINT IS NOT RUNNIN DEM INTERWEBS! MUST BE SOSHALLISM!
I don't really blame the journalist for pandering to his stupid audience. have you guys read wired on a consistent basis? the picture it paints of the world isn't very far from Stuff White People Like.
Is it me or the is the word socialism being completely misapplied in this article?
liberty student: I didn't like it. What did you think Magnus?
I have read a lot of interesting articles here on mises recently, discussing the nature of intellectual property rights, scarcity and the "digital society" (or whatever we should call it). With that in mind I think the wired article was poor but provocative.
Magnus:With that in mind I think the wired article was poor but provocative.
I will agree with that. I did after all read it before you posted it, and I rarely read Wired, so as soon as I saw the title, I was suckered in!
The internet is a tragedy of the commons(thanks to its government roots), its no wonder socialists would love it.
All packets are not created equal, no matter what the internet says. No pricing mechanism exists to ensure bandwidth is put to its most effective use.
Is the internet really socialistic though? Mr. Tucker just graced us with his presence and I can hardly think of another man who has utilized the internet more to spread the message of Mises and fellow Austrian scholars.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
JonBostwick:The internet is a tragedy of the commons
Not all of it.
JonBostwick:All packets are not created equal, no matter what the internet says.
This is true.
JonBostwick:No pricing mechanism exists to ensure bandwidth is put to its most effective use.
Oh yes there is. Quality bandwidth is very expensive, ask Jeffrey Tucker! The problem is, companies like Google with Blogger and YouTube create Web 2.0 ghettos by providing high quality bandwidth and infrastructure at no cost to anyone, and you get all of the people who won't fork out for bandwidth, hosting, software, using it to put up anything.
Some of it is fantastic. Some of it is absolutely terrible. It is truly a tragedy of the commons not because it is 100% abused, but because there is no pricing mechanism to deter abuse.
Oh come on man. The very fact that companies give such free services is an indication that the good is in such big supply that there is no need for any revenues other than advertisements. If private companies decide to create relatively free and public services, how is that not pricing? The companies who create have their balance sheets. You make the mistake of regarding low cost as no cost.
@Nandnor,
Though you really should read the whole article, I'll give some(probably too many) excerpts. Government Did Invent the Internet, But the Market Made It Glorious.
In short, both the design and implementation of the internet have relied almost exclusively on government dollars. The fact that its designers envisioned a packet-switching network has serious implications for how the internet actually works. For example, packet switching is a great technology for file transfers, email, and web browsing but not so good for real-time applications like video and audio feeds, and, to a lesser extent, server-based applications like webmail, Google Earth, SAP, PeopleSoft, and Google Spreadsheet.
Furthermore, without any mechanism for pricing individual packets, the network is overused, like any public good. Every packet is assigned an equal priority. A packet containing a surgeon's diagnosis of an emergency medical procedure has exactly the same chance of getting through as a packet containing part of Coldplay's latest single or an online gamer's instruction to smite his foe.
Because the sender's marginal cost of each transmission is effectively zero, the network is overused, and often congested. Like any essentially unowned resource, an open-ended packet-switching network suffers from what Garrett Hardin famously called the "Tragedy of the Commons."
. . .
We must be very careful not to describe the internet as a "private" technology, a spontaneous order, or a shining example of capitalistic ingenuity. It is none of these. Of course, almost all of the internet's current applications — unforeseen by its original designers — have been developed in the private sector.
Libertarian internet enthusiasts tend to forget the fallacy of the broken window. We see the internet. We see its uses. We see the benefits it brings. We surf the web and check our email and download our music. But we will never see the technologies that weren't developed because the resources that would have been used to develop them were confiscated by the Defense Department and given to Stanford engineers. Likewise, I may admire the majesty and grandeur of an Egyptian pyramid, a TVA dam, or a Saturn V rocket, but it doesn't follow that I think they should have been created, let alone at taxpayer expense.
What kind of global computer network would the market have selected? We can only guess. Maybe it would be more like the commercial online networks such as Comcast or MSN, or the private bulletin boards of the 1980s. Most likely, it would use some kind of pricing schedule, where different charges would be assessed for different types of transmissions.
The whole idea of pricing the internet as a scarce resource — and bandwidth is, given current technology, scarce, though we usually don't notice this — is ignored in most proposals to legislate network neutrality, a form of "network socialism" that can only stymie the internet's continued growth and development. The net neutrality debate takes place in the shadow of government intervention. So too the debate over the division of the spectrum for wireless transmission. Any resource the government controls will be allocated based on political priorities.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap