[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by qnxde

Why don't you let her form her own morals instead of trying to foist your own at her?

It's called parenting.

[Cubeoid]

100 replies..man this has gotten the perenial macnn tongues wagging to and fro..hehehehheheh.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by qnxde

Why don't you let her form her own morals instead of trying to foist your own at her?

You live one of those EXTREME alternative life styles don't you? Maybe you should give the guy you're replying to a little background info.

[qnxde]

Irrelevant. If she thinks (and they've obviously discussed this at great length) that it's perfectly fine then it's pointless to keep trying to convince her otherwise. She thinks it's fine, he doesn't. Neither is more right than the other as there are countless arguments to be made on both sides.

And to you Railroader, stop acting so haughty about your plain vanilla life. You're not better than me.

[bad_quote]

Originally Posted by qnxde

And to you Railroader, stop acting so haughty about your plain vanilla life. You're not better than me.

[noreturn]

Originally Posted by bad_quote

Oh wtf ever. I have a friend who downloaded 25 gigs of music in 2 weeks, and he has probably about 80-100 gigs of music in total. He downloads like a madman, and has for years. The RIAA hasn't bothered him one bit.

I have a friend that accidentally left his P2P program on overnight, and now he's facing a $2,500 settlement. What's your point?

I never realized how many people will jump through hoops to try to justify their practices. I download TV shows, and I download music. I don't for one second try to tell people that what I'm doing is justified. I'm selfish and cheap, and that's that. Sure, people in the music industry are bastards, but that's how it is in any industry. By that logic, go rob a bank, steal a car from a dealership, and hand out copies of Windows XP Pro to bums you meet on the street.

Of course there are laws you disagree with, and there are legal ways to fight it out. Just because I don't think Rob has the right to breathe air, doesn't mean I should live by my own rules.

Walker, I think that if you're still trying to justify downloading your TV shows because you like them, you probably have some idea how your daughter feels. Try taking small amounts of money away from her allowance bit by bit. Tell her that it's only a little and that it's not really hurting anyone. Do the same with other priveleges. See how she reacts.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by qnxde

Irrelevant. If she thinks (and they've obviously discussed this at great length) that it's perfectly fine then it's pointless to keep trying to convince her otherwise. She thinks it's fine, he doesn't. Neither is more right than the other as there are countless arguments to be made on both sides.

So he should give up? Maybe his argument simply wasn't effective enough. Maybe he simply needs to be a parent and tell her it's wrong and prohibit her from doing it. My father is an alcoholic, started drinking when he was very young. He told me not to drink 'till I was legal to do so. He was a hypocrite, should I have ignored his advice? No, it was still good parenting.

And to you Railroader, stop acting so haughty about your plain vanilla life. You're not better than me.

I was not acting "haughty". You admit you live an extremely alternative lifestyle. You've said it on here before. I just think that the guy you are giving advice to should know that as well. Not many people think like you do.

Call my life "vanilla" all you want. It certainly isn't like yours. But in your circle, couldn't your life also be considered "vanilla" too? It's all a matter of what we are used to. What we have determined to be normal.

[freudling]

How can one not oversimplify a discussion online? This argument spans wide, reaching Corporate Rule and our position, in relation. One question I have been asking is, "How does a nation regain and, maintain control of itself?" Blantant Anarchy is not the answer, but Randman provided a good reply on the first page of this thread: the bands get very little of the final price of the albums sold. If you want to support the band, send them money and bypass supporting the Production companies.

The reply "stealing is stealing" ridiculously oversimpliflies our position and our future within our borders. Most should find it hard to justify giving a production company 90 cents for each downloaded song, whereas the band gets 10. I do not advocate stealing your neighbours car and the like, but situations like these provide opportunities for the people to attempt to regain control over their lives and compete with big business. They get so big they are into everything from Arms manufacturing, to water, to blank CD's and condoms. Personally, and I think most would agree, those kinds of entities have far too much leverage against the average Joe.

I think it is wholey wrong that Corporations can charge so much for products/services and be protected by unfair bankruptcy laws, whereas the individual is regulated until just a bit is left over for groceries.

Let her download the music, and stop lying to her. Tell her the truth (see Donnie Darko post).

[goMac]

Huh? Whether or not you think it's far to artists, the law is the law. Plain and simple. Stealing music is illegal whether the artists get 50 cents, 10 cents, or 2 cents.

And how is stealing any better? Now instead of the artists getting 10 cents, they get no money! And you call that supporting the artists? I really doubt his daughter had sending the bands money as part of her plan for stealing music.

Sorry. I don't buy it. I call that being cheap and coming up with excuses.

[freudling]

goMac:

I call your post ignorant. The law, in this regard, is gross. Further, there are examples of bands, and big names, that support P2P file sharing, and they use it themselves.

But the actual point is: I would rather the artist get nothing, rather than 10 cents and my 90 cents to the production companies. Give your money to the band: Moral dilemma solved.

Aside from this, my comment touched upon Globalisation. In the context of that, pointing your finger at me suggests you are not prepared to enter into a discussion on the individual implications of Globalisation (The New Democracy).

[Warung]

How do you convince her that it is "wrong"? Easy,- you can't. You might be able to tell it's illegal, but if she's anything like me she'll tell you to STFU.

[noreturn]

Unfortunately for you, you, being an individual, do not get to make the rules as you go along. Much in life is unfair, and if you don't agree with the pricing of a product, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. Who gives a flying fock what you would prefer? I would prefer to walk out of an Apple store with a cinema display under each arm.

They day we all decide what is right because it's what we want is the day the world becomes a post-Katrina New Orleans.

Don't think you're so righteous in your actions. Many of us choose not to support unethical business practices. I use a Mac so I don't have to buy MS products. I don't buy clothes that are known to be made in sweatshops. And I do this without breaking any laws. What a concept.

To me, it seems you're far too immature and selfish to really understand how to solve a moral dilemma. Globalization my ass, do you understand how capitalism works?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by noreturn

Unfortunately for you, you, being an individual, do not get to make the rules as you go along. Much in life is unfair, and if you don't agree with the pricing of a product, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. Who gives a flying fock what you would prefer? I would prefer to walk out of an Apple store with a cinema display under each arm.

They day we all decide what is right because it's what we want is the day the world becomes a post-Katrina New Orleans.

Don't think you're so righteous in your actions. Many of us choose not to support unethical business practices. I use a Mac so I don't have to buy MS products. I don't buy clothes that are known to be made in sweatshops. And I do this without breaking any laws. What a concept.

To me, it seems you're far too immature and selfish to really understand how to solve a moral dilemma. Globalization my ass, do you understand how capitalism works?

Nice. I have the power to break the rules and I also have the power, with the majority, to make laws. Yes, I understand how capitalism works. I do not support big business and large profit margins. Therefore, I advocate downloads.

[noreturn]

Originally Posted by freudling

Nice. I have the power to break the rules and I also have the power, with the majority, to make laws. Yes, I understand how capitalism works. I do not support big business and large profit margins. Therefore, I advocate downloads.

Who made the computer that you're using to write this on? Who invented, nurtured, marketed, and provided the internet that made this possible?

Or did you steal all that, too?

[thunderous_funker]

Lots of people in this forum clearly see no difference between legality, morality or ethics.

The reason your teenage daughter doesn't react well to the "because its wrong!!" tirade is precisely because she's smart enough to recognize the nuances of the situation.

Leagally speaking, OAW is exactly right. Moral or not, ethical or not, downloading is illegal and exposes the family to some pretty serious financial risks. That fact shouldn't be ignored the philosophical playground of the "larger" issues.

Ethically speaking, people will go their own way. Most deeply ethical people I know find it hard to justify downloading but they are also confronted with the sheer immorabily of the music distribution business. In most cases, the artists themselves can't choose how their music is distributed. There is the real problem that you probably would never hear a great band without the distributor, but buying their music doesn't really enrich the band directly. Not only that, but there isn't really a way to opt out.

Personally, I buy muisc. I also download some. Some of the downloaded music gets replaced with legally purchased copies. Some of it doesn't. Some of the illegal stuff is from bands that are no more, which makes a contribution to the distro company all the more distasteful (even if its just as legally binding).

I think the whole "did you record the show with commercials" argument to be really really ridiculous. The legal framework is hopeless inadequate, IMO. Our laws barely deal with VCRs let alone DVRs and P2P.

I regularly download a show or sporting event that I either could not record or was not even available in my area. I watch it. I delete it. I don't share it. I don't distribute it. I don't make a permanent copy onto DVD or Video for my private library. I realize that legally it is not protected usage, but frankly I couldn't care less. I have no qualms at all about it.

But I'm an adult and I enter into such legal risktaking without endangering anyone else. For your kids, that is an entirely different matter. OAW said it about at clearly as it needs to be said.

[noreturn]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Not only that, but there isn't really a way to opt out.

How so?

I can see why a lot of people are getting hung up on the 'immoral practices' used by the music industry. However, the wrongdoings of one party (and keep in mind that they aren't breaking any laws) does not justify the perpetration of more wrongdoing. More so with perceived wrongdoings.

You steal music because you don't agree with the music industry. I don't like abortion, should I go bomb some clinics? I mean, where do you draw the line?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by noreturn

How so?

I can see why a lot of people are getting hung up on the 'immoral practices' used by the music industry. However, the wrongdoings of one party (and keep in mind that they aren't breaking any laws) does not justify the perpetration of more wrongdoing. More so with perceived wrongdoings.

You steal music because you don't agree with the music industry. I don't like abortion, should I go bomb some clinics? I mean, where do you draw the line?

I'll ignore the horrific analogy....

I was saying that the real bind for people is that there isn't a way out. If you find the music biz immoral, you don't really have an alternative for getting music you like through a means you find you find morally or ethically acceptable.

Hell, even if I wrote the band a letter and offered to pay them cash for a CD they probably can't legally sell it to me because the record label owns the distro rights. How FUBAR is that?

My point was that in light of it being a really ugly situation, people tend to find their own way that they can ethically, morally stomach. Right now, those ways are in some choppy legal water.

Legality is black and white (most of the time). Ethics and morality almost never are.

[noreturn]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Legality is black and white (most of the time). Ethics and morality almost never are.

I'll give you that one.

Don't brush off the analogy that easily; I know it's extreme, but that's my point. At what point can we say that because we don't agree with what a person/institution/business is doing, we can do whatever we want, even if it hurts them. If you start with the little things, like a song, then when do you say when someone is going too far, i.e. bombing an abortion clinic?

And I think the way out you're looking for is called the radio. That, or indy artists. Or even not listening to music. So the choices aren't pretty, how far are you willing to go to back your convictions?

My guess is not very far at all. Which speaks of your real degree of outrage at the industry.

[thunderous_funker]

Because I'm not willing to kill music biz execs my willingness to bend copyright infringement is hollow?

That's pretty terrifying logic.

You're damn right its its a matter of degree. Shouldn't it be? Aren't all ethical/moral issues a matter of degree?

Which reminds me to say that any parent losing sleep at night cuz their child is infringing copyright has lost all perspective. If that's moral crisis in your family, you either don't know anything about your kids at all or your children about to be instantly translated into a higher plane of existence.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by freudling

But the actual point is: I would rather the artist get nothing, rather than 10 cents and my 90 cents to the production companies. Give your money to the band: Moral dilemma solved.

As I said, I don't think any part of his daughter's plan involved "Sit down and mail money to the bands."

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by goMac

As I said, I don't think any part of his daughter's plan involved "Sit down and mail money to the bands."

And that would still be illegal under the terms of most band's record contracts.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that while the legality over music downloads is pretty clear, the reason it might be hard to convince your kids that it's "wrong" is because the morality/ethics of the situation are far from clear. Lots of very ethical/moral people who are law-abiding and upright citizens find themselves surprisingly conflicted because the rules seem pretty outa whack and the game itself is pretty rigged.

I think the huge slumps in record sales are not just because of piracy, but also because a lot of people like me simply don't participate any more. I don't really hear much I like on the radio, I don't really buy much, once in a while I download something, but for the most part I've been listening to the music collection I put together before it all became so crap-tacular and morally confusing.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Walker

Is her argument valid? I hate to think that I've screwed this all up, because it is important to me that I'm a good role model in their life.

Any advice is appreciated,

lw

Her argument brings up a sticky wicket, yes, but you should say "Yup, I was wrong, I admit it" and slam her for downloading. If she's downloading on a family computer, it can be seized and you can be held responsible, so get her to cut it out.

Stealing is stealing. Maybe you should confiscate some of her stuff and see how she likes it -- it's no different.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by finboy

Stealing is stealing. Maybe you should confiscate some of her stuff and see how she likes it -- it's no different.

Nope. If instead, however, you made exact digital copies of her stuff and used it without her permission, then it would be no different.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Nope. If instead, however, you made exact digital copies of her stuff and used it without her permission, then it would be no different.

Or, you could deny her any kind of pay or allowance in exchange for her chores around the house. She works, you don't pay her. That's a good analogy to stealing someone else's intellectual property.

Why is it that we never hear folks on the other side of this complain about paying when one buys a book? Same idea. I could borrow one from a friend and read it, but if I want one of my own I have to pay for it. It's worked that way for several centuries now, and I don't see that changing.

Property belongs to someone or it doesn't. How hard is that to figure out?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

It's called parenting.

[golf claps] Right on. [/golf claps]

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by finboy

Property belongs to someone or it doesn't. How hard is that to figure out?

Well, for simplicity sake we can leave out the cultural/historical complications you ignore in that statement.

Seems to me the origiinal posters (and several others) are genuinely concerned about how to address these issues with their kids. I've been trying to argue that treating it as a black/white, downloading==stealing approach is probably counter-productive to that goal.

First of all, there is the fact that its NOT stealing, not even within the strict legal definition.

Secondly, even if your kid can't articulate it, they inherently sense that there is a considerable difference of degree between stealing something and getting an exact copy for free. Our legal system might not have worked out the nuances completely, but I hink most people's moral compass can differentiate the 2 acts even when you admit to yourself they are both "wrong". There is a difference of degree. For most people, immoral acts are often associated with hurting someone else. Stealing someone's car has a clear victim whose feelings are pretty easy to identify and sympathize with. Copyright infringement doesn't have such clearly defined victims and emotional connections. Particularly if you take into account the exploitative nature of most record deals.

I just happen to think that anyone who seriously wants to engage their kids in an honest discussion (rather than just laying down some rule) will be doing themselves a favor if they admit there is a difference and discuss it honestly. Just saying "its wrong" or "its just like stealing" probably won't register.

[freudling]

thunderous_funker:

I agree with most of your statements. Discussing Law does not mean you are discussing Morals: more so ethics. I feel that you have taken on the situation well in that you are not oversimplifying it with brainwashed one liners like, "It is wrong!" "Stealing is stealing!" The Law does not always imply moral cleanliness, and I face condundrums, as most do, frequently. For instance, there are nonintervention zones overseas in hostile theatres and, under the regulations of NATO - dependent on particulars - no matter what is happening (people being murdered) UN troops cannot intervene.

My statement is that, while I advocate freedom and thus, Capatialism, since it is the system that best exploits freedom comparatively, I do not agree with inflated profit margins beyond what is needed to maintain operations and for research and development. It is obvious that we are being exploited by big business. I would say most of us undermine this system in subtle ways, some more pronounced than others. goMac has boycotted buying clothes made in sweatshops.

Analogies like bombing a hospital because you don't believe in abortion is absurd. I do not want to hurt others but I need to survive, and I don't want to be opressed. What is morally wrong is killing someone; stealing a person's car; rape, etc. What is also morally wrong is overcharging for goods and services. Unfortunately, the individual could spend a lifetime fighting in courts to rid the world of corrupt business.

Examples of overpriced goods and services to the point of being criminal:

Eyewear frames: icberlin ~$600 without lenses.
Perfume: ~$50 a bottle
Shoes: ~$120 for decent ones
Flash memory sticks: ~$50 for 256 MB
etc.

If the argument that icberlin glasses are titanium is to be used, you can buy a titanium bicycle for what those glasses would cost after all. Perfume, self explanatory. Shoes. I had a chance to see landed cost for some really expensive Bali shoes. $20US, retail $300. Flash memory - insane for a stick of plastic and silicon. On and on. I am taking my own stand.

[thunderous_funker]

I don't want to be interpreted as arguing that downloading music is moral crusading against an evil music empire. I'm not saing that. (I'm not accusing you of saying it either).

I'm just trying to lay out some thoughts to dismiss the "its just so simple.." comments. I don't think its simple. Clearly there is a disconnect between legality and morality on this one. Even if piracy eventually leads to a revolution in the distro biz (good thing) that doesn't really make it a virtue.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by noreturn

How so?

I can see why a lot of people are getting hung up on the 'immoral practices' used by the music industry. However, the wrongdoings of one party (and keep in mind that they aren't breaking any laws) does not justify the perpetration of more wrongdoing. More so with perceived wrongdoings.

You steal music because you don't agree with the music industry. I don't like abortion, should I go bomb some clinics? I mean, where do you draw the line?

Amen to that. Although cliche' two wrongs don't makes a right

[sek929]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

I don't want to be interpreted as arguing that downloading music is moral crusading against an evil music empire. I'm not saing that. (I'm not accusing you of saying it either).

I'm just trying to lay out some thoughts to dismiss the "its just so simple.." comments. I don't think its simple. Clearly there is a disconnect between legality and morality on this one. Even if piracy eventually leads to a revolution in the distro biz (good thing) that doesn't really make it a virtue.

If she's a teenager then she already tries to think for herself at all costs. She most likely knows it is wrong but doesn't care. Punishing her may work, but it may backfire with more unwanted behavior.

She is smart enough to understand that law does not equal virtue (good word BTW) so I'd say the ball is in her court.

(If she is not a mid-teenager than I'm sure punishment would work)

[freudling]

Being virtuous necessarily means being moral.

[noreturn]

Originally Posted by freudling

Analogies like bombing a hospital because you don't believe in abortion is absurd. I do not want to hurt others but I need to survive, and I don't want to be opressed. What is morally wrong is killing someone; stealing a person's car; rape, etc. What is also morally wrong is overcharging for goods and services. Unfortunately, the individual could spend a lifetime fighting in courts to rid the world of corrupt business.

Note term: Abortion clinic. Not hospital.

So when you steal a car, then that's wrong? But taking music that doesn't belong to you, that's not? At what point does stealing stop being morally wrong? When the price tag is under $200? $300? Where do you draw the line? That's always been my question; if you're going to bend the rules, then how far will you bend them?

Yeah, so these things are overpriced. What's your problem? Are you going to drop dead if you don't have a flash memory card? Will your life end if you don't have Britney's latest greatest (s)hits?

The fact is, you want that music. It's not about morals, because frankly, if you gave a rat's ass about virtue, you wouldn't be willing to break the law for something that is not essential to your survival. You don't like X industry? DON'T SUPPORT IT. It's not a difficult concept.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by noreturn

So when you steal a car, then that's wrong? But taking music that doesn't belong to you, that's not? At what point does stealing stop being morally wrong? When the price tag is under $200? $300? Where do you draw the line? That's always been my question; if you're going to bend the rules, then how far will you bend them?

Yeah, so these things are overpriced. What's your problem? Are you going to drop dead if you don't have a flash memory card? Will your life end if you don't have Britney's latest greatest (s)hits?

The fact is, you want that music. It's not about morals, because frankly, if you gave a rat's ass about virtue, you wouldn't be willing to break the law for something that is not essential to your survival. You don't like X industry? DON'T SUPPORT IT. It's not a difficult concept.

Very well stated.

[Cubeoid]

I'm sick of this thread. Shut up.

[freudling]

Cueoid:

I agree

Railroader:

I draw the line at stealing cars and bombing abortion clinics.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by freudling

Cueoid:

I agree

Railroader:

I draw the line at stealing cars and bombing abortion clinics.

So, to you, anything less than those crime is permissable? How truly sad.

[freudling]

How truly sad.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by freudling

How truly sad.

I said it first.

Aren't you going to clarify yourself? You're basically stated that you drew "the line at stealing cars and bombing abortion clinics." So, by your reasoning, any less of a crime should be allowable.

If you disagree, then could you clarify what you meant please.

[cpt kangarooski]

noreturn--

The fact is, you want that music. It's not about morals, because frankly, if you gave a rat's ass about virtue, you wouldn't be willing to break the law for something that is not essential to your survival.

More or less. Of course, it's not any more moral to uphold copyrights or enforce them, than it is to infringe on them. Copyright is basically an amoral field.

This is hardly unusual. There are laws against jaywalking, and people break those laws, when it's not necessary for their survival. We don't condemn them as being immoral, or praise the morality of the ban on jaywalking. Don't make too great a connection between laws and morals, as there often isn't one.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by freudling

Cueoid:

I agree

Railroader:

I draw the line at stealing cars and bombing abortion clinics.

You're ripping off the band and you're saying it's for the good of the music industry? Guess what, the way the math works, 10 cents is more than no cents.

Yeah, stealing music is not the worlds biggest crime. We're talking being a parent here. Being a parent means teaching responsibility. Not stealing music is responsible.

If you really want to put a stop to it, delete all her pirated music, delete her p2p programs, give her an account with no admin rights so she can't install any p2p software (or sneak in some firewall settings to block the p2p ports), and drop an iTunes gift card on the keyboard.

[sek929]

Give her an iTunes gift card?

So for downloading free music you give her a pass for...free music?

Maybe she should get a job and buy her own songs off of iTunes.

For the number of parents here the ideas being laid out are pretty awful.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by freudling

Examples of overpriced goods and services to the point of being criminal:

Eyewear frames: icberlin ~$600 without lenses.
Perfume: ~$50 a bottle
Shoes: ~$120 for decent ones
Flash memory sticks: ~$50 for 256 MB
etc.

Take a stand: don't buy "overpriced" goods, whatever that means to you. It's a moral/ethical position as well as an economic one. But don't blame the companies for "overpricing."

[freudling]

finboy:

So a pair of shoes made in China for a buck at $100 retail is ok? What you may have not taken consideration of is the way the economy works: competition. Good shoes are all within a strict price range of each other, as are flash memory drives etc. They are setting the bar and I standfast by prices that are over and above what would normally be needed to maintain research and devevlopment and operations being immoral and thus wrong. It creates a level of pricing that I have little say over and, if I want good quality, the scale is, in some cases, large.

Computers are annoying at best. Almost always a new product will be incredibly expensive for the first year and then the price plummets. Flash memory, CD'R's, CD'RW's, DVD-R's. Clothes are just a constant rip job in North America. Most are made in China and the like and are still costly. This discussion is now more reserved in the context of the WTO and thus off topic.

I also am not looking for advice on what to do.

[acadian]

Sage advice...

[finboy]

Originally Posted by freudling

finboy:

So a pair of shoes made in China for a buck at $100 retail is ok?

No, it's not OK, I think buying said shoes is stupid. But there is nobody "setting the bar" on prices. When people stop buying $100 shoes, there won't be $100 shoes.

[freudling]

finboy:

Incorrect. It is not that simple. I cannot find new said products for cheap - stores only go so low. Although sale prices bring it down, still well over 50 bucks. We don't have the control over pricing. When we need something, for instance bottled water, the demand goes up and so too does the price. Look at vaccinations last year after the US "shortage crisis." Little is exempt from this priniciple, even life saving medicine.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/releases/rel_flu_101804.html

Course, I take that article as a piece of trash in that it is not meant to "care" for the individual, but rather, make it look like that and like somebody is doing something about it.

Copious examples available.

[noreturn]

Originally Posted by freudling

Incorrect. It is not that simple. I cannot find new said products for cheap - stores only go so low. Although sale prices bring it down, still well over 50 bucks. We don't have the control over pricing. When we need something, for instance bottled water, the demand goes up and so too does the price. Look at vaccinations last year after the US "shortage crisis." Little is exempt from this priniciple, even life saving medicine.

Supply and demand. Who'da thunk? Although I think admitting its existence sort of negates this point:

Originally Posted by freudling

We don't have the control over pricing.

Sure we do, like finboy said, if there's no demand, they'll have to cut prices, or go out of business. Think post 9/11 airlines.

[SirCastor]

The trouble is, the public (at least America here) has little interest in banning together to manage markets. We're self-centered enough, and enough drawn into having what we want when we want it that we seldom will make effort to control that market. The MTV era brought in a change. The Market controls us.

[freudling]

SirCastor:

Good post.

finboy:

There are things I cannot stop buying: bottled water (Europe); shoes; toothpaste; eyewear; decent clothes; computer upgrades; electricity; medicine; oil; milk; plane tickets, etc. It simply does not follow that all markets will face no demand and, in some cases, there is hardly any fluctuation. This I cannot control. Was the vaccine planned that way to cause fear and gouge the buyer? Read my sig.

I wish things were different, but 6 million sheep are easy to manipulate and control. We are too busy with our lives to notice for the most part. I don't know what is going on with you Americans. I was in California recently and really liked it, but to live a bit different. I think you have let your country slip and be ruled by a tryant.

[Randman]

After teaching his daughter about right and wrong, the OP should try and educate some of the people here about stealing.