This video, which I’m sure we’ve all seen, is the crown jewel of the “respect copyrights” campaign.
The blatant hypocrisy of the companies and government agencies which sponsor either the MPAA or this campaign is far reaching to the very foundation of capitalism.
This video (and its campaign) has 2 premises both of which are either hypocritical or just plain stupid.
These premises are:
#1) what is illegal is also inherently morally wrong.
First, every thinking person knows that what is illegal or legal has no bearing on what is moral or immoral and this has been a known fact since the days of Plato. Marxists believe that, while the practice of capitalism by definition is legal, it may still be immoral to allow people to starve to death and die all the while others go with too much food. What’s more though, this argument can also be made from a right-wing point of view. Right-wing, anti-abortion activists would argue (and they do frequently argue) that while abortions are legal, they are nonetheless immoral.
So on this point, the anti-piracy campaign is just talking out of its ass because most politically engaged people on all sides of the political spectrum recognize the fact that the law does not equal morality. So this premise is just plain stupid.
#2) You and I shouldn’t make our decision to share music based on a cost-benefit analysis. We should make our decision not in terms of what is the best, most economical decision for us, but rather for what is the best for the industry.
Capitalism is based on the very idea of each person behaving in their own best interest through rational, cost-benefit analyses!! That’s just how capitalism works.
Union Carbide made a cost-benefit analysis and decided that if it just cut on safety measures and moved its operation to India, then it could save TONS of money even if it cost people their lives. The result: 20,000 people DEAD because of the Bhopal disaster caused by Union Carbide.
British Petrolium (BP) made a cost-benefit analysis to intentionally allow its pipelines in Alaska to corrode through sheer negligence because it knew that the resultant oil spill would hike up oil prices globally and net the company an overall profit even after paying for repairs.
Ford Motor Company learned in the early stages of production that its Pinto model would explode under certain circumstances and would be expected to kill people. Ford decided that it would cost more money to do an $11 repair on all of its models than it would to pay for lawyers to fight all the personal injury and wrongful death suits that would result from their car.
Chevrolet made basically the same decision with regards to their Malibu model.
Moreover, each of these 4 examples are just the really popular ones that have been published widely. Most cost-benefit analysis is so common that it doesn’t even get reported on. For instance, every single capitalist company makes decisions everyday on how low they can pay their workers — ex. “Is paying starvation wages worth the extra cost in lower employee retention and higher training costs?” etc… — in order to make a profit.
Using the biblical (and original) definition of hypocrite, we see that a hypocrite is somebody who imposes standards on others which they refuse to accept for themselves. So the very companies which support the MPAA in this campaign are by definition hypocrite since the very way they make money is founded upon the necessity of cost-benefit analyses while they advocate that we refrain from the same practice when it will cost them money.
If capitalism can use cost-benefit analyses at the cost of peoples LIVES in order to save money, then I sure as hell can use a cost-benefit analysis at the cost of their money. And, what’s more, I won’t feel the slightest bit of guilt because of it. In fact, I’ll do you one better: taking money away from companies which can do such things is perhaps the most patriotic and beneficial act you can do while sitting at home in front of your computer!
Dion has already learned more than MacKay did
Published 20 December, 2006 Canadian Politics (domestic) , Conservative Party , Dion , Liberal Party , news , News, Commentary & Op/Ed , politics 3 CommentsThe CBC is reporting that Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has vowed to undo any changes the Conservatives impose on the Saskatchewan Wheat Board. In addition to being a good policy, this tactic also has the virtue of pleasing one of the two men without whom Dion could not have ascended to the Liberal leadership: David Orchard.
I’ve had lunch with David Orchard on several occasions and I can tell you that he is not to be underestimated. Orchard did not endorse Dion for leader until after the deadline for signing up members had already passed, but even with than hindrance, Orchard was able to deliver much to Dion. Orchard was able to mobilize his massive organization so effectively that on the convention floor in Montreal, Orchard actually had 150 deligates in his pocket – which is about as many deligates as Volpe had, and more deligates than Martha Hall Findlay had and those two were able to actually sign up members to vote for them. Orchard basically sent some e-mails out and I got a phone call from his brother Grant and with that relatively small effort, he made himself one of the most important players in the election of Dion as leader.
So, what does this have to do with the Saskatchewan Wheat Board? Orchard, a Saskatchewan farmer and a strident supporter of the Board, would not tolerate the mortal weakening of this collective bargaining tool. Now Dion could have ignored the issue as he’s shown little interest at all in the Board up until now, but maybe this shows that Dion has already decided to learn from the mistakes of Peter MacKay who, as leader of the PC Party, underestimated Orchard and earned for himself an eternal gadfly as a reminder of a betrayal which just will not go away.
Keeping Orchard happy may just be one of the smartest things Dion has done since being elected leader. Now, this doesn’t mean that Dion will be a good leader, however it does demonstrate that there may be some truth in John Stuart Mill’s statement that “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”