A New Approach To Marriage

[Hugo]

I don't think they make a separate version of CDs and videos just for Blockbuster.

Then what is your complaint - that Blockbuster sells and rents videos exactly as the producer intended for a reasonable price? That doesn't sound much like an indictment. They make separate versions for Wal-Mart sometimes, but as I've shown, that by no means forces you to buy them.

With WAL-MART, there is no alternative. That's the only store that serves some cities and towns.

Which cities and towns are exclusively served by Wal-Mart? Name some.

[Michael Hardner]

Then what is your complaint - that Blockbuster sells and rents videos exactly as the producer intended for a reasonable price? That doesn't sound much like an indictment. They make separate versions for Wal-Mart sometimes, but as I've shown, that by no means forces you to buy them.

No. That Blockbuster dictates the content due to their clout as a distributor. They limit my freedom of choice.

Which cities and towns are exclusively served by Wal-Mart? Name some.

I don't know of any, but my understanding is that WAL-MART has pushed out many small businesses such as hardware and grocery stores. I read about the phenomenon of the one-store town a few years ago, but I must admit I no longer have the source.

[Hugo]

No. That Blockbuster dictates the content due to their clout as a distributor. They limit my freedom of choice.

If you are referring to cuts made to achieve a certain rating so that "family" chains such as Wal-Mart and Blockbuster will carry the title, you should note that the MPAA imposes these ratings and demands edits, so in this case it is the government, not Blockbuster, that is supposedly limiting your freedom of choice. They decide the ratings and often for highly questionable reasons.

It is Blockbuster's decision not to carry ratings above R, and apparently that business decision seems to be working for them. There are plenty of outlets who carry NC-17 titles. I got my Criterion Collection DVD of Robocop from Amazon.com. It is the original director's cut, before they edited it for an 'R' rating. I didn't have any trouble finding it and I didn't pay over the odds for it.

If not, I'd like to know what you are referring to. This statement was extremely vague.

I don't know of any, but my understanding is that WAL-MART has pushed out many small businesses such as hardware and grocery stores.

Ah, you don't know of any. Well, let's be charitable and assume that you are right anyway, and there is some town somewhere in North America that only has a Wal-Mart. Is Wal-Mart charging them more than they charge people in big cities? Does this town have no mailboxes so that it can receive mail-order catalogues and goods? Does this town have not a single phone line so that it can order goods to be delivered, or a single computer to be hooked up to a phone line so that it can use Amazon.com, Ebay or Netflix?

I don't think so.

The irony of your argument is that you are attacking capitalism for apparently not providing that which it provides in far, far larger quantities than any other economic system: choice! Controlled and planned economies give far, far less choice than capitalism. If it's consumer choice you want, you are already in the best system to provide it.

[Michael Hardner]

If you are referring to cuts made to achieve a certain rating so that "family" chains such as Wal-Mart and Blockbuster will carry the title, you should note that the MPAA imposes these ratings and demands edits, so in this case it is the government, not Blockbuster, that is supposedly limiting your freedom of choice. They decide the ratings and often for highly questionable reasons.

No, I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to content changes within the film itself. I'm referring to changes to CD content and covers.

It is Blockbuster's decision not to carry ratings above R, and apparently that business decision seems to be working for them. There are plenty of outlets who carry NC-17 titles. I got my Criterion Collection DVD of Robocop from Amazon.com. It is the original director's cut, before they edited it for an 'R' rating. I didn't have any trouble finding it and I didn't pay over the odds for it.If not, I'd like to know what you are referring to. This statement was extremely vague.

Sorry. It's my understanding that these large chains mandate changes in content of CDs and videos - not to change the rating - but to carry the film period.

Ah, you don't know of any. Well, let's be charitable and assume that you are right anyway, and there is some town somewhere in North America that only has a Wal-Mart. Is Wal-Mart charging them more than they charge people in big cities? Does this town have no mailboxes so that it can receive mail-order catalogues and goods? Does this town have not a single phone line so that it can order goods to be delivered, or a single computer to be hooked up to a phone line so that it can use Amazon.com, Ebay or Netflix? don't think so. ?

You set the bar for non-competition rather high. If WAL-MART drove every store out of town, you would be satisfied if consumers' only other option was buying over the internet ?

How Soviet does that sound ?

The irony of your argument is that you are attacking capitalism for apparently not providing that which it provides in far, far larger quantities than any other economic system: choice! Controlled and planned economies give far, far less choice than capitalism. If it's consumer choice you want, you are already in the best system to provide it.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm against capitalism.

As I have already argued, it's obtuse to argue capitalism vs. socialism because these are arguments of yesterday. As I've already stated, we need to think of government and big business in a different context today. No one is arguing for complete government control, nor for anarchy.

I'm asking for people to NOT think of these corporations as being in the same class as mom-and-pop businesses. As such, there are certain controls and responsibilities associated with them.

[Hugo]

I'm referring to content changes within the film itself. I'm referring to changes to CD content and covers.

Blockbuster is catering to the demands of its market and it has found that the greater share of its customers prefer a family-oriented store. They can choose to abandon this model at the risk of alienating a large portion of their customer base. Blockbuster is, too, a consumer of films from producers. As its customers expect a family-oriented business from Blockbuster, so Blockbuster expects family-oriented productions from producers. Those producers can either satisfy that or sell it elsewhere, just as Blockbuster can either satisfy their family-oriented customer base or find another one.

In any case, this is merely democratic market forces at work. However, your choices are not limited. Some film producers may distribute two titles. Some may elect not to distribute via Blockbuster at all. In any event, your main complaint is that market forces may have denied you the chance of seeing an extra 10 seconds of Nicole Kidman in the nude, and if that's the price we have to pay for the greatest freedom and highest standard of living the world has ever known, so be it!

If WAL-MART drove every store out of town, you would be satisfied if consumers' only other option was buying over the internet ?

I can't see it happening. If you find any places where it has, I'll reconsider, but I find it amazing that no matter how close any company comes to dominance some competition arises, often seemingly from nowhere. Take the computer industry. IBM used to dominate it, until a three-man operation called Micro-soft (it was hyphenated then) turned up and took their dominance away from them. Now everybody is worried about Microsoft, but suddenly Apple is turning profits again and stealing market share and the open-source software movement has gathered tremendous momentum suddenly and is stealing even more market share.

I'm asking for people to NOT think of these corporations as being in the same class as mom-and-pop businesses. As such, there are certain controls and responsibilities associated with them.

Yes, and this is precisely what democratic capitalism is all about. True capitalism depends upon law and ethics as well as economics. Pure capitalism, as leftists put it, doesn't even exist. It's a system of impurities, as we live in an impure world.

But we are way, way off topic, and I think we are essentially in agreement anyway, so...

[August1991]

No. That Blockbuster dictates the content due to their clout as a distributor. They limit my freedom of choice.

This seems to be the essence of your argument, MH, and as a result, you seem to want some kind of government involvement to alter the power of such large corporations.

But why stop at Blockbusters? Why not consider distributors like Columbia or Hollywood producers too? Don't they restrict what you see? In fact, we could say that individual producers/directors decide what we see.

Or how about newspapers? Don't they too restrict the news we read? Maybe they should be forced to meet government guidelines?

After all, the government regulates the food we eat. Why shouldn't it also regulate the information we receive?

Moreover, our governments are democratic, based on majority vote, so this regulation will reflect the will of the majority. Big corporations, on the other hand, seem to be a law unto themselves.

What do you think?

[Michael Hardner]

Hugo:

Blockbuster is catering to the demands of its market and it has found that the greater share of its customers prefer a family-oriented store. They can choose to abandon this model at the risk of alienating a large portion of their customer base. Blockbuster is, too, a consumer of films from producers. As its customers expect a family-oriented business from Blockbuster, so Blockbuster expects family-oriented productions from producers. Those producers can either satisfy that or sell it elsewhere, just as Blockbuster can either satisfy their family-oriented customer base or find another one.

This is exactly the point. Chains like Blockbuster are too big to ignore. There's no "other Blockbuster" to go to. Hence we have non-competition. Hence the mom-and-pop arguments can't be used.

In any case, this is merely democratic market forces at work. However, your choices are not limited. Some film producers may distribute two titles. Some may elect not to distribute via Blockbuster at all. In any event, your main complaint is that market forces may have denied you the chance of seeing an extra 10 seconds of Nicole Kidman in the nude, and if that's the price we have to pay for the greatest freedom and highest standard of living the world has ever known, so be it!

You seem to have given up your argument here at the end. Anyway, it's just an example. We seem to agree that large corporations exert more force on society, not only through the market but in the other ways they operate.

I can't see it happening. If you find any places where it has, I'll reconsider, but I find it amazing that no matter how close any company comes to dominance some competition arises, often seemingly from nowhere. Take the computer industry. IBM used to dominate it, until a three-man operation called Micro-soft (it was hyphenated then) turned up and took their dominance away from them. Now everybody is worried about Microsoft, but suddenly Apple is turning profits again and stealing market share and the open-source software movement has gathered tremendous momentum suddenly and is stealing even more market share.

IBM still dominates the computer industry as it existed back then. Microsoft dominates a new market (the home computer) that didn't exist back then.

IBM has as much control over your life as Microsoft (they're both hidden taxes) but it's less visible.

Yes, and this is precisely what democratic capitalism is all about. True capitalism depends upon law and ethics as well as economics. Pure capitalism, as leftists put it, doesn't even exist. It's a system of impurities, as we live in an impure world.

But we are way, way off topic, and I think we are essentially in agreement anyway, so...

More or less. I think if we got down to the brass tacks and had some examples posted here you would agree that "yes, this is an example of abuse of the system and it's wrong etc. etc." but further than that I would like for you to consider the complexities of modern global economics as being evolutionarily different.

Ok. The future will give us more to argue about. Onwards...

[August1991]

This is exactly the point. Chains like Blockbuster are too big to ignore. There's no "other Blockbuster" to go to. Hence we have non-competition. Hence the Mom-and-Pop arguments don't apply.

Large, modern corporations, a law unto themselves because they dominate a market, are completely different from Mom-and-Pop stores, or "enterprise" as Adam Smith imagined it.

Hence.

Legitimate, democratic government, representative of the population, must intervene to ensure that these large, modern, profit-seeking corporations do not ignore the public interest.

Do I understand you well, MH?

[Michael Hardner]

Yep.

[August1991]

This forum is a small society of about 10 posters. Maybe a democracy. Your posts raise controversy. We take a vote about whether to torch your house because of the nonsense you write.

Torch your house? You obviously vote against, I abstain (your posts seem decent) but there are 8 votes in favour. Your house goes up in flames.

You are in shock, I'm appalled. Why?

Democracy means one person, one vote. But your house means much, much more to you than it does to the eight yahoos. For the eight, a torched house is a joke. For you, it's life.

Shouldn't relative feelings be taken into account?

Democratic government is a market where people can only vote "yes or no", there's no relative "maybe". Corporations, even big dominant ones, deal in markets where people can vote maybe by degree.

Which is better?

MH: This is not an argument. Am I wrong? I genuinely want to know what you think. I'm not trying to "win" this debate.

[Michael Hardner]

Democratic government is a market where people can only vote "yes or no", there's no relative "maybe". Corporations, even big dominant ones, deal in markets where people can vote maybe by degree.

Which is better?

MH: This is not an argument. Am I wrong? I genuinely want to know what you think. I'm not trying to "win" this debate.

Well, it seems like we're talking about something new here.

But, yes, an open market is better for the consumer.

[Hugo]

We seem to agree that large corporations exert more force on society, not only through the market but in the other ways they operate.

Of course - just as large governments and large social and religious organisations exert more force on society, in the same ways. The world is a big place, with 6 billion inhabitants, and the tasks we face as a species are huge. Therefore, it's safe to assume that big organisations are here to stay. We are just going to have to find ways to get along.

My final word is that abuses of power from the economic system will of course happen, just as surely as churches and governments abuse their power from time to time, and when this happens we should prosecute the abusers just as surely as we would prosecute corrupt ministers or child-molesting priests. This does not mean that all corporations are evil and do not contribute a net good to society, any more than it means that all governments or churches are evil and do not contribute a net good also.

Regarding the original topic, the only objection I have heard thus far is Blackdog's, which is basically statist in nature and could be summed up as, "The government should have control" or, if you prefer, "All Power to the Soviets!" as their 1920s campaign went. Well, then I'm happy to have had a decent idea that many people approved of.

Now what?

[Elder]

Thank you for getting us back on track Hugo. The next step here would be to find someone with power who would back this "hare-brained scheme." We've debated the issue, and I think we've settled it. So far only one against, and only one opposing arguement.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, this thread went all over the map. I think Hugo's suggestion is a sound one and I have heard support for such an idea on both sides of the (great) political divide.

While I think gays should be treated equally under the law, no religion should forced by law to change their practices, with few exceptions.

( I don't know of any religion that still allows stoning, but I don't think tolerance needs to go that far. )

[Black Dog]

Regarding the original topic, the only objection I have heard thus far is Blackdog's, which is basically statist in nature and could be summed up as, "The government should have control" or, if you prefer, "All Power to the Soviets!" as their 1920s campaign went. Well, then I'm happy to have had a decent idea that many people approved of.

Lookee! Another straw man (or straw dog in this case.)

As I said upteen times, the state already controls marriage. There's volumes of laws that would need to be overturned, precedents demolished, and basically a whole crapload of trouble to go through, and for what? Because people are jumping at shadows?

The current system works alright, but needs to be more inclusive. The way it is now, if people want to marry in a church, synagoge, mosque or mud hut, they can. If they don't belive in any of the mumbo jumbo, they can still be wed by the state.

While I think gays should be treated equally under the law, no religion should forced by law to change their practices, with few exceptions.

A perfect example of the misconceptions around gay marriage.

[Hugo]

There's volumes of laws that would need to be overturned, precedents demolished, and basically a whole crapload of trouble to go through, and for what?

But we already went over this!

It seems to me that the main part of your argument is, "a whole crapload of trouble" as you put it. Maybe. Worthwhile things usually are trouble. Achieving democracy was a lot of trouble. Getting equal women's rights were a lot of trouble. This move would almost certainly be less trouble than either of those achievements.

The current system works alright

I think the majority of people would say the opposite. This issue is polarizing both the USA and Canada. Gay-rights groups are up in arms and people are marching on New York City Hall. Religious groups are up in arms too, churches feel that their rights will be endangered and so-cons are upset about the ramifications they feel this will have upon society. The issue is a problem, and just making gay marriage legal won't make it go away. The religious right are not going to shrug their shoulders and get used to it, and polygamists, NAMBLA and more will get stuck into the issue as well. Neither side is happy with the status-quo, and if you change it, you are going to polarize society even further because the demands of the gay-rights activists will be replaced by the demands of other groups, while the demands of the so-cons will just become louder and angrier.

This is a way to circumvent all of that and produce a solution that can be acceptable to everyone. Laziness is not a good excuse, I feel.

[August1991]

the state already controls marriage.

BD, what do you mean when you say that?

You may want to see this recent decision:

Supreme Court Decision

[Michael Hardner]

QUOTE 

While I think gays should be treated equally under the law, no religion should forced by law to change their practices, with few exceptions.

A perfect example of the misconceptions around gay marriage.

Sorry, Blackdog, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about marriage, but other areas - hiring practices and so forth...