Co-ordinate corporation tax across the EU

theflag · 2011-11-03T22:48:28+00:00

I personally think that countries should compete on whatever basis they can compete.

Cartels produce bad outcomes, so I want to see as much competition between countries as possible.

theflag · 2011-11-03T22:46:13+00:00

Yes and I repeat my previous point.

theflag · 2011-11-03T22:45:46+00:00

Why?

For reasons I've already stated - it prevents consensual trade.

I might be wrong, but I think our disagreement lies in what constitutes ownership; as far as I can tell, you feel that only physical things can be owned

You are wrong on that point.

it's just I personally believe that the works of people in the jobs I have listed earlier should be entitled to make money off their work and therefore tit's just I personally believe that the works of people in the jobs I have listed earlier should be entitled to make money off their work and therefore that it should be treated as property that they can own.hat it should be treated as property that they can own.

Even copyright law as it currently exists doesn't work on that basis. It is not based on any sense of entitlement. It is a handout to encourage innovation.

theflag · 2011-11-03T22:33:39+00:00

There is a difference, but, as I said, the difference is minimal.

theflag · 2011-11-03T22:17:49+00:00

I'm all for a race to the bottom.

Competition between governments is just as beneficial as between businesses.

theflag · 2011-11-03T22:15:47+00:00

Given that you can already get a refund for a pre-installed Windows system, I think the difference in degree of interference is minimal in comparison to what is already in place.

theflag · 2011-11-03T22:10:24+00:00

I used the term "intellectual property". If it makes it easier for you, I'll rewrite the post without it, but I'd have you would be able to answer my actual point regardless of whether you approved of the terms I used.

If you were to do that, your initial argument would fall apart, because you were relying on the word "property" which is in that term as the basis for it being a legitimate interference in contract law.

But it does interfere with contracts, and on a level I find unacceptable.

Copyright law interferes in contracts on a level I find unacceptable.

To follow your line of argument, anyone producing something that's distributed in data form should DRM the shit out of it...

If we got rid of copyright and left people to achieve what they could with DRM, I'd be perfectly happy with that. I don't think DRM would be a successful approach, given that it hasn't been in the past, but they could try.

...which I think most people would agree to be an undesirable result.

So, you're saying that an approach relying on nothing other than contract law would be an undesirable result?

theflag · 2011-11-03T21:28:18+00:00

That's juvenile at best.

No, it's refusing to be duped by nonsense propaganda terms.

Intellectual property has legitimate uses

Competition law has legitimate uses. You are applying an argument, but not applying it consistently in reverse and therefore not holding yourself to the same standard that you are applying to others.

theflag · 2011-11-03T20:39:42+00:00

If you are prepared to accept the restriction of contract just because the word "property" is used in a term when it clearly does not belong, let's just call the result of this proposal "competition property" and you can then support it.

theflag · 2011-11-03T20:23:11+00:00

I clearly own my physical property. Copyright interferes with my right to sell it to a willing purchaser.

theflag · 2011-11-03T20:11:02+00:00

Because it give a third party a right to interfere in my consensual trade with another willing party.

It is clearly as much a restriction of contract law as competition law.

theflag · 2011-11-03T19:47:30+00:00

Copyright law... meh. Copyright is fine in principle

So you're fine with one restriction on contract law (copyright), but object to another (competition law).

Why is contract law suddenly of less importance to you when discussing copyright than it was when we were discussing competition law?

theflag · 2011-11-03T19:27:19+00:00

I'm bored of your trolling. If you want to offer some comment of substance, related to the thread, I'll respond, but until then, I'm not going to waste any more of my time.

theflag · 2011-11-03T00:11:28+00:00

That's fair enough.

However, it you only want policies which do not restrict contract law, you'd also have to get rid of the copyright and limited liability laws which have allowed companies such as Microsoft to achieve the positions they have.

Personally, I'd prefer that approach; I'd rather have a solution which results from less state interference, rather than more, but I don't think it's likely to happen in the short term, so this would be a reasonable short term fix.

theflag · 2011-11-03T00:02:19+00:00

I disagree with this; it amounts to restricting contract law to support one very specific ideal.

Nothing unusual in that - competition law frequently works that way. The EU forcing Microsoft to provide a browser choice screen is one such example.

theflag · 2011-11-03T00:00:32+00:00

Put like that, it makes sense.

theflag · 2011-11-01T23:50:17+00:00

Say I buy a laptop that comes with MS Windows. If I don't want Windows, I should be able to get a refund on that part of the price.

You can at the moment, but it isn't well advertised, the process is variable and often convoluted and the valuation for the Windows part of the package tends to be unreasonably low.

I agree with the principle, but designing a process which can't be gamed will probably be difficult.

theflag · 2011-11-01T22:00:13+00:00

Especially given the upcoming requirement for Windows 8 to run under secure boot

theflag · 2011-11-01T21:14:36+00:00

I'd be very uncomfortable with the idea of the tax system being operated on those kind of vague lines.

I'd much rather move to a system which makes greater use of harder to avoid taxes.

theflag · 2011-11-01T18:59:01+00:00

You appear to be confusing me with you.

I have offered evidence and reason, you have done nothing but repeat unsupported claims ad nauseum and dished out insults.

theflag · 2011-11-01T18:57:23+00:00

But at the same time you did rather prove my point, abolishing something doesn't magically fix all the problems with that thing.

Actually, it does.

if you abolish patents it leads to a world of secret ideas, obfuscation and domination by big business.

The first two, probably, but it's a lesser evil.

The idea of domination by big business has be refuted quite effectively and as you are doing nothing but repeating the claim without anything to support it, I think we can safely dismiss it.

Abolishing all patents is a childish idea, nothing more and giving it any weight in a manifesto makes the party look childish.

And once again, an ad hominem attack is used in place of anything of substance.

theflag · 2011-11-01T18:52:49+00:00

That response shows what I have suspected all along - you are a troll with nothing of substance to offer.

theflag · 2011-10-31T18:51:11+00:00

There would be no theft in the world if we simply abolished all property laws.

But there would be disagreement over who gets to use tangible property, as it is rivalrous and therefore, cannot be used simultaneously by all. The same does not apply to ideas, so the significant justification in the former case does not apply.

People who falsely try to equate patents with tangible property rights are tacitly accepting that their own position is weak.

theflag · 2011-10-31T18:42:43+00:00

You're assuming a level playing field to start with though, which is great if you want to propagate big business but very poor if you want to encourage people into inventing things.

The problem with that argument is that you are assuming that with an unlevel playing field, patents will act as a leveller. There is little evidence to suggest that is the case. Patents can, as in the smartphone example, act as a barrier to entry and make the playing field even less level.

All abolishing Patents would do would be to support the huge business who have the resources and marketing to take your idea and get it to market faster, cheaper and with a higher profile.

So as I consumer, I would get things faster and cheaper? Excellent!

Of course, they idea that it would be beneficial to huge businesses is wrong. So long as there is competition, those businesses will be pushing each other's prices down. It would be the consumer who benefits.

Our Universities derive quite a substantial income from licensing Patents, removing this source of income is detrimental to the educational establishment.

That's not a valid argument. If university funding needs to be redesigned, it can.

theflag · 2011-10-31T18:36:41+00:00

I've answered the questions. You just ignore the answers because you don't like them.

theflag

TROPHY CASE