Like many content-providers, I am disturbed by the huge amount of intellectual property theft over the Internet. Sure, it occurred pre-Internet but the now robust amount of easily accessible information has made this a profound issue. Impacted most are movie producers, musical artists, authors, bloggers and many more.

Now, wouldn’t it be best to just find a way to work within this paradigm? After all, many enterprising musicians have realized they can actually utilize the piracy by certain fans to make even more money on the back-end.

Perhaps. But, it should always be the choice of the content creator. I’ve personally had my information copied and republished without permission (at best) and without proper credit (at worst). I truly believe some people don’t know and understand that this is wrong. Others do, and do it any way. Mine is not a lone example. It’s very widespread.

So, it would seem that I — and many other creators, purveyors and compilers of content — would be overjoyed by the recently-proposed House of Representative’s Software Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senatorial cousin, the Protect IP Act (PIPA).

But, I’m happy and proud to say we’re not. Owners of huge websites as well as one-person businesses; those on the political left and the political right; those who usually believe in big government and those who want government mainly out of their lives are all — in their own way — saying, “Nope. We don’t trust you to control what is perhaps the foundational principle of liberty…Freedom of Speech.”

We don’t trust the FCC and its bureaucracy to choose winners and losers based on whose opinions they (or their elected official bosses) might not feel is, er…beneficial.

We don’t trust the politicians to resist pressure from their paid sponsors (I mean, donors) to tilt the playing field in one business’s favor over another.

No, while we would love protection from the pirates, we have more to fear from those who make the laws. Both intended as well as unintended consequences could eventually all but wipe out any freedom we have to make our thoughts and opinions known.

I appreciate and respect the owners of many sites such as Wikipedia and Google who participated in the blackout as well as the many individuals who called their elected representatives to complain.

Thank you for voting for Freedom, even though — in the short term — it still leaves us with the frustration of those who would steal from us.

Solutions? While a free-market solution is always (in my opinion) preferable, protecting its citizenry from theft is a legitimate function of government. So, I’m personally not opposed to a government solution, IF it can do it without causing more harm than good. Unfortunately, government has not proven to be especially proficient in this regard. Their solutions typically cause even bigger problems and tend to result in a greater lack of freedom for us all.

Please weigh in with your thoughts.

I often wonder if the well-intentioned people who call for more and bigger government have ever actually studied it past the “good intentions stage.” Does big government really help the poor? Does big government help anyone other than those politicians (from both parties), bureaucrats and special interests participating in Corporatism and other special favors?

The best way to help the poor is to create an economy so prosperous that anyone who wants a job can find one, and those who cannot help themselves have access to more charity and help than can be imagined. Charity is indeed a high value. And, the free market does it much better than does government.

John Stossel recently wrote about the onerous government rules brought to us through both major parties: “we’re drowning in rules — 160,000 pages worth. {This} kills opportunity and freedom.”

This reminded me of something from years ago. My friend and political mentor, the late Harry Browne was talking about the newly-enacted NAFTA (North American Free trade Agreement). He explained that this was not free trade at all. He said, “it doesn’t take over 1000 pages to say, ‘okay, you can all trade freely now.’”

According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute on October 3, 2011, “At the moment, the Federal Register stands at 61,247 pages — for 2011 alone.” (Emphasis mine.) In a recent television interview, Amilya Antonetti noted we have over 71,000 pages in our tax code. As she points out, “that’s good for accountants and lawyers, but it’s not good for small business.” Nor is it good for practically any private citizen because all of this inhibits job creation.

To those on both sides of the political aisle, might I suggest that, rather than calling each other names and accusing those who don’t agree with you of being bad people, let’s understand that, essentially, most Americans want the same thing: a society where people are free to pursue happiness.

Let’s also understand that, if we’re going to have such a society, we must respect each others natural rights to do such, and not try to burden others — through the force of government — with “our own” image of the perfect society.

People should be free to live their lives and pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit…providing they don’t infringe upon the rights of anyone else to do the same. (Can anyone really argue with that statement?)

And, all these rules and regulations — over and above government’s legitimate functions of protecting the citizenry against force and fraud — inhibits one’s right to own and use their property (meaning themselves, their possessions and their business) in the way they see fit. And, when that happens, people suffer, jobs are lost and the economy tanks.

It’s not that complicated. Universal Laws never are. But, they must be respected. If not, then…well, we are seeing the affects. Are we ready to let our elected officials know it is time for a change?

I recently received a Twitter tweet from someone who noticed that, within my profile, I mentioned being an “advocate of a Free-Market Economy.”

His tweet read…

“I support a free market as long as it’s fair.”

Then, indeed, he supports a free market. Because, a free market, by the very nature of the thing, is always fair. A free market simply means that individuals and companies are free to trade (or not trade) with one another. Nothing more; nothing less. The parties concerned trade money in exchange for products or services because they believe they are better off by doing so.

So, I replied, “A true free market is always fair. It’s only when government passes laws and regulations that favor some over others that it’s unfair.”

We have never had a truly Free-Market Economy. And, what we have in America today bears strikingly little resemblance to this concept at all. In a true Free-Market Economy, government’s legitimate function is simply to protect us from force and fraud, thus creating an environment where people are free to pursue their own happiness both in business and personally. The result is overall prosperity where the standard of living rises for the whole.

Posts on this topic tend to receive lots of responses from people who either appear to be anti-Free Market or — like my new Twitter connection — believe in mixing Free-Market with the benevolent (cough) control of government. But, I don’t think they are anti-Free Market. I think they equate the Free Market with Corporatism, which is when big corporations provide campaign donations in exchange for legislation that gives them an advantage over others.

That, of course, is very unfair.

I know, life itself is unfair. And, much of that we cannot help. However, if we understand it, we can keep the market fair. How? Simply vote out of office those legislators who sell favors to special interests.

Corporatism = Not Fair. Free Market = Fair.

In a recent post, “The Ethics of Sunscreen” marketer extraordinaire Seth Godin suggests the need for more regulation on products. He wonders why the more ethical companies don’t desire more regulation and why everyone cannot see that the “regulation of marketing claims is the only way to insulate consumers from short-term selfish marketers in search of market share, marketers who will shade the truth, even if it kills some customers?”

I’m a huge fan of Seth’s. However, I believe he misses a couple of points. First, regulations are often simply not that effective (as he mentioned, they are often watered down via lobbying efforts anyway). So, the ethical company doesn’t need them and the less ethical will do their best to skirt around them.

Secondly, most regulation is more effectively handled through free-market solutions. This, rather than government legislation based more on campaign donations and political expediency as opposed to what is best for the public.

What?! Regulation handled better through free-market solutions? Really?!

Let’s look at just a few examples:

Consumer Reports, Standard & Poor’s, The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval

All three are private-sector companies that specialize in researching their niche areas and providing their findings to consumers.

All three are trusted, as they are known to do consistently outstanding jobs. Best of all, they have real motivation for doing a great job; if they don’t, they lose subscribers/followers. Do they ever mess up? Sure, they are human. And, as private-sector companies, they are punished accordingly by their customers.

This is in direct contrast to government regulation where the bureaucrats in charge of enforcing the legislation operate anonymously and with sovereign immunity.

There are also companies such as UL through which ethical companies such as those Seth mentioned can have their products tested and certified. And, we haven’t even explored the difference between third-party certification as opposed to government licensing. Surprising to many is that — more than anything — state licensing requirements protect those already in business and make it more difficult (often prohibitive) for new businesses to get started. The result is diminished competition and higher prices… and not a bit more safety.

Is there ever a need for government regulation? Sure. Occasionally, there certainly is.

And, that’s okay. But, let’s not make government regulation our desired, fallback position. Let’s first always ask if there is a market-based solution. If so, let’s go there. If not, then look toward government. But, be wary. That’s not paranoia. The citizen-government relationship is one where vigilance is not only called for, but much more beneficial for the citizenry.

After all, if we stop keeping a watchful eye on government, we might one day, over the course of many, many years, find ourselves with a big, bloated, oppressive government that is on the verge of bankruptcy and has mortgaged the future of generations to come.

Naw, I must be paranoid. That could never happen.

A recent post related the story of a well-intentioned mandate from a state government to all nursing homes that, naturally, had the unintended consequences of hurting the very people it was intended to help. While not the main lesson, it was perhaps a subtext.

Of course, from a libertarian perspective, I’ll also suggest that it is simply a microcosm in the larger battle of Socialism vs. Capitalism. (Hang with me here.)

While I’ve compared the two “isms” in previous posts, this case simply points out – again, on a small scale – why central planning of any kind is so counter-productive. How, by its very nature, it must be.

Consider: every day, billions of tiny, small, medium, and large transactions take place between two or more willing parties, each making their decisions based on what they believe is best. It may not always work out correctly, but that’s part of living in a free society. However, if you want a whole bunch of decisions that are often much worse, ask a centralized government to make all of those decisions for us.

Even with good intentions, a relatively small group of bureaucrats in Washington, DC simply cannot know what’s best for hundreds of millions of individuals.

Now – and this is where it gets scary – consider all the rules and regulations handed down by our “lawmakers” on both sides of the aisle, not with good intention but rather the result of special-interest lobbyists having bought and paid for those regulations, laws, etc. And, this is far more often the case.

Yes, placing the decisions and well-being of hundreds of millions of individuals in the hands of a centralized few ends up working only for the ruling elite.

Capitalism, on the other hand, works for the benefit of all. Even the poor are significantly better off in a truly Capitalistic society than are their counterparts in less economically free countries.  And please, before you write an angry letter asking, “what about corporations buying government favors?”…that is not Capitalism; it is Corporatism, and it is just as bad.

Only true Capitalism – where government’s limited and legitimate functions are protecting its citizenry from force and fraud – has proven to provide an opportunity where people – both as individuals and as a society – can thrive and reach their greatest potential.