And what about the businessman - a movie maker, for instance, to keep with the same theme - whose movies cannot be shown in any theater in the US because he doesn't submit to the MPAA? He can't choose to not submit to MPAA because if he does he has no business. This may not be as obvious and black and white as the government telling someone "no", but the result is the same. His freedom is infringed by the actions of a large powerful group, but unlike the government, he has little or no ability to vote this group out of power.mr.72 wrote:Actually that is exactly the difference and there is 100% no problem with that. If you don't like the MPAA, stop watching movies with MPAA ratings. If enough people stop watching MPAA-rated movies then the organization will cease to exist.austinrealtor wrote: Where is it written that censorship can only be undertaken by government? Private entities censor voices all the time. Difference is that if the government is the group doing the censoring, then the people being censored have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." If a private entity does the censoring, they can tell you to take a hike and that's that.
The problem with the government is that if I don't like government actions (censorship or whatever), then I cannot choose not to be a consumer of the government. If I don't like how the government is doing something, I can't decide not to pay taxes anymore without winding up in prison. So that's why the public has the right to petition the government because they do not have the right to not be consumers of the government.
As an aside, I don't really care that much about MPAA. I rarely watch movies anymore anyway. It was just an example that was being discussed that allowed me to elaborate on my larger point.
How do you "choose" to not buy the product of the monopoly? No one else is selling the product! That's why it's a monopoly. Obviously if it's a discretionary expense, such as movie tickets, you can choose to just not watch movies at all. But that is a false choice. And if the product is mandatory (something you can't live without - like medicine or drinking water), then you truly have no choice AND you have no ability to change the power structure of the monopoly through a vote. This is why the "trust busters" like Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft et al put an end to unregulated monopolies at the turn of the last century. A private monopoly is infinitely more dangerous than any democratically elected government.mr.72 wrote:No, it is exactly opposite of what you say. I do NOT have the same ability to change the way government behaves. The government does what it does and I am forced to comply at the point of a gun and under threat of arrest. When a private enterprise does something I don't like, I just choose not to consume their product. Monopoly or not, I can decide if the product or service they produce is worth my compliance with their means of producing it enough for me to elect to pay for it. But not so with government.austinrealtor wrote: This is a prime example of the fallacy that private enterprise is ALWAYS better than government. At least we - the people - have the right (and sometimes the ability) to change how our government behaves.
If we, as consumers, deplete a private business of revenue by choosing not to consume their product or service, then they will be forced to either change their behavior, product or service, or they will cease to exist (that is, until, as illustrated for the past year, the government will step in and give them money to continue operating even though the consumer en masse has voted with their wallets for them to cease). But to deprive the government of revenue by choosing not to pay is "criminal" and if done in an organized manner is tantamount to revolution.,
Re-read my post, I said "like coercion". It is not textbook definition of coercion, because there is no immediate threat. But it is very similar in that there is an implied threat (or risk) that failure to comply will result in detrimental effects. "Benefit to joining" is well spun double-speak. There is always a "benefit" to complying with any coercion, and an opposite detriment to not complying. But none of this can be defined - even generously - as "voluntary" which is defined as "acting on one's own accord; of one's own free will, without compulsion or obligation." Just because a group can get their way by coercing someone privately and not through an overt government action, does mean that group is not limiting someone else's freedom and liberty.mr.72 wrote:No, this is not coercion! There is a benefit to joining: increased market appeal. The benefit to not joining is freedom to do what you want, which is a risk. The MPAA members have established a standard that typically improves your odds of successfully marketing a film so it is a great benefit to join and comply if you would like to market films. But there is no coercion. The reality is that the public at large prefers movies produced by MPAA-member studios according to those standards, and if you are in the fringe minority then you can not join and you will wind up marketing your product to like-minded fringe minority of people.austinrealtor wrote: So "Capitalism at its finest" = censorship? I realize the easy response to this is "but the movie studios voluntarily join the MPAA" .... but "voluntarily" is often a deceptive term in such discussions. How voluntary is your participation in something if not participating will surely lead to the ruin of your business? Not exactly the textbook definition of "voluntary" .... more like coercion.
