?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Spam

« previous entry | next entry »
Jan. 24th, 2004 | 11:01 am
mood: annoyedannoyed
music: DI.fm Vocal Trance

It occurred to me recently that one solution to spam is to destroy capitalism.

parecon for instance provided a description of how black markets wouldn't be able to function in that economic system.

If there existed no way for the greedy capitalist spammer pig offal to be rewarded ever for their curmudgeonly behavior most spam would disappear. (Although there'd still be some worm spam the worms being written by the spammers to create open relays for them would disappear. The viruses and worms being written by losers with low self esteem would still wander the net. )

The other solution for spam is to eliminate anonymity. Every email that sent gets tagged with digital signature showing its authenticity. Any email without the tag get rejected. This can be implemented at at the server side by requiring smtp auth when sending email. (This one isn't my idea, I saw a reference to it elsewhere on how to create a closed spam-free environment.)

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {7}

Josh

(no subject)

from: irilyth
date: Jan. 24th, 2004 01:28 pm (UTC)
Link

An equally useful solution to spam is to stop using e-mail.

Reply | Thread

Diane Trout

(no subject)

from: alienghic
date: Jan. 24th, 2004 02:11 pm (UTC)
Link

can I count the advertising shows up at my street address mailbox or my car in west hollywood or all the billboards as spam?

If so the only way to escape is to leave capitalism and go live in a cave somewhere. Until of course the capitalists decide there's something valuable in that cave and relocate you (see for instance the experience of most native american tribes.)

Reply | Parent | Thread

Josh

(no subject)

from: irilyth
date: Jan. 24th, 2004 02:43 pm (UTC)
Link

If you want to avoid all advertising, that's a different problem.

It was nationalist imperialists who kicked the Native Americans out of their caves (et al), not capitalists. The capitalists would've offered them a good price for their stuff; capitalists don't do a lot of business with people who claim their divine destiny is to kill you and take your stuff.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Diane Trout

(no subject)

from: alienghic
date: Jan. 24th, 2004 02:50 pm (UTC)
Link

"Good price"? Can I point out the handful of beads offerd to the native americans living on manhattan island? Offering a trade to a people who didn't understand the concept of private property and so were unable to actually negotiate really doesn't count as "fair".

And what about the relocation of native tribes from reservations when oil was discovered there? That is well after the period of manifest destiny and well into the capitialism of the late 1800's early 1900's

Oops sorry, it's still going on Dineh Nation

Reply | Parent | Thread

Josh

(no subject)

from: irilyth
date: Jan. 24th, 2004 02:53 pm (UTC)
Link

Greed does not equal capitalism. If you have something valuable that I want, and I beat you up and take it, the fact that greed and property is my motivation does not make me a capitalist.

Capitalism, as a political philosophy, is categorically opposed to the initiation of force.

If you want to complain about people who beat others up because they're greedy, that's fine, but don't call them capitalists; they're not.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Diane Trout

(no subject)

from: alienghic
date: Jan. 24th, 2004 03:32 pm (UTC)
Link

I feel compelled to try and argue that capitalism creates a system which rewards the most greedy and brutal. Those who are most able to embrace their inner sociopath are able to exploit the capitalist economy to gain additional market share as they are able to undercut the more compassionate owner. Once they have this advantage they have no compunction against using this advantage to acquire more power with which to cut their costs even further. (See for instance the constant problem with corporations buying favorable legislation).

A more thorough example, Wal*mart is able to use their large market share to tell suppliers what price they will be selling their goods to wal*mart for. (leaving those suppliers to try and make up any profit by selling to those other than wal*mart. Of course if these people are competitors to wal*mart they will obviously be unable to compete via price. Because the owners of wal*mart are quite happy with paying teenage girls in china 1/3rd of the currently estimated "living wage" (13 cents instead of 31 cents per hours) they can undercut the prices of any company that wanted to pay their workers a fair wage.

One of the motivations offered by the grocery store CEOs for trying to cut benefits to their workers is so that they can be competitive with wal*mart when they show up in california.

I have at times backed down from attacking "capitalism" as a theory and limited myself to attacking the practices in our society that are labeled as "capitalist."

The claim that our society is capitalist is quite debatable, if I recall correctly one of the assumptions fundamental to capitalism is that the buyers and sellers are unable to use methods outside of the capitalist system to manipulate prices. The current ability of corporations to create needs through advertising or to externalizing costs by forcing their workers to use public healthcare instead of paying for it, or forcing the government to clean up corporate pollution would seem to violate this assumption. As a result it would seem reasonable to argue that what we have now is not capitalism, but instead something else. (Possible names include "corpratism" or "transnational capitalism")

As far as I can tell captialism does seem to be less subject to abuse when trying to allocate resources amongst a small village where everyone is effectively self-employed. However when you have factories and workers, it seems to me that the capitalist model has few protections against the most greedy being able to drive those who are more compassionate out of business as the greedy are better equipped to extract more labor for less cost from their workers than the compassionate owner. Thus I feel justified in claiming that there are fundamental flaws with the capitalist model.

I will also point out that there are fundamental flaws with stalinist communism as well, the problem before us is to try and figure out some practical alternative.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Dieppe

(no subject)

from: dieppe
date: Jan. 24th, 2004 01:45 pm (UTC)
Link

That is, of course, like saying that one way to destroy HIV/AIDS is to just kill the person who has it.

Destroying a system to get rid of a disease isn't necessarily the best way to go about it.

As for black markets.. don't they thrive under systems without capitalism?

Reply | Thread