|View single post by booklover|
|Posted: Mon Mar 31st, 2008 07:11 pm||
If you've never burned a CD, made a taped copy of an album (definitely showing my age here), borrowed a book from a friend, or EVER borrowed something from someone so as to not have to purchase it yourself, then I will accept your chiding. However, if any of these aren't true, I guess we all have our own Machiavellian sense of right and wrong. Following your scenario to its logical end, it would be wrong for me to borrow someone's truck to move simply because I don't want to buy a truck for myself. Not buying the truck because it's too expensive for just one move hurts Ford, Chevy or whichever truck manufacturer I prefer. Where's the difference?
Who am I to dictate the price of anything? I am the consumer, to whom the right to dictate the price is well-accepted in a free economy. That's one reason libraries are so popular. Many people don't want to spend $35 for a book they only plan to read once, so they borrow it from the library. But by doing so, they deprive the author of another sale. Do we ban libraries?
As to your point that the sale of one book isn't compensation enough, than what is? Do I have to pay the author every time I buy a book, even when it's used? Do I need to donate $1 every time I check a book out of my library. Or have I already done so by the fact that my taxes support the library's purchase of the author's book?
I never realized that socialism was a license to steal, unlike good old American capitalism, which is just chock full of examples of exemplary business practices and whose practitioners would never ever try to rob the consumer of anything. So does that mean if McCain is elected, we won't need labor unions any longer or anti-trust lawsuits will be a thing of the past? Oh happy day!