Re: Free My Phone
Yesterday I ran across an article on the Wall Street Journal’s site titled “Free My Phone.” This article, written by Walter S. Mossberg, argues that it is time for the government to prevent cell phone carriers to control their networks in ways that hurt consumer choice. Of course, I have a few problems with his argument.
Digital capitalism
Mossberg opens with a description of all of the choice and control consumers have when it comes to choosing computer hardware, software, and the internet connection we want. If we don’t like something, we just swap it out with something else we want. He later compares the PC market to the cell phone market, but after he writes:
Oh, and the developers of such computers, software and services can offer you their products directly, without going through the Internet provider, without getting the provider’s approval, and without giving the provider a penny. The Internet provider gets paid simply for its contribution to the mix: providing your Internet connection. But, for all practical purposes, it doesn’t control what is connected to the network, or carried over the network.
This is the way digital capitalism should work…
That’s not how capitalism, or even digital capitalism (whatever that is), works. Capitalism is an economic system that is founded in individual rights. Under capitalism, an individual is in charge of his own life, liberty, and property, and the only way to obtain anything from another individual is through persuasion and trade. This system will naturally tend to produce a large number of options for consumers as producers compete with one another, and the examples Mossberg provides is a good example of how that competition has greatly benefited the computer market. Depending on the situation, though, a market with a small number of options (or no options, for that matter) may exist. Since capitalism allows people to act according to their own will, results will vary.
It’s a mistake to measure capitalism by counting the number of options a consumer may have. The only way to determine if capitalism exists is to check for the foundation of capitalism: respect for individual rights. That’s how capitalism works. If Mossberg wanted to show that a free market really doesn’t exist in the cell phone industry, he should start by showing who is being forced to act against his or her free will, and by whom. And when I say “forced” I mean the physical type, not the “I had to sign a contract before they’d give me an iPhone” type. The latter isn’t really force, it’s just terms that are part of a voluntary agreement.
Soviet ministries
Mossberg writes:
That’s why I refer to the big cellphone carriers as the “Soviet ministries.” Like the old bureaucracies of communism, they sit athwart the market, breaking the link between the producers of goods and services and the people who use them.
What’s missing here is the fact that cell phone carriers are producers of goods. They produce network service that allows cell phones to operate. Rather than break the link between cell phone makers and cell phone users, as Mossberg describes, cell phone carriers build the link. If it wasn’t for the service cell phone providers create and offer to consumers, our cell phones would be reduced to being electronic address books or horrible digital cameras.
I think Mossberg is missing the real lesson to be learned from the real Soviet ministries. The reason the Soviet ministries could not produce what the free market could was the fact that the government controlled everything. While those in the free market were able move and adjust to demand, the Soviet government dictated what would be produced regardless of need or demand. For those who want to avoid the types of results created by the Soviet government, the lesson should be clear: Keep government out of the market. But unfortunately, government intervention is what Mossberg advocates.
Deserves to make a profit…
Mossberg tries to offer some consolation to the cell phone companies:
Let me be clear: Any company that spends billions to build and maintain a wireless network deserves to be paid for its use, and deserves to make a profit and a return for its shareholders.
I disagree. A company does not deserve to make a profit solely by spending billions on a wireless network. It takes more than that to deserve a profit. After building the network the company has to sell its services, and only by making those billions back can the company deserve its profit. The only thing that a company deserves by building a multi-billion dollar network is control over that network. And it’s that control that Mossberg wants to take away:
Not only that, but companies like Verizon Wireless or AT&T Inc. should be free to build or sell phones or software or services.
But, in my view, they shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose what phones run on their networks, and what software and services run on those phones.
In other words, cell phone carriers should not be “allowed” to control their own networks. When Mossberg says “Free My Phone,” he’s not referring to his ability to control his phone. He’s really referring to his ability to dictate what cell phone carriers do with their own property, and he can’t do that without government intervention.
I don’t read the Wall Street Journal very often, but from what I’ve heard the paper is one of the most pro-capitalist papers available today. If that’s true, I’m very surprised to read an article like this on their website. Technology issues like these might seem complex, but government intervention is government intervention. I believe that the best think for the cell phone industry — or any industry — is to allow individuals to be free to make their own decisions with their own lives and property. Keep the government out.
Tags: [cell phone, government, iPhone, mossberg, wsj]Comments
John Lewis at GMU
I finally listened to the talk John Lewis gave at George Mason University last month, titled “No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism.” It can be hear at the Objective Standard’s website here. You can also read the article off of which is talk was based here.
This was the first time that I’ve heard John Lewis speak on a subject like this, and I have to say that I was very impressed with his speech. He clearly laid out the idea that religion must be completely separated from government if people are to live in a truly free society. He explicitly stated that we are not battling Islam as a religion, but those who wish to enforce Islam using government force. He explained that the role of government should be to protect individual rights, including one’s right to practice Islam, and that we must oppose up to anyone who uses the government for the opposite. He even made it a point to say that if Catholics were trying to force their religion on us in the same way some of those who practice Islam do, he would be giving the same speech against the Catholics. He also explained how our refusal to understand this and our refusal to fight back will only result in more violence, death, and destruction. The only way to preserve freedom is to defend it.
What makes the speech even better is the circumstances in which he made it. He clearly made the speech in a very hostile crowd. Throughout his entire speech he had to talk over protesters who booed him, shouted insults, and tried their best to interrupt him. I only heard the audio, I can’t imagine what the crowd I heard actually looked like. Lewis behaved admirably throughout the his entire presentation. He never responded to their attempts to provoke him, he only spoke louder to allow his voice to be heard over their noise and to offer them a chance to respond to him during the Q&A. I know most people, including myself, who see and hear protesters such as these online might think, “Oh, if only I had a chance to stand in front of them, I’d show them,” but it’s much easier to take that position sitting in front of a computer than standing on a stage in front of a crowd like that. John Lewis did it, and he deserves much credit.
Lewis stayed for a “Q&A” session, if that’s what you want to call it. I would expect a Q&A session to be composed of questions from the audience and answers by the speaker, but this session was more of a platform for members of the mob to attack Lewis with insults and false statements. I think that Lewis tried to deflect many of the attacks he knew he would have to face in the Q&A by stating (sometimes, repeatedly) in his lecture that we shouldn’t declare war against Islam, that there are probably a vast majority of people in the Middle East who want to live in peace, and that he stands against all those that would use the government to violate individual rights, but Lewis probably thought that the protesters would listen to his speech. He had to spend a good portion of the Q&A defending himself from multiple false statements. But he still went through it, never lost his temper, and is still alive today. Special thanks to whomever handled security that night is probably deserved.
Hearing this speech really makes me worry about the future this country will have. One one hand, I understand that the crowd that attended Lewis’ lecture is probably not representative of the population as a whole. On the other hand, it is very scary how people of certain extreme ideologies, especially those from the left, have organized, consolidated, and mobilized their efforts to demonize, drown out, and shut down any opposing thought. Even if their numbers are small, they can still have a lot of influence on a population that is comprised of people who are missing a clearly-defined philosophy of their own.
Tags: [government, individual rights, islam, john lewis, religion, totalitarianism]