Civil Disobedience with a side of Toasted Almond
In comments, Jon Splett suggests:
If I was doing it, I’d get a hold of the guy and plan it for somewhere he’s banned from selling. Then have a TON of people show up and buy ice cream from him there illegally. It makes it more of a legit protest and not just people waiving signs. I doubt Johnny Law would show up and ticket him but if they did, chances are he’d make enough to cover the ticket or even pay it straight from donations of people there and it would demonstrate the ridiculousness of government protected corporate monopolies on certain public spaces in a really awesome way.
Plus the whole thing makes him a few bucks and keeps him in business which is a nice way of demonstrating support for local business.
I like this idea. A lot. I’m going to contact James the ice cream dude and suggest it to him. Lunchtime on a weekday somewhere from where he’s banned. Press release the shit out of it to make sure it makes the news and makes a splash.
This kid is getting harassed, pure and simple. It’s time the people of Buffalo stood up for small entrepreneurs.
Fuck tea parties. It’s ice cream social time.
17 Comments
-
Advertisement
-
Latest
-
Alan Bedenko
Latest: Astroturf -
Sports Road Trip
Latest: Profiling OKC’s Ford Center – USRT roadie Day 2 -
Chris Smith
Latest: Economic Development 2.0 -
Brian Castner
Latest: Al Gore as Skeptic -
Tom Schuh
Latest: Hometown News at Noon: Fri 11/20/09 -
The Goose's Roost
Latest: I Blame the Spotlight Guy -
Christina Abt
Latest: Question of the Day.....Jim Kelly for Coach??? -
BfloBlog
Latest: Kevin Maguire Open Thread: Bruins as Sabres -
Marc Odien
Latest: Calls for Parks Usage Input from Community Groups -
Eric Saldanha
Latest: Friday YouTube Nugget
-
Advertisement
You need to log in to vote
The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
Powered by Vote It Up
Wish I was still around to see it all come together!
McCarthizm is playing Wednesday noon fort the M&T Plaza concert series downtown. Many people would join in just because they like ice cream. Usually a bunch of security though.
Tell me when and where, and I’m there.
Ice cream social! Ice Cream Social! Ahhhhhhh! :0) I can only attend after 6 p.m. but I would SO go to this!
Is this Ice Cream Social”ism”? Not that I’m a fan of any “ism”, per se, but I do like to mix my ice cream with socialist philosophical meanderings.
Beat you to that joke in the original comment Chris.
I’ll be there to buy super illegal ice cream from the cycle dude.
@6 Fuck, I hate when that happens. It was too obvious, I shoulda known.
@Chris- I think it’s just more proof great minds think alike.
“it would demonstrate the ridiculousness of government protected corporate monopolies ”
It is interesting to note that monopolies generally do not exist without government protection.
Ben – ????
Microsoft? US Steel? AT&T? Apple (iPods)? Standard Oil? Stop me when I hit one that was government supported. JVC’s VHS? Gatorade? Verisign?
I’ll give you Major League Baseball and once upon a time, the NFL. Maybe.
De Beers I might give you too, but they didn’t get support from the government, they created and own the government.
A government agency is not a monopoly, it’s the government. The difference is not subtle.
Adam,
None of those entities you mention are, or were monopolies, they have all been subject to competition. It is true that they have reigned supreme in their respective fields, but just because you have the number one product, it does not mean you are a monopoly. The closest example you gave is DeBeers, but they are more accurately a cartel. Even if that is the case, more and more diamond producers are cropping up that are not associated with DeBeers, thus diminishing their power.
Monopolies do tend to crop up when a brand new product or service arises, but they can’t be maintained unless competitors are barred from entering the market. That is where the government comes in. I guarantee that behind every good monopoly is a government protecting it.
But we end up with Oligopolies and cartels with zero government oversight so really, it’s a stupid point to make and the free market will fuck us over just as badly.
We need businesses to be regulated and we need it to be done in intelligently implemented way.
The end.
But beyond that, does every comment thread have to turn into spreading the gospel of the free market all the fucking time? Seriously. We all get it. You guys think the free market is the greatest invention since the blowjob.
Give it a rest already.
Ben,
Every one of those was at one point a monopoly because at one point there were ZERO alternatives to it.
Microsoft – PC’s still can only run on Windows. Apple/Linux are substitute products, not competitors.
US Steel had 100% of the corporate sales market because they used their size to drive everyone else out.
AT&T too. And Standard Oil.
Apple had a complete monopoly over legal digital music sales that worked on their iPod and vice versa for nearly 3 years. A vertical integration monopoly is still a monopoly. Again, a Zune and Rhapsody are substitute products, not competitors, because they are not compatable.
JVC’s VHS was the only sales platform for movies for 8 years.
Gatorade was the only sports drink for nearly 30.
Verisign has a 100% monopoly right now, today, as we speak.
How about adding in a protest AND a boycott of the favored vendors. Or do you need to buy permits to carry a sign?
Someone with the screen name of Gaustad questioned this One Sunset deal on January, 28, 2008, on Buffalo Rising. It was off topic, but it now appears to be insightful! Not so “out there” anymore!
Adam,
I think your understanding of economics is slightly off. Substitute goods are competitive goods. Substitution is the essence of competition. People substitute one good for the good they are currently using because it is more advantageous to do so.
As far as your monopolies go, let’s take a look;
Microsoft – Since we have established that substitutes result in competition, Apple and Linux provide the competition necessary to render MS a non-monopoly.
US Steel – From the Wikipedia entry, “The federal government attempted to use federal antitrust laws to break up U. S. Steel in 1911, but that effort ultimately failed. Time and competitors have, however, accomplished nearly the same thing.” Also, note that when it was formed in 1901 US Steel accounted for 67% of steel produced in the US. By 1911 it had slipped to 50%, and is now at 11%, all because of competition.
AT&T – They did have a monopoly, but only because the government made them one in 1913.
Apple/IPOD – Your example is flawed. It’s like saying that Sony has a monopoly over games played on the playstation, while completely ignoring the fact that both Microsoft and Nintendo produce their own gaming systems. Once again you use the flawed argument of substitutes not qualifying as competition.
JVC’s VHS – VHS was a standard and other manufacturers of video equipment were allowed to use it.
Gatorade – This is more of an example of monopolistic competition. This is when a firm differentiates a product to the point where they can exercise monopoly power over that product. A great example of this is Starbucks. They could not monopolize coffee, but when they created specialty flavored coffee shops, they were able set the price of their product as opposed to taking the current competitive price of regular coffee. Gatorade did the same thing, but eventually competitors came along, just as they did for Starbucks.
Verisign – I really don’t know much about them, but since the arena of internet security is relatively young, I’m sure competitors are lined up to take them head on.
It is true that firms who grab control in the early days of a particular market, or who create the market themselves, do often wield monopolistic power in the beginning, but like I said, without gov’t intervention to keep competitors out of the market, that power usually fades.