sjw

In other words -- according to you - they want their cake and eat it, too. They want potential shareholders' money with the shareholders having no voice in the company even if the current executives mismanage it. Typical fascist response, but it's not your decision, terms and conditions are properly between buyer and seller. It's really that simple. And yet you yammer, and yammer, and yammer. What is your motive here? Are you really that dead set on defending fascism, or is it that you're a troll? Or maybe you're just suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and can't handle the reality here. Don't hold back now, tell us your motives here. I for one can only perceive your idiotic responses; I can't do much more but speculate on why you keep at it. Shayne

So here's where we stand. I produced a real-world example of a moderate sized business that is absolutely stuck. It can't find a way around existing fascist legislation in order to implement its business plan, its idea of funding individual games by offering stock in them. It refuses to do an IPO because it (rightly) wants to retain control over its creative direction. I.e., their choice is: submit to the fascist SEC, or don't get "public" investment (or go to prison if they do proceed with their plan). Merlin and Bob can't address this, so they pretend not to understand, or pretend that the facts are other than they are, yammering on while not answering HOW Valve can solve this very real-world business problem. (And Valve has millions of dollars and can afford full time lawyers, it's not a mom and pop who can't). Shayne - Such is the caliber and honesty of a good portion of OL posters.

Valve wants to offer stock without yielding sovereignty. It wants to create a kind of share in their company that does not subject them to creative interference. THAT is illegal. And YOU are complete and total moron for failing to discern what the subject is here by now. Could it really be that simple? That you aren't trolling me at all, but are actually just a "special" child? Your mommy shouldn't let you on the internet methinks. Shayne

It is illegal. Not even a rich company like Valve can figure a way around it. My question still stands. Show Valve how to solve their problem without breaking the law and without sacrificing sovereignty over their work. You can't show this, because you're wrong. It is illegal for Valve to do it the way they want, so they don't do it. And yet you yammer on. Are you a moron, a fascist apologist, or a troll, or all three together? Shayne

He might learn something from Electronic Arts, a video game maker, publicly-traded, and member of the S&P 500. He could even try to sell out to EA. Another Shayne effusion goes down the drain. I don't need to answer this, the owner of Valve already has: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/262497/valve-refuses-to-sell-out-on-stock-market/ Stop your idiotic troll yammering. Shayne

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/07/21/gabe-newell-suggests-public-funding-for-games/ Question still stands: How can Gabe legally pursue his dream here in the current setup? Note to Merlin & Bob: Regarding you stamping your feet and pouting "but there's no market for that": Shut the hell up. It's not for you to decide. Shayne

I think you're generally right Ninth, though I can't vouch for the rules in a particular state. (And it's nonsense that we're given these arbitrary models and told to choose from them; we shouldn't be limited to the creativity of bureaucrats' imaginations). Shayne

A key problem with selling LLC stock to the public is that you can't create different classes of stock. So if (say) you want controlling shares vs. non-controlling shares (think Jobs getting kicked out of his own company), you can't do that. The whole system is one big frozen archaic blob of nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with the free market and everything to do with "one neck ready for one leash" fascism. Shayne

Bob's whole rambling and misleading post was aimed at sneaking in this dishonest premise. There is no market? True. Why? Because it's illegal. Here's yet another example of a project funded on kickstarter. The investors would have obviously preferred stock, but instead are stuck with getting cheap trinkets. They still got $200K from the public: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-the-personally-controlled-do-it-all-distr I've also seen Valve Software talking about funding games by offering stock in them, but they couldn't figure out the legal aspects. They're already a big company, so even if they could figure it out, it wouldn't prove Bob and Merlin right, it's prove me right given that they've already spent a good deal of effort trying to figure out how to offer stock in games to the general public and haven't so far. Bob and Merlin are just morons who lack imagination about what is possible in a free market. Either that or they are closet fascists. In any case, they have no actual argument, so they use ad hominem and rambling verbiage instead. Shayne

Evidently there is already a Quora answer to this, and the answer is no. Hello fascism: http://www.quora.com/Kickstarter/Could-you-use-Kickstarter-to-distribute-stock So yeah, Bob and Merlin are full of, shall we politely say, "nonsense." Shayne

Ninth, Can you do something exactly like this, but offer stock in the project?: http://www.kickstarter.com/ My understanding of securities laws says it's illegal and/or prohibitively expensive. E.g., say I have an idea for a video game. I'm a well-known person who's trusted to be able to deliver, but have no funding whatsoever. I offer a basic idea and shares of stock for $45, plus a free copy of the game when it's done. If the game makes it big, you might get a hefty return. How can I set this up cheaply, without breaking any laws? Shayne

There would not be "such" standards, there'd be a wide variety of competing standards, ones that we'd have a hard time imagining given how shackled we are in this fascist setup. But yes, buyer would beware even more in the kind of system I'd offer, it wouldn't be "utopia", it'd be "learn to be responsible with your money." It's the same with the FDA -- it should not exist, and if it didn't, you'd have to be careful and responsible. Fraud would be illegal, but not stupidity. Shayne

Merlin (in effect): "Oh, I'm sorry, did I trounce that natural right of yours? Well that's OK, you weren't using it anyway." As if a mentality such as his can imagine all the possibilities arising from a creative person's exercise of his natural rights. Shayne

This is typical hypocrite behavior. When I don't bow down to your fallacious arguments, you call upon unspecified evidence and allegations to attack my character. Yes, it's very clear who the troll is. I'm not asking for your nitwit response. It's totally unwelcome. I'm not trolling you, you're trying to play a game of oneupmanship on me. And of all the petty things to play this game with. You're revealing what a petty nitwit you are. The fundamental principles are what matter here, and instead of talking about those, you're showing me what a great bean counter or ambulance chaser you are. Now stop your trolling and go back to whatever petty thing it was that was occupying your very limited mental scope. Maybe you can go hammer some boards together with Bob. Oh, this is rich. He presumes to know any and all business plans and possibilities on a free market, in order to argue that it's really not much of an insult to natural rights when they are violated in this sphere. What a lack of imagination. A perfect match to his petty nitwit mentality. Shayne

Incidentally, the original statement was that the small businesses can't access public capital, the quibbling apes here have been beating their chest because I didn't add what in the final analysis is an inconsequential qualification. In effect, very small businesses can't access public capital. Wow, big change guys, thanks for pointing that one out. I won't be revising the book anytime soon on account of that "error." Shayne

Buyer beware. There's this thing called "rights" that you're evidently unfamiliar with Merlin, but it means I can form agreements with a lemonade stand if I want to. That rules you out from being at the appropriate level of intellectual development to be able to discuss this matter. But if you were at the right level of development, we could then talk about how interfering with natural rights always causes harm and unintended consequences. You are so oblivious on the basic level that we can't even have a discussion about unintended consequences here. So, if there are any people who are NOT trolls who have an issue with my points, then I'll respond to them. Merlin is now out of the game. Shayne

Then ignore me, but why don't you answer Merlin then? Bob I didn't notice his post before. Shayne

I never said that, and no one would say that, it's patently false. You said this: which is patently false. There are several ETFs and mutual funds that invest in the small-cap companies that are in the Russell 2000 index. It is illegal to offer stock to the public on your own terms. And the legal/cost hurdle here is far more difficult for a mom and pop than for a big business, making it virtually impossible to do for a very small business. The relative impact and overhead to a small business is vastly larger than to a big one. So the practical effect of your quibbling concerning my original point is: nil. Shayne

If anyone with intelligence and good faith (definitely excludes you for the former and both you and GHS for the latter) takes issue with anything I said, I'll answer them. I won't answer either of you, you've wasted enough of my time already. Shayne - I'm done paying trolls.

I never said that, and no one would say that, it's patently false. And I already told you -- I'm done arguing with you. You fumble around too much in your incompetence and are a waste of time. Go back to something that's actually within your grasp. Something action-oriented rather than idea-oriented. Like maybe hammering two pieces of wood together. Shayne

George, given how sternly you warn Michael about not moderating you, are you going to be coming to my defense if I am moderated? I'm only doing what you want -- I was provoked by you into creating this thread. It seems that you should be quite pleased with yourself. Shayne

An interesting phenomenon I've noticed in some circles is that if someone does something untoward, then it's considered uncouth to identify it. The attention is directed to the messenger, not to the original behavior the messenger is describing. If anything defines "bad faith", it is a purposeful avoidance of a discussion of ideas, and instead a purposeful provocation of the person. George admits it. And yet, he provoked me to the point of creating this thread, and that's bad. How so? It's exactly what he was aiming at. He himself admits that he wants that. Shayne

So, a title describing what George is very clearly doing to me is bad, but his doing it is OK. George has told you that if you moderate him in any way, shape, or form, he'll leave. Am I to understand that if I don't stop calling a spade a spade in this thread, then I'll be moderated/censored? Incidentally, my mind is quite clear. Shayne

Interesting. So a discussion of what constitutes proper forum etiquette violates the etiquette of this forum. Shayne

I appreciate George giving us a sample of what I'm talking about. We liberty-oriented folk can't live in the kind of world we prefer at the moment, at least not politically-socially, so what we are left with is creating the kind of world we'd like to see in the intellectual sphere, such as in this forum. Does George's behavior exemplify what we are after? Shayne