Slashdot Mirror

]]What could you possibly labor on or with that wasn't public to begin with?

The ultimate conclusion to this line of reasoning is that I myself am public property.
Which leads to a whole set of justifications for power over what I do with my finite time here on earth.

No, you can do what you will with your time. No one owns you. You just can't take from the publicly held resource, or even unheld resources without some recompense. Even taking an unused resource is limiting my choice to use it in the future, why should I agree to that? Will you use force to uphold your decision to take it? Without society, you have only the 'right' to take what you can hold by force. With society, we can come up with rules that govern such things. You may get the rights to do certain things that limit the choices of others, but those rights may come with strings attached. Those strings may include the agreement to uphold said rights for others, even those you don't care about. They may also include the responsibility to contribute something back to the society that granted them. Don't like it? You still have the right to try to take what you can hold by force. But society might not approve of that, and would be justified in responding with force. Or you can move on to someplace where no one will contest what you have taken. No one is saying they own you, but no one is saying that you should be given any resource without some responsibility to the ones who agreed to uphold your right to take it. That would be you stealing from others.

This IMO is a fallacy. Look to the animal kingdom. Territory, and its defense is a natural and ingrained instinct. Accordingly by my natural rights I have the right to "take" property owned by no one and improve it so I may survive.

There are two fallacies here. First, this is a common form of the naturalistic fallacy. You are attempting to argue what should be from what is. Second, there are no such things as natural rights. Rights only exist in relation to society. Without society, there would be no need for the concept of rights. The only rights anyone has are those that everyone agrees to uphold. And why should I or anyone else agree to uphold your right to take for yourself what was previously shared by all? There may very well be some good reasons, but you haven't given them here.

If I do not agree to the terms of your society, how then do you reconcile my rights to public land? Surely there can be no moral basis for claiming that the majority has a greater right to sightseeing than the outcast has in attempting to farm for survival.

Society has a greater moral claim to the land than you do only insomuch as the land might benefit a greater number if used by all than exclusively by you. However, you only have two options in getting everbody else to agree to your concept of property. The use of force, which we both agree is wrong, or accepting that property is not a natural right, but a contract between you and society that comes with some some reciprocal responsibilities.


]]People have intrinsic motivations besides greed. In fact, modern economic research shows that fairness end reciprocity are two concepts with more motivational power than pure self interest

I would disagree. Fairness and reciprocity are there because of self interest. It is an aquired survival skill, thus very strongly tied to self interest.

I am not saying that it doesn't boil down to self interest. In fact, everything does. However, it is a genetic form of enlightened self interest. Cooperation is a survival strategy that is more effective than competition.

]]And it still does not answer the question of externalities, those things beneficial or detrimental to parties other than those involved in a transaction

(your response snipped here, as it simply doesn't address my question)

By your response, I don't think

Yes, such reasoning is a fallacy if applied without thought.

Once in a while, though, Bob really isn't a true adherent of XYZ. Bob and one of his friends might call Bob a vegetarian, but the rest of us watching him scarf down a BigMac would conclude otherwise.

As Linux server deployments become more widespread, there are going to be more and more system administrators and fly-by-night ISPs that will fall into a category we'll call "The Lowest 1% of Linux Providers".

Just like Windows admins, medical doctors, cable TV repairment, someone has to graduate at the bottom of their class and it's time we recognize that bottom of the barrel Linux admins can and will exist, too. Complaints about paper MCSE's and CCNA's can extend into the Linux world, too. We've grown beyond a small community of enlighted hackers on a mountaintop.

The bigger issue with the original story is that it is an anecdote, a sampling of a widely varying phenomena where induction of general principles from one point can lead to erroneous conclusions. Or not. We need lots of stories, randomly sampled. Being chosen as "newsworthy" suggests something less than random sampling, however.

Damning with faint praise.

I don't think you understand what anecdotal evidence means. The fact you give an example of a problem is irrelevant.

anecdotal evidence

I could have backed my statements up with examples, but I couldn't be bothered. It wasn't the point I was trying to make.

The ZSL will be studying the volunteers to see how talking chimp affects situations like workplace conflicts. According to BBC News, the volunteers are expected to show their emotions in a chimp like fashion.

Let me get this straight... they're designing the experiment to suit they conclusions they wish to draw?

In science, we call this experimenter bias.

How to Build an ISP

--