Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: libertocracy.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to libertocracy.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Re:MJ? by iminplaya · · Score: 1 · on Slashback: Passports, Microscopes, IQ Points

    - Prisons:...

    That's where the private prison industry will take over. In case you haven't noticed, it's a booming enterprise, and a good investment for those without a conscience.

    - Police:

    Well, of course they're not messing with small time possession. The reasons are obvious.If you were driving your brand new Suburban, it might be a different story, what with RICO and all.

    The present situation is the most profitable. Because of the lack of processing needed to use the drug, there would be no middlemen to rake in huge profits like there is with alcohol or tobacco, and would be with other drugs like herion, coke, meth, etc. There would be packagers and re-sellers for the lazy, but that would be a small market. Even without widespread enforcement, prohibition will remain on the books in order to give the authorities the ability to arrest or round up "undesirables". See above link.

  2. Re:the whole IP issue is invalid by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Is IP Property?
    Define "natural right". The only rights any person has is what they can keep by force, everything else is illusionary.

    You are correct, to a point. The basic "natural" rights are the rights to life, liberty, and property. The exercise of natural rights do not infringe upon the rights of others. These are also all things that can be reasonably protected by force of arms of the rights holder. Free speech is an extension of the right to "liberty". Copyright is not a natural right, as it requires the infringement of the natural right of free speech. You can argue that no rights exist without force to back them, but this is really irrelevant. Rights are a philosophical construct, and our society bases its laws on a specific philosophy of rights. But you seem unclear on the whole principle of rights in general. Here's quickie on the philosophy behind it.

  3. Re:Duh by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1 · on 'Extreme' Web Sites Under Fire From UK Police

    > Um, I know citing "freedom of expression" is a knee-jerk reflex here at Slashdot, but it applies only when you're not breaking any laws while doing so. The cliche'd example would be yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.

    Oh God, not THIS again.

    Not being allowed to yell "Fire" is NOT a freedom of speech issue. It is a PROPERTY right issue. For more details see
    http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/02/absoluterights .html and
    http://www.libertocracy.com/Webessays/freespeech/f reespeechforeign.htm

    Clear Counter-Proof. If the theater REALLY is on fire, yelling "Fire" alerts the owners that their PROPERTY is being damaged (and also alerts others that THEY may come to harm because of it.)

    Peace

  4. Re:Justifying theft by vDave420 · · Score: 1 · on RIAA Settles With 12-Year-Old Downloader

    us Aren't many of you /.ers also software developers like me?

    Yes. I, for one, am.

    ...then why is it acceptable for people to take my product w/o compensating me?

    I think this is how you are using the word take:
    Take:
    11. To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit; obtain by purchase; secure or buy: We always take season tickets.
    27. To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink.

    Appropriate:(v)
    To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission

    Exclusive:
    3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.

    Remove:
    1. To move from a place or position occupied: removed the cups from the table
    2. To transfer or convey from one place to another: removed the family to Texas.

    Semantics, I know, but you are using obviously tainted words, intended to draw an emotional reaction, by linking a non-physical item to actions that, when taken with physical items, have a completely differant effect (duplication vs. appropriation).

    Would you support a company protecting its rights if there were only dozens of thieves instead of scores of millions?

    There is no natural right to profit, nor is there a natural right to "prevent other people from using my ideas" (copyright).

    Remember why we have copyright in the first place: At the time of the founding of this country, there was a very real barrier to innovation: Cost of Communication! In order for your great idea to be used & accepted, people have to get it (the idea). This requires distrobution, and (at the time) a very real cost was involved in the physical media necessary to allow this distrobution.

    As such, someone with more funding than I, who heard my idea, could easily take advantage of that fact, by producing many times more "physical couriers" for "my" idea, and therefore could beat me to the punch, or even take complete credit & financial gain by being there first, or more cheaply (due to high volumes of medium purchased), etc.

    I submit that there is no longer the need for this type of exclusive protection anymore.

    Information can now be distributed to society without the need for a physical medium.

    Since copyright is not a natural right, instead it is a social contract (We give you limited monopoly, then you MUST release all information and all claims to all information to ANYONE who wants it, so that THEY can build upon YOUR ideas like YOU built upon someone else's), and the contract is not being upheld by the "other" party.
    Furthermore, I (and many others) find that this contract is being abused in horrible ways, even to the point of prosecution and extortion. As such, I cannot in good consience allow this to continue. I do everything I can to oppose this.

    Let me take this opportunity to say, although I author a p2p program, I myself have not bought a RIAA CD or downloaded an RIAA MP3 in years (at least 3).
    Believe it or not, it's true.

    Remember: The usefulness of copyright was To Get Information (art, science, inventions, etc) to the PEOPLE of society.

    Wait a minute, are you sure? Wasn't it to give those artists/inventors/musicions/whatever a livelihood? NO NO NO a thousand times NO!

    Everything that a human being produces, in terms of information or art or stories or whatever, has has (implicit

  5. Re:Justifying theft by vDave420 · · Score: 1 · on RIAA Settles With 12-Year-Old Downloader

    us Aren't many of you /.ers also software developers like me?

    Yes. I, for one, am.

    ...then why is it acceptable for people to take my product w/o compensating me?

    I think this is how you are using the word take:
    Take:
    11. To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit; obtain by purchase; secure or buy: We always take season tickets.
    27. To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink.

    Appropriate:(v)
    To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission

    Exclusive:
    3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.

    Remove:
    1. To move from a place or position occupied: removed the cups from the table
    2. To transfer or convey from one place to another: removed the family to Texas.

    Semantics, I know, but you are using obviously tainted words, intended to draw an emotional reaction, by linking a non-physical item to actions that, when taken with physical items, have a completely differant effect (duplication vs. appropriation).

    Would you support a company protecting its rights if there were only dozens of thieves instead of scores of millions?

    There is no natural right to profit, nor is there a natural right to "prevent other people from using my ideas" (copyright).

    Remember why we have copyright in the first place: At the time of the founding of this country, there was a very real barrier to innovation: Cost of Communication! In order for your great idea to be used & accepted, people have to get it (the idea). This requires distrobution, and (at the time) a very real cost was involved in the physical media necessary to allow this distrobution.

    As such, someone with more funding than I, who heard my idea, could easily take advantage of that fact, by producing many times more "physical couriers" for "my" idea, and therefore could beat me to the punch, or even take complete credit & financial gain by being there first, or more cheaply (due to high volumes of medium purchased), etc.

    I submit that there is no longer the need for this type of exclusive protection anymore.

    Information can now be distributed to society without the need for a physical medium.

    Since copyright is not a natural right, instead it is a social contract (We give you limited monopoly, then you MUST release all information and all claims to all information to ANYONE who wants it, so that THEY can build upon YOUR ideas like YOU built upon someone else's), and the contract is not being upheld by the "other" party.
    Furthermore, I (and many others) find that this contract is being abused in horrible ways, even to the point of prosecution and extortion. As such, I cannot in good consience allow this to continue. I do everything I can to oppose this.

    Let me take this opportunity to say, although I author a p2p program, I myself have not bought a RIAA CD or downloaded an RIAA MP3 in years (at least 3).
    Believe it or not, it's true.

    Remember: The usefulness of copyright was To Get Information (art, science, inventions, etc) to the PEOPLE of society.

    Wait a minute, are you sure? Wasn't it to give those artists/inventors/musicions/whatever a livelihood? NO NO NO a thousand times NO!

    Everything that a human being produces, in terms of information or art or stories or whatever, has has (implicit

  6. Re:DMCA logic by squarefish · · Score: 2 · on Sklyarov Tells U.S. Court, 'I'm no hacker'

    For example gun manufacturors do not face such action for providing people with items that could be used in a crime.

    This is not true, see: Chicago, New York, Los Angeles County, Newark, NJ, Cincinnati, others.

  7. Re:Cowardly by Qrlx · · Score: 1 · on X-45 Makes Debut Flight
    First off, we have "carpet bombed" plenty in Afghanistan, you're just not hearing it on the news. Carpet bombing is pretty much all a B-52 is good for. Reference: here, halfway down the page under heading "B-52s begin carpet bombing." Watch the RealVideo if you don't believe me.

    Second, U.S. troops are not particulary in harm's way. I back that statement up by the incredibly short casualty list. You're not really in harm's way when you've got night vision goggles and the Command, Control, and Communications infrastructure to call in air strikes on some guy launching mortars and broadcasting in the clear on a walkie-talkie.

    I don't agree we designate targets to civilian deaths to a minimum; even if we did, what is that acceptable minimum? Are the at least 500 civilians killed in Yugoslavia acceptable? Like the time bombed the TV station? Or used cluster bombs in cities? References here and here. What about the thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan?

    Do you think that the attacks on the World Trade Center were designed to maximize civilian casualties? I would argue that the World Trade Centers are a "dual use" target. Indeed bin Laden did want to kill Americans, but why not kill more by crashing a few big jets into sports stadiums? No, the WTC was also an icon of the West, and as such was an incredibly valuable target symbolically. Same for the Pentagon (not too many civilian deaths there) and the White House.

    Don't like my "dual use" analogy? Then try reading the famous Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilites from the Defense Intelligence Agency. It very technically explains how, if their water treatment facilities are destroyed in the Gulf War (which we did), and UN sanctions kept in place,
    1. "IRAQ WILL SUFFER INCREASING SHORTAGES OF PURIFIED

    2. WATER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF REOUIRED CHEMICALS AND
      DESALINIZATION MEMBRANES. INCIDENCES OF DISEASE, INCLUDING
      POSSIBLE EPIDEMICS,WILL BECOME PROBABLE..."
    Casualties from that one eclipse 9-11, though it might not seem in since they occur over a generation, not in a single day.

    So, you see, it's not all so cut-and-dry as The Evil One vs. Mom and Apple Pie.

    My beef is people like you, who are ignorant about the fact that we have killed more of their civilians than they did on Sep. 11. Rationalize it all you want, civilians die in wars. We don't have any claim to the moral high ground just because we lost 3,000 civilians last year. Remember Dresden? Reference: Go read Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut

    How does all this relate to the X-45? Well, a couple times now a CIA "pilot" of a Predator fired off a Hellfire missile at someone he thought was an Al Qaeda rock star. Well, they missed . Now, with the X-45, when they miss, their misses will have far greater collateral damage. And what is the CIA doing pulling the trigger in the first place? They're not part of the Armed Forces. Who is going to fly these X-45s? Where is the accountability? When U.S. Marines accidentally bombed Canadian troops [link has summary of friendly-fire deaths too] there's a pilot we can hold accountable. Accountability will be a rarer commodity when X-45s hit the wrong targets.

    Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Morir