Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grubb for Congress. By Weblog.

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the have-wiki-will-travel dept.

An anonymous reader writes: "Wired is running a story about a (Libertarian) candidate for Congress in North Carolina whose platform explicitly supports P2P file-sharing activity. She's running against one of the big supporters of the Berman P2P hacking bill." The weblog community is all excited over her because she drank the Kool-aid.

18 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. libertarianism is extremely foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    They assume that the Sacred Market will fix all problems and that progress is inevitable, but it's simply not true. Many times I've seen competitors locked perpetually in a pointless struggle with no clear winner. Markets are easily manipulated and the true idea of a completely free market will never happen. In the meantime, the people who are winning in the market (big companies like Microsoft) are apt to pressure for the same changes the libertarians are, such as doing away with regulation. If there were no regulation, our world would be an over-exploited toxic dump.

    1. Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish by siskbc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there were no regulation, our world would be an over-exploited toxic dump.

      Yeah, the Soviets had a much better idea with state control. Chernobyl was a paradise.

      --

      -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    2. Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That sounds great on paper. But in reality how are you going to enforce that payment for pollution damage with a small government with no teeth? Pollution damage is not going to be counted into the cost of producing a thing unless someone is there to enforce that cost. Left to it's own devices, the market doesn't end up measuring that cost because it takes too long to manifest. Where is the funding going to come from to engage in scientific research to figure out that, for example, a rise in a particular disease in a city is being caused by the pollutants coming from a particular factory?

      Yes, I agree that the path to less pollution is to actually attach an accurate price tag to it so it appears in the ledgers of companies. I don't agree that that would happen in a lassiez-faire market, though. Long term effects are not acurately reflected in the finances of a typical company.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  2. Re:Libertarian by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 2, Insightful

    libertarian = liberty from excess government? or just a convenient platform to get attention?

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
  3. Libertarian... by Peridriga · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am a Libertarian
    I don't believe in music piracy
    I do believe in P2P.
    I disagree with how the RIAA/MPAA is trying to solve their problem.

    If you don't agree w/ me, reply. I agree w/ the idea of copyprotected music. It is a produced object. Something that has time and money invested to produce an item that really does have actual value. If I produced a song that I specifically did not want to give away for free, I would try to keep it off P2P networks. I would contact those who are sharing these files and explain that they don't have permission from me to distribute this.

    Now, let me step back and say. I do understand fair use. If you purchase my CD and rip it to MP3 that's fine. You purchased the CD, you purchase the rights to listen to the music but, you did not purchase the rights to re-distribute my works in a way I don't see fit.

    OK.. Now step forward again. Why don't I like the way the MPAA/RIAA is protecting their property. There are/have been laws on the books that protect the copyright holders rights to published works. These laws explicity spelled out the fair uses of these works as well as protecting the creators. These laws worked for years on end. The change in technology didn't change the laws. The change in technology didn't make these laws less effective. You could easily still bring suit against a P2P user for sharing your music under the current legal system, it's just harder to do. So instead of attempting to protect their rights the hard way they simply bought laws to help them. These laws(DMCA, etc.) are what I have a problem with.

    I abhor the creation of laws that violate my rights in any way shape or form. It is not the purpose of government to pick and choose winners by passing favorable laws it is the purpose of government to protect my rights.

    1. Re:Libertarian... by smallpaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are a libertarian, I am surprised that you support government-backed monopolies at all. After all, that's what IP is!

    2. Re:Libertarian... by volkris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because you put resources into making something does not mean it has value.

      I think you have some of your reasoning backwards. If a company creates something that ends up being more valuable than the resources that went into it then they will go far. If not they won't. The value of the product is independent of the amount of resources that went into it.

      In the end I say that since the industry's business model relies on artificial scarcities brought about through the IP laws, they business model is simply flawed. Since this neabs kess governmental interference into non-essential matters it's an arguably "more" libertarian POV.

  4. Refreshing by shd99004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Read her weblog, and Grubb seems like an honest person, with great ideas and views. Enthusiastic. Libertarian. We need more of those kinda people...

    --
    Will work for bandwidth
  5. Re:Learn some Grammar, then run for office. by Zebbers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    because in the end, grammar doesnt really matter. Sure, it may be somewhat indicative of their intelligence but most certainly not of their ability to help lead our country. We don't need ivy schooled ceos. We need farmer bob. We need to get back to the basics of PEOPLE representing PEOPLE. Not elite representing the common people. "Politician" shouldnt really be a career choice. Or, if it must be...it should come with a more reasonable civil service salary so as to discourage all but the truely service-oriented to run and serve.

  6. Re:Libertarian by BattyMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    libertarian = liberty from excess government?

    Yes, that's the core idea. Less Gub'ment, more liberty.
    A smaller government both oppresses the people less and co$t$ less.
    Of course, NO incumbent will have anything good to say about such a concept.

    Unfortunately this doesn't draw much largesse from big corporations looking for favors, which is today's primary source of campaign funding, so you won't see many Libertarians on TV, or doing well in many elections, either.

    Get ahold of and check out the list of contributors to both candidates of any major political campaign. SURPRISE! The _same_ companies are hedging their bets by supporting _both_ sides! No wonder there's not a gnat's ass worth of difference between their policies!

    --
    Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
  7. Capital "L" Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think not. Although, I would consider supporting Tara Grubb, but do you actually expect me to believe that Tara is a capital-L Libertarian? Not a chance. Take, for instance, this quote: "I belong to the WORLD Party and so do you". Highly indicative of a person that wants to claim Libertarian without actually holding Libertarian beliefs (and barely libertarian-little l-beliefs).

    There are actually only 2 uses of the word libertarian on her weblog. Where did you get the idea that this woman was a Libertarian? Please!

    Whoever submitted the initial post, could you please change "Libertarian" to read "libertarian"? You should know better.

  8. Why is the American legal system like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    From the article:

    Plotkin, who has written frequently on what he sees as a lack of political effectiveness in the technology sector, thinks the geeks who decry Hollywood's donations to politicians should stop looking for clever hacks around the system and start making donations of their own.

    "We don't show up at the fundraising events, and nobody's made a $100,000 contribution on this issue," he said. "Other people do that regularly on things like whether diapers should go into landfills. Where is Scott McNealy? Where is Steve Jobs? Where is anyone that has the juice to get things done? They're all busy looking out for their stock options."

    And what about you... mr. politician? what are you doing? You are WAITING for DONATIONs before you act on any ISSUE.

    Honsetly, it sounds like "Give me your money before I do anything." From someone outside of USA, it sounds likes bribery to me.

    Okay, I know it is called Lobbying .... but why does lobbying HAVE to involve money/donations?? It simply corrupts/discriminates the whole process in favor of people/organizations who has more money than the other. It sounds like, looks like, pure and simple corruption.

    Any American beg to differ?

    1. Re:Why is the American legal system like this? by reallocate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll bite.

      It isn't the legal system, it's our political system. It is outrageously expensive to run for office here. Even candidates for House seats -- like Grubb -- often spend 7-figure sums for advertising and other campaign publicity. Get into state-wide or national offices and the cost escalates. We can't seem to get our collective head around real campaign finance reform, and spend endless cycles of legislative energy talking it to death.

      End result: If your running for office, or in office planning for the next campaign, the first thing on your mind is going to be paying for it. Whether or not that constitutes bribery is, I suppose, a matter of definition, but there's no argument that it influences politicians behavior to the detriment of the public.

      As for lobbying: If you want a politician to pay attention to you, the first thing you have to do is get in front of his or her face. I.e., on the calendar and in the office. By and large, any organization or "movement" with one or a few specific interests it wants to push isn't going to sway votes in Washington unless they have an office in D.C. actively working on their behalf. (Yep, that's called "special interests".) Of course, when a there's a genuine groundswell of opinion shifting with a constituency on a particular issue, even novice politicians pay attention (or lose the next election.)

      So... i agree with Plotkin and Lessig that if those opposed to the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA/Berman et al legislation don't start playing the game, there's little chance that many politicians will be moved to change their votes. They would if this issue becomes visibly important to the broad U.S. electorate, but that kind of awareness isn't there . Elections are still won on bread-and-butter issues. Copyright infringement isn't one of those issues.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  9. WTF? by sielwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The phrase "drank the Kool-Aid" is a reference to the cults whose followers drank poisoned Kool-Aid to commit suicide, because they were true believers in the cult and its charismatic leader. So to "drink the Kool-Aid" means you believe enough to stake your life on that belief.


    Ok, I assume you meant to be talking about Jim Jones and the People's Temple.

    Of course you are completely wrong in this coloquialism. It is not a reference to the People's Temple suicide pact but Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.

    How am I so damn sure? Because Jim Jones and the People's Temple did not drink Grape Kool-Aid, but cyanide laced Flavor-Aid, a cheap Kool-Aid rip off.

    Moral of this story: Do some research before making up facts.
    --
    What is music when you despise all sound?
  10. that's a rather unfortunate name by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think "GeekPAC" is necessarily the best name one could've picked if you want to be taken seriously. What's wrong with something a little more professional, like say "TechPAC"?

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  11. Re:Leftist Socialist.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you want 6 months maternity leave then move to france - or some other socialist community. Meanwhile we here in america need to get back to what made this country tick in the first place...
    Pregnant women in work-houses?
    Let's get rid of the damned congress people accepting "donations".
    Ok, do you mean the pregnant women you deplore for sitting around at home without fear of failing to get their jobs back when they're ready to begin working again are bribing congressmen?

    Or are you opposed to people giving money to congressmen to further their commercial interests, and if so, doesn't that make you a communist?

  12. Re:Libertarian by chris_mahan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What if you can't maintain peace and free trade without intervention?

    Do you give up on peace and free trade for the sake of non-intervention or do you intervene in order to maintain free trade and peace?

    You do realize that if you don't stand up to the bullies in other countries while they are in other countries, they eventually come spread mayhem here. (see 9/11--however sad--for some realism)

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

  13. About $10,000,000 per park is the going rate... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tthe going rate is about $10,000,000 per park.

    That's what Bill Clinton charged the Phillipine coal producers in capmaign donations to lock up the single largest reserve of clean coal in the United States into a national park in Southern Utah, right before he shepparded legislation through congress requiring coal-fired power plants use cleaner coal.

    -- Terry