Slashdot Mirror
Grubb for Congress. By Weblog.
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.
Another useful link here. GeekPac are attempting to use the same tactic as the big corps by trying to raise funds to push some less corporate "influenced" candidates (read sock-puppets) into the parties.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
The idea is not to do away with all legislation,
you're thinking of anarchy. Libertarianism seeks
to reduce legislation to the origional consitutional
roles or protecting the population from force and
fraud. The gub'ment does a piss poor job of most
of the stuff it's involved in. What's needed to
prevent exploitation and toxic dumps is to make sure
that the true cost is stuck to the entity making the
purchase. If you polute, you must pay to clean it up
and pass those costs on to your customers. Then
you'll have an incentive not to polute, or at least
come up with a cheap efficient way to clean it up.
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.
That wouldn't be a Libertarian issue. The quickest way to get a bunch of Libertarians arguing among themselves is to bring up intellectual property. Half of them will be against it, and half will be for it.
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.
Probably a bit exaggerated when it comes to weblogs, which are hardly a life-or-death proposition; but still, it shows she believes enough in the collaborative technology to use it as the centerpiece of her campaign. (Not to mention the fact that as a Libertarian, she probably has only enough funds for her 56K modem Internet account to get the campaigning done!)
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
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.
Their, they're. There just mad cause your good at spelling alot of words. Theirs alot of ./ers that arent virsed in contractshuns, hahmonihms and grammer to.
Here, Here!
Enigma
Put her in the chair, we need to see what she is made of.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty