If there were a handful of people on Slashdot who, in their slavering for "protection of individual rights" realized that A) They're more than willing to sacrifice the rights of individuals who own things, and B) corporations create wealth. That's self-evident.
And frankly, it scares me how few people realize that...
Corporations are beginning to learn that the people have the power and not them. They don't like this, as it cuts into their profit margin. Has it ever occured to you that corporations are, in fact, made out of people? NO company in this hemisphere is some megalithic evil empire. They're made of individuals who, from self-interest, choose to work for that company. In turn, the companies are supported by other people who choose their product. Voluntarly. The large corporation has been the most liberating thing to happen in the history of mankind. The corporation is responsible for the massively increasing average lifespan. Free industry is responsible for technology. Look at Russia, look at Cuba, or look at China. Then look at the US. Tell me again that Corporations are evil. Or are you going to say that it's only the "global mega-corps" that are so evil? Bear in mind that a "global mega-corp" is only the logical outcome of any company run by people who are intelligent, who create. -Fiore
I have to ask you a question. Are you aware of the basic tenet of Objectivism? That basic tenet is this: Logic. You have made a solemn oath to never debate with people who follow a logic-oriented philosophy? -Fiore
/*This model of physical property does not generalise to intellectual property. Locke clearly states that anyone can take what they like from the global commons so long as "as much and as good" is left for others. Since ideas are not "rival" goods (my consumption of them does not preclude your consumption), this clearly suggests that ideas cannot be made property in this way. */ No logical step can make ideas into a "global common." A "global common" is something that exists independantly of man. An idea, or in this case, a program, is something that is created BY man. The person who says, "I wrote and designed this software, and I say you can't have it." is the same as a person saying, "I have created a value where there was no value before, and I do not recognize your right to it./*And that shows that I understand both communism and libertarianism better than you, which makes me quite pleased.*/ Congratulations. -Fiore
/*Similarly, it's not possible to say that you want "most" code to be open source, any more than you can say you want "most" speech to be free. Freedom scales in some ways, but not in this way. The existence of the whole copyright/patent/trademark legal nexus is inimical to the free exchange of information. It's a part of "the system" (a term degraded by the dull hippies who coined it) -- the legal and political superstructure put up to serve the interests of those who control the economic base./* So, on a broader philisophical level, what you're trying to say here is this?: "I equate the freedom to express ideas with the freedom to take the products of others. I believe that, because someone else claims the right to what they have created, be it an OS, or something else, they are impinging on my freedoms." You do realize that, more fundamentally, by attacking someone else's copyright, and saying that to be free, you should have their product, you are trying to make those people your slave? You are correct about one thing... "In a compromise between food an poison, it is only the poison that can benefit." You're application, however, is bad. -Fiore
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for someone sane.
If there were a handful of people on Slashdot who, in their slavering for "protection of individual rights" realized that A) They're more than willing to sacrifice the rights of individuals who own things, and B) corporations create wealth. That's self-evident.
And frankly, it scares me how few people realize that...
Corporations are beginning to learn that the people have the power and not them. They don't like this, as it cuts into their profit margin.
Has it ever occured to you that corporations are, in fact, made out of people? NO company in this hemisphere is some megalithic evil empire. They're made of individuals who, from self-interest, choose to work for that company. In turn, the companies are supported by other people who choose their product. Voluntarly.
The large corporation has been the most liberating thing to happen in the history of mankind. The corporation is responsible for the massively increasing average lifespan. Free industry is responsible for technology. Look at Russia, look at Cuba, or look at China. Then look at the US. Tell me again that Corporations are evil.
Or are you going to say that it's only the "global mega-corps" that are so evil? Bear in mind that a "global mega-corp" is only the logical outcome of any company run by people who are intelligent, who create. -Fiore
I have to ask you a question. Are you aware of the basic tenet of Objectivism? That basic tenet is this: Logic. You have made a solemn oath to never debate with people who follow a logic-oriented philosophy? -Fiore
/*This model of physical property does not generalise to intellectual property. Locke clearly states that anyone can take what they like from the global commons so long as "as much and as good" is left for others. Since ideas are not "rival" goods (my consumption of them does not preclude your consumption), this clearly suggests that ideas cannot be made property in this way. */ No logical step can make ideas into a "global common." A "global common" is something that exists independantly of man. An idea, or in this case, a program, is something that is created BY man. The person who says, "I wrote and designed this software, and I say you can't have it." is the same as a person saying, "I have created a value where there was no value before, and I do not recognize your right to it. /*And that shows that I understand both communism and libertarianism better than you, which makes me quite pleased.*/ Congratulations. -Fiore
/*Similarly, it's not possible to say that you want "most" code to be open source, any more than you can say you want "most" speech to be free. Freedom scales in some ways, but not in this way. The existence of the whole copyright/patent/trademark legal nexus is inimical to the free exchange of information. It's a part of "the system" (a term degraded by the dull hippies who coined it) -- the legal and political superstructure put up to serve the interests of those who control the economic base. /* So, on a broader philisophical level, what you're trying to say here is this?: "I equate the freedom to express ideas with the freedom to take the products of others. I believe that, because someone else claims the right to what they have created, be it an OS, or something else, they are impinging on my freedoms." You do realize that, more fundamentally, by attacking someone else's copyright, and saying that to be free, you should have their product, you are trying to make those people your slave? You are correct about one thing... "In a compromise between food an poison, it is only the poison that can benefit." You're application, however, is bad. -Fiore