Some things can be taught well from a distance. For example, mathematics, economics, philosophy, history, computer pgoramming, and so-on and so-forth. Some things, however, can't be taught particularly well from a distance -- like biology and chemistry, which usually require hands-on interaction with professors.
I don't doubt that you can learn more quicker from an online course. The idea that everyone needs to be stuffed up in an auditorium with a lecturer droning on and on to learn anything is as dated as oil-lamps. Real learning isn't achieved by passively sitting back and barely making it through lectures awake. Real learning is done by actively pursuing information that you think is useful and interesting. I learned more about economics in the week it took me to read Human Action than in the 6 weeks it took me to complete a boring and useless introductory economics course at the University of Rochester. Real learning is done by actually thinking about things, not slavish memorization (though memorization is important).
So, basically, I think the idea that online courses aren't as good as live courses is bullshit. If anything, online courses weed out those who can't hack it better, because with an online course, you are completely responsible for taking the initiative. It's very easy to just not do the necessary work when you can schedule it for anytime you want. Quite frankly, I think employers should be impressed by those who set aside their "leisure time" away from work to actually learn something.
Of course, what impresses individual employers will vary. However, a piece of paper from Harvard is just that -- a piece of paper from Harvard. It doesn't prove that you can hack it anywhere. On the other hand, someone without any little certificate may be able to hack it anywhere he pleases; you may have to volunteer to work on a trial basis for free for a week or two, though. Sufficed to say, if you have the knowledge, talent, and work-ethic, employers will recognize that.
Rothbard does discuss tort, though not in the section I linked to. He discusses tort in the next chapter: Conservation, Ecology, and Growth.
To take a specific example, Rothbard considers the pollution in the 1800's by smog-factories to be a tort against the property of farmers and other land-owners, whose property was defiled by the smog from the smoke-stacks. He emphasizes that companies should be completely liable for any damage they may do to other individuals property through pollution, and may be forced by the courts to either pay damages and/or reduce/eliminate their pollution. It is important to note that companies would, most likely, under a libertarian system, not only be forced to pay damages, but also to stop their tort in the future; for no damages money can undue property-violations. Rothbard also discusses how our monopolistic courts have really failed to adequately deal with tort, taking the case of pollution in particular.
The particulars of the case are irrelevant to how the systems would work. Tort:
Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought.
Unless you could make a reasonable argument that the tort was initiation of aggression against others, it would not be punishable. For example, a car accident that's your fault; you would still be liable for the damages against the other person. Of course, the aggressor would be the one who would have to show in court that he shoudn't ge treated the same as someone who purposefully hurt someone with a car.
I assume, from your question on tort, that you are unfamiliar with the non-aggression axiom, which is the basis of all libertarian thought: that no-one shall initiate violence against anyone else. By the way, please try not to be a legal pedant. Using legal-speak when it's perfectly possible to use normal everyday English is fallicious.
I gave you the necessary reference in Rothbard's section on the public sector:
How, then, would the courts operate in the libertarian society? In particular, how could they enforce their decisions? In all their operations, furthermore, they must observe the critical libertarian rule that no physical force may be used against anyone who has not been convicted as a criminal--otherwise, the users of such force, whether police or courts, would be themselves liable to be convicted as aggressors if it turned out that the person they had used force against was innocent of crime. In contrast to statist systems, no policeman or judge could be granted special immunity to use coercion beyond what anyone else in society could use.
Let us now take the case we mentioned before. Mr. Jones is robbed, his hired detective agency decides that one Brown committed the crime, and Brown refuses to concede his guilt. What then? In the first place, we must recognize that there is at present no overall world court or world government enforcing its decrees; yet while we live in a state of "international anarchy" there is little or no problem in disputes between private citizens of two countries. Suppose that right now, for example, a citizen of Uruguay claims that he has been swindled by a citizen of Argentina. Which court does he go to? He goes to his own, i.e., the victim's or the plaintiff's court. The case proceeds in the Uruguayan court, and its decision is honored by the Argentinian court. The same is true if an American feels he has been swindled by a Canadian, and so on. In Europe after the Roman Empire, when German tribes lived side by side and in the same areas, if a Visigoth felt that he had been injured by a Frank, he took the case to his own court, and the decision was generally accepted by the Franks. Going to the plaintiff's court is the rational libertarian procedure as well, since the victim or plaintiff is the one who is aggrieved, and who naturally takes the case to his own court. So, in our case, Jones would go to the Prudential Court Company to charge Brown with theft.
It is possible, of course, that Brown is also a client of the Prudential Court, in which case there is no problem. The Prudential's decision covers both parties, and becomes binding. But one important stipulation is that no coercive subpoena power can be used against Brown, because he must be considered innocent until he is convicted. But Brown would be served with a voluntary subpoena, a notice that he is being tried on such and such a charge and inviting him or his legal representative to appear. If he does not appear, then he will be tried in absentia, and this will obviously be less favorable for Brown since his side of the case will not be pleaded in court. If Brown is declared guilty, then the court and its marshals will employ force to seize Brown and exact whatever punishment is decided upon--a punishment which obviously will focus first on restitution to the victim.
Pure capitalism is the anarcho-capitalism supported by Rothbard and his followers. Under pure capitalism, there would be no intellectual property. Thus, it's likely that ideas would spread, as they would not be unhampered by Statist intervention to create an artificial shortage of supply and an artificial monopoly.
The idea of equating Free Software and Open Source Software with Communism is non-sense. FS and OSS are just different forms of capitalism, with the owners of the software selling it for a different kidn of return than money; in other words, a different currency. Capitalism does not mean that everyone acts to maximize his monetary gain, but only his psychic gain, which is made up of many components, monetary and otherwise.
It is perfectly possible that we could live meaningful -- indeed, BETTER -- lives without a State. Indeed, the past century could not have been worse if there was absolute anarchy; for there would not have been the holocaust, nor would there have been the dropping of two H-bombs on Japanese cities. By the way, appealing to the "necessity" of government does not justify it (the ends do not justify the means); it does not justify the mass-enslavement, mass-theft, and mass-murder that are both a necessary consequence of the State and necessary to support the State.
As for how a world without a state would work, your questions are answered in their entirity by Rothbard in For a New Liberty.
Without a legal system and enforcement mechanisms protecting private property rights then *nobody* would be able to own any property
is that there is no such thing as "public property"; it is an oxymoron. To speak of someone's property implies they own it, have rights over it, can do with it as they please (so long as they don't use it to initiate violence against someone), can exchange it, and acquired it rightfully.
Since the public (all tax-paying individuals) has no control over public property, and very limited use thereof, the property cannot be said to be owned by tax-paying individuals, as a corporation is owned by its shareholders. If anything, public property is a burden on us, adding to our enslavement, because we are forced to pay taxes on it, pay taxes to support it, and take care of it, despite the fact that we have no control over it.
In reality, what we improperly call "public property" is really the property of the politicians and beurocrats who decide how it can be used, property which they stole from the taxpayers they have systematically enslaved. Yes, taxes are slavery (forcing individuals to work 10-37.5% of the year without compensation is slavery, as is forcing them to work for 10-37.5% less than what they would otherwise work for).
Hence, all questions of what is proper on public property are meaningless, for it is asking the question "what is the right thing to do with stolen property". The only answer can be to return it to it's owners (if you know who they are), or allow it to be homesteaded by claimees. Talk of whether or not it is ok for police to search public property pre-supposes that the theft of the property which we call "public" is justified, when in fact it is not.
that point is good enough, and I hadn't considered that the trash was on the curb (I assumed it was on his driveway, as is my trash on mine). However, when you consider that all public property is the result of theft from millions of individuals through the systematic enslavement of the tax-payer, the "street" (at least the part of it by his house) in legitimacy belongs to the house-owner, as the street is only paid for by stealing from him.
Anything on property owned by you is private property; if it is concealed (that is, not visible by plain sight) the police should need a warrant to search it. The minute your trash leaves your yard, it is no longer your property, but rather the property of the trash-company (that is the agreement between you and your trash company). How it is treated then depends upon your contract with the trash company.
If you have an nvidia or ATI card, then your graphics drivers are proprietary. Unless it's only the 3D and not the 2D parts that are proprietary.
In any case, even if it's only the 3D drivers that are proprietary, there are many individuals who need to use 3D. Physicists, for example, as well as those working in special effects, and so-on and so-forth.
good points, but that's no reason to give up. QNX is a good example of a well-implemented microkernel, though unfortunately it is proprietary, and thus useless for our purposes, aside for learning from QNX's technical example (or whatever one can learn from that proprietary system).
Microkernels do offer a way to make a secure OS, but they also offer much more than just security. For one thing, they're much much easier to maintain.
Right back at you. Did you read my post at all? I'll quote it for you:
Linux is GPL'ed. There is nothing contradictory about using Linux as the kernel for your OS. The only difference is that the copyright is owned by Linus (and a whole bunch of other contributors), not the FSF.
So, what exactly is the problem, from an ethical point of view? The code is Free as in Freedom. Just because Linus, not someone at the FSF, owns the code, and he has a different philosophy? So what. The code is GPL'ed. It doesn't make one lick of difference who the author is if the code is GPL'ed. There are alot of programs out there that are Free Software and that are maintained by indivuals who have GPL'ed that code for their own reasons, and themselves do not believe in the Free Software ideal. Should we reject all of that code as well? To that would be sectarian (which means to denounce all transitional improvements as sellouts). This gets one no-where.
Regarding HURD, quite frankly, I think it's a lot of wasted effort, but it's not my decision to decide. Programmers can code whatever the hell they want, but that doesn't mean we have to praise them for it. I suppose it makes sense, since the damn thing is almost finished, not to waste many years of effort. However, the Mach microkernel upon which HURD is based is crap. In theory, microkernel's are great; but Mach is a bad implementation of the microkernel compared to far-superior more recent microkernels. The problem isn't that they decided on a microkernel, but just that they decided on one a little to early. L4 (e.g., L4Ka) is a much better microkernel than Mach. In my opinion, it would be more productive for the FSF to, from this point in time, dump Mach and HURD and work on porting the Linux kernel over to L4. This would also give the FSF the copyright over a kernel, the last part of the OS-puzzle.
Finally, if it peeves you that much that the "official" Linux kernel is maintained by Linus, then start your own fork. It's GPL'ed. You can start your own fork of it and get rid of that exception for proprietary modules, if you want. Hell, you can even mirror the improvements in the official kernel.
Refusing to use proprietary graphics drivers would necessarily cut one off from using many Free Software programs. Without using proprietary graphics drivers, the vast majority of users would be unable to use Xfree86, GNOME, OpenOffice, GnuCash, and a variety of other programs that require a graphics card.
actually, brilliatns ideas are bogged down by moderatism and gradualism. Extremism is what pushes for real change. Murray N. Rothbard has discussed why in the pursuit of any ideal, extremism in holding to one's values is necessary (scroll down to the section "Are we Utopians?").
If you confine yourself to stricly advocating gradual and "practical" changes, it is very easy to lose sight of the end goal. In the case of Libertarianism, the end goal is to eliminate all government and allow the world to operate on a completely unhampered free market; in Free Software, the goal is to "provide free software to do all of the jobs computer users want to do--and thus make proprietary software obsolete." (as someone who believes in both these goals, I should point out that they are not contradictory ends: see Kinsella's Against Intellectaul Property.
Extremism only becomes a problem when those who adhere to a certain end (e.g., Free Software for every need or the elimination of government) reject any progress towards that goal as a sellout of that goal because such progress is step-wise. This is most certainly not what RMS has done.
actually, there is a project to port HURD to the L4 microkernel (L4ka, I believe). Check it out here. The HURD idea isn't dead, it just hasn't gotten enough initial momentum yet. As kernels get more and more complicated, microkernels will become a more and more desireable option.
he created FS. OSS is a more loosely-based standard derived from FS by individuals who wanted to appeal more to the business world. In doing so, much of the talk about the ideology of the movement was dissapated.
Linux is GPL'ed. There is nothing contradictory about using Linux as the kernel for your OS. The only difference is that the copyright is owned by Linus (and a whole bunch of other contributors), not the FSF.
Aside from my opinions on the lack of worth of BASIC (which are admittantly subjective), Gates was wrong then, as he has been many times since (he didn't see the need for the internet, for example).
Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?
All I need to do to answer that is provide a few links:
this list could be many orders of magnitude longer
Obviously, thousands and thousands and thousands of people can do this. We have in GNU/Linux and the BSD's OS' which are either equal to or far superior to their proprietary equivalents.
Service-based business models have cropped up around Free Software. Indeed, Free Software is the best software to use if you want to engage in a service-based business model, since it makes service easier, as bugs are more easy to track and fix. Furthermore, many companies donate some of their programmers to work on Free Software, to fill (or help fill) needs that they may have. Finally, many programmers contribute to Free Software on a part-time basis.
But that doesn't mean they were social rejects lacking the ability to communicate concepts to their fellow man without bristling every person they met. It doesn't mean they espoused ideologies with technology and tried to use their innovations as a way to force normative concepts and judgements down people's throats as payment for their work. They didn't loudly shout people down who didn't adhere to their preferred terminology for certain concepts and tried to engage them in discussion
RMS is neither a social reject nor is he incapable of communicating clearly. And the last time I checked, RMS wasn't shouting loudly at anyone about terminology. He's simply repeated something which he thinks is true. No-one has to read it, and surely old-timers have all read it already. But the world of Free Software haven't, and should be educated about such things.
The simple fact is that RMS is right. People are afraid to talk about freedom, or anything so controversial.
under copyright law is that you *do not* have permission to distribute copyrighted works from the author. The GPL grants you those rights under certain terms, thus it gives you something you the legal right to do something you would not have had the right to do if you just found the software without a license.
The GPL might be questionable in court, but for what Richard Stallman intended, it's not flawed at all.
The second half of that statement is completely correct: for spreading FS-software, the GPL is the perfect tool.
The first half is complete bullshit. The GPL is not in any way questionable. It is probably the most solid license in existence. The GPL is unquestionable in court because it *grants* rights not given by standard copyright law. To over-turn the GPL, you'd have to find copyright laws unconstitutional for providing too many restrictions.
really, what more proof do we need that public schools are just a brainwashing facility to indoctrinate obedience into helpless children who can't resist the government's mind-control tactics?
posting someone's phone number is not the same as harassing him or her. It's the people who dial up the phone-number on speed-dial who are harassing, not those who post it on a website.
Quite frankly, this guy deserves to get telemarketer calls 24/7
Slashdot Mirror
I don't doubt that you can learn more quicker from an online course. The idea that everyone needs to be stuffed up in an auditorium with a lecturer droning on and on to learn anything is as dated as oil-lamps. Real learning isn't achieved by passively sitting back and barely making it through lectures awake. Real learning is done by actively pursuing information that you think is useful and interesting. I learned more about economics in the week it took me to read Human Action than in the 6 weeks it took me to complete a boring and useless introductory economics course at the University of Rochester. Real learning is done by actually thinking about things, not slavish memorization (though memorization is important).
So, basically, I think the idea that online courses aren't as good as live courses is bullshit. If anything, online courses weed out those who can't hack it better, because with an online course, you are completely responsible for taking the initiative. It's very easy to just not do the necessary work when you can schedule it for anytime you want. Quite frankly, I think employers should be impressed by those who set aside their "leisure time" away from work to actually learn something.
Of course, what impresses individual employers will vary. However, a piece of paper from Harvard is just that -- a piece of paper from Harvard. It doesn't prove that you can hack it anywhere. On the other hand, someone without any little certificate may be able to hack it anywhere he pleases; you may have to volunteer to work on a trial basis for free for a week or two, though. Sufficed to say, if you have the knowledge, talent, and work-ethic, employers will recognize that.
To take a specific example, Rothbard considers the pollution in the 1800's by smog-factories to be a tort against the property of farmers and other land-owners, whose property was defiled by the smog from the smoke-stacks. He emphasizes that companies should be completely liable for any damage they may do to other individuals property through pollution, and may be forced by the courts to either pay damages and/or reduce/eliminate their pollution. It is important to note that companies would, most likely, under a libertarian system, not only be forced to pay damages, but also to stop their tort in the future; for no damages money can undue property-violations. Rothbard also discusses how our monopolistic courts have really failed to adequately deal with tort, taking the case of pollution in particular.
The particulars of the case are irrelevant to how the systems would work. Tort:
Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought.
Unless you could make a reasonable argument that the tort was initiation of aggression against others, it would not be punishable. For example, a car accident that's your fault; you would still be liable for the damages against the other person. Of course, the aggressor would be the one who would have to show in court that he shoudn't ge treated the same as someone who purposefully hurt someone with a car.
I assume, from your question on tort, that you are unfamiliar with the non-aggression axiom, which is the basis of all libertarian thought: that no-one shall initiate violence against anyone else. By the way, please try not to be a legal pedant. Using legal-speak when it's perfectly possible to use normal everyday English is fallicious.
Pure capitalism is the anarcho-capitalism supported by Rothbard and his followers. Under pure capitalism, there would be no intellectual property. Thus, it's likely that ideas would spread, as they would not be unhampered by Statist intervention to create an artificial shortage of supply and an artificial monopoly.
The idea of equating Free Software and Open Source Software with Communism is non-sense. FS and OSS are just different forms of capitalism, with the owners of the software selling it for a different kidn of return than money; in other words, a different currency. Capitalism does not mean that everyone acts to maximize his monetary gain, but only his psychic gain, which is made up of many components, monetary and otherwise.
Without a legal system and enforcement mechanisms protecting private property rights then *nobody* would be able to own any property
Wrong. Please see The Public Sector. The State is the enemy of private property and all civilized human beings, not a friend.
is that there is no such thing as "public property"; it is an oxymoron. To speak of someone's property implies they own it, have rights over it, can do with it as they please (so long as they don't use it to initiate violence against someone), can exchange it, and acquired it rightfully.
Since the public (all tax-paying individuals) has no control over public property, and very limited use thereof, the property cannot be said to be owned by tax-paying individuals, as a corporation is owned by its shareholders. If anything, public property is a burden on us, adding to our enslavement, because we are forced to pay taxes on it, pay taxes to support it, and take care of it, despite the fact that we have no control over it.
In reality, what we improperly call "public property" is really the property of the politicians and beurocrats who decide how it can be used, property which they stole from the taxpayers they have systematically enslaved. Yes, taxes are slavery (forcing individuals to work 10-37.5% of the year without compensation is slavery, as is forcing them to work for 10-37.5% less than what they would otherwise work for).
Hence, all questions of what is proper on public property are meaningless, for it is asking the question "what is the right thing to do with stolen property". The only answer can be to return it to it's owners (if you know who they are), or allow it to be homesteaded by claimees. Talk of whether or not it is ok for police to search public property pre-supposes that the theft of the property which we call "public" is justified, when in fact it is not.
that point is good enough, and I hadn't considered that the trash was on the curb (I assumed it was on his driveway, as is my trash on mine). However, when you consider that all public property is the result of theft from millions of individuals through the systematic enslavement of the tax-payer, the "street" (at least the part of it by his house) in legitimacy belongs to the house-owner, as the street is only paid for by stealing from him.
Anything on property owned by you is private property; if it is concealed (that is, not visible by plain sight) the police should need a warrant to search it. The minute your trash leaves your yard, it is no longer your property, but rather the property of the trash-company (that is the agreement between you and your trash company). How it is treated then depends upon your contract with the trash company.
If you have an nvidia or ATI card, then your graphics drivers are proprietary. Unless it's only the 3D and not the 2D parts that are proprietary.
In any case, even if it's only the 3D drivers that are proprietary, there are many individuals who need to use 3D. Physicists, for example, as well as those working in special effects, and so-on and so-forth.
good points, but that's no reason to give up. QNX is a good example of a well-implemented microkernel, though unfortunately it is proprietary, and thus useless for our purposes, aside for learning from QNX's technical example (or whatever one can learn from that proprietary system).
Microkernels do offer a way to make a secure OS, but they also offer much more than just security. For one thing, they're much much easier to maintain.
Regarding HURD, quite frankly, I think it's a lot of wasted effort, but it's not my decision to decide. Programmers can code whatever the hell they want, but that doesn't mean we have to praise them for it. I suppose it makes sense, since the damn thing is almost finished, not to waste many years of effort. However, the Mach microkernel upon which HURD is based is crap. In theory, microkernel's are great; but Mach is a bad implementation of the microkernel compared to far-superior more recent microkernels. The problem isn't that they decided on a microkernel, but just that they decided on one a little to early. L4 (e.g., L4Ka) is a much better microkernel than Mach. In my opinion, it would be more productive for the FSF to, from this point in time, dump Mach and HURD and work on porting the Linux kernel over to L4. This would also give the FSF the copyright over a kernel, the last part of the OS-puzzle.
Finally, if it peeves you that much that the "official" Linux kernel is maintained by Linus, then start your own fork. It's GPL'ed. You can start your own fork of it and get rid of that exception for proprietary modules, if you want. Hell, you can even mirror the improvements in the official kernel.
Refusing to use proprietary graphics drivers would necessarily cut one off from using many Free Software programs. Without using proprietary graphics drivers, the vast majority of users would be unable to use Xfree86, GNOME, OpenOffice, GnuCash, and a variety of other programs that require a graphics card.
If you confine yourself to stricly advocating gradual and "practical" changes, it is very easy to lose sight of the end goal. In the case of Libertarianism, the end goal is to eliminate all government and allow the world to operate on a completely unhampered free market; in Free Software, the goal is to "provide free software to do all of the jobs computer users want to do--and thus make proprietary software obsolete." (as someone who believes in both these goals, I should point out that they are not contradictory ends: see Kinsella's Against Intellectaul Property.
Extremism only becomes a problem when those who adhere to a certain end (e.g., Free Software for every need or the elimination of government) reject any progress towards that goal as a sellout of that goal because such progress is step-wise. This is most certainly not what RMS has done.
actually, there is a project to port HURD to the L4 microkernel (L4ka, I believe). Check it out here. The HURD idea isn't dead, it just hasn't gotten enough initial momentum yet. As kernels get more and more complicated, microkernels will become a more and more desireable option.
he created FS. OSS is a more loosely-based standard derived from FS by individuals who wanted to appeal more to the business world. In doing so, much of the talk about the ideology of the movement was dissapated.
Linux is GPL'ed. There is nothing contradictory about using Linux as the kernel for your OS. The only difference is that the copyright is owned by Linus (and a whole bunch of other contributors), not the FSF.
Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?
All I need to do to answer that is provide a few links:
Free Software Foundation
Debian GNU/Linux OS
GNOME Desktop
KDE Desktop
GnuCash Financial Manager
this list could be many orders of magnitude longer
Obviously, thousands and thousands and thousands of people can do this. We have in GNU/Linux and the BSD's OS' which are either equal to or far superior to their proprietary equivalents.
Service-based business models have cropped up around Free Software. Indeed, Free Software is the best software to use if you want to engage in a service-based business model, since it makes service easier, as bugs are more easy to track and fix. Furthermore, many companies donate some of their programmers to work on Free Software, to fill (or help fill) needs that they may have. Finally, many programmers contribute to Free Software on a part-time basis.
But that doesn't mean they were social rejects lacking the ability to communicate concepts to their fellow man without bristling every person they met. It doesn't mean they espoused ideologies with technology and tried to use their innovations as a way to force normative concepts and judgements down people's throats as payment for their work. They didn't loudly shout people down who didn't adhere to their preferred terminology for certain concepts and tried to engage them in discussion
RMS is neither a social reject nor is he incapable of communicating clearly. And the last time I checked, RMS wasn't shouting loudly at anyone about terminology. He's simply repeated something which he thinks is true. No-one has to read it, and surely old-timers have all read it already. But the world of Free Software haven't, and should be educated about such things.
The simple fact is that RMS is right. People are afraid to talk about freedom, or anything so controversial.
under copyright law is that you *do not* have permission to distribute copyrighted works from the author. The GPL grants you those rights under certain terms, thus it gives you something you the legal right to do something you would not have had the right to do if you just found the software without a license.
Derivative works of the GPL are based on GPL'ed code-base, with a few modifications. It's pretty obvious that that's a derivative work.
The second half of that statement is completely correct: for spreading FS-software, the GPL is the perfect tool.
The first half is complete bullshit. The GPL is not in any way questionable. It is probably the most solid license in existence. The GPL is unquestionable in court because it *grants* rights not given by standard copyright law. To over-turn the GPL, you'd have to find copyright laws unconstitutional for providing too many restrictions.
really, what more proof do we need that public schools are just a brainwashing facility to indoctrinate obedience into helpless children who can't resist the government's mind-control tactics?
posting someone's phone number is not the same as harassing him or her. It's the people who dial up the phone-number on speed-dial who are harassing, not those who post it on a website.
Quite frankly, this guy deserves to get telemarketer calls 24/7