Not allow, no. But they shouldn't be able to stop those who can build a Hackintosh, or those who sell it.
If you want to sell something you give away your rights to control how it's used. Apple wants to be in the rental market.
Apple wants us to let them abuse contract and copyright law to turn their trademark and EULA into effective monopoly control. I don't see what's in it for us...
You wanted me to prove the existence of what would be undisclosed MS patents, I thought you liked throwing out impossible challenges. Besides, you're the one claiming there is NO problem, so maybe you should attempt to prove it.
The problem with Novell's deal is that they're setting themselves up to be the only legit distributor of Linux, once it becomes encumbered with MS patents. (By anyone - even if the patented code was reproduced by Linus himself.) If there are no patents life goes on as now - if there are, Novell wins big.
And with all of the AT&T BSD threat, patents weren't involved. Software patents are a far bigger worry than copyright issues because they don't allow for independent invention. BSD survived, it wouldn't have if AT&T had had software patents.
Mono isn't my concern - using a spin-off MS technology is going to be encumbered enough simply by being guided by MS. Enjoy. It's Linux in general - an actual alternative to their OS lock-in, that MS really wants to destroy.
You haven't even tried to explain why assuming that Novell's MS-patent-indemnity scheme could be harmful is FUD... Why would they have bothered with this agreement if they didn't expect Microsoft's patents to otherwise encumber Linux?
They don't have to be the ones who slip in the patent-bearing code, that can even happen by accident due to the nature of patents, but they're setup to be a defacto monopoly when it happens. Rather than fight the issue alongside Redhat, the community, etc, they'll sit back as the only "legal" distributors while Microsoft pulls a SCO.
Why else would they have entered into the deal with MS if not to take advantage of such a deal?
Can you prove that Microsoft doesn't have any submarine software patents? That nothing in Linux could be seen to infringe any of their patents? If not, you're just lying when you say they haven't tried anything like this. You couldn't possibly know.
Novell on the other hand, decided to enter into this licensing deal, presumably for a good reason. What do they know that you do not?
They may be benign, but if they want any support from the community they shouldn't appear to be supporting MS. With MS's track record why would anyone give them the benefit of the doubt?
Ever hear of submarine patents? They could keep the existence of their patents secret for years. In fact, as they likely don't care to bother collecting royalties from small-fry developers but instead prevent competition they'd be very likely to do so.
Furthermore, the patents wouldn't even have to be infringed in Novell's contributions - they'd still be the only ones protected regardless of who wrote the code. They have a profit motive to help MS - a chance to be the sole distributors of Linux.
Why don't you prove the non-existence of any MS patents (secret or otherwise) related to all GNU/Linux code contributions in the last few years?
Regardless of what you've written, you can't be very serious about wanting to keep using free software, as you're willing to support a company whose major actions are setting up a way by which they could patent-encumber Linux, simply because they have not yet (that we can tell) done such a thing.
I haven't heard any compelling arguments for how the Novell-MS partnership helps FOSS as a whole, only shrill astroturfers such as yourselves with no more proof than myself, who are insisting it's harmless. Based on MS's track record there's no reason to assume friendly or harmless motives. Based on the damage that could be caused it's reasonable to expect Novell to either drop the deal or get it extended to everyone if they don't want to appear to be a tool of the next MS monopoly grab.
Novell MAY not be planning any harm, but they have prepared themselves to do harm, and have allied themselves with a company whose history is littered with illegal and abusive sabotage of anything they consider to be a competitor. Why should we assume benevolence?
Software was believed to be unpatentable during the creation of UNIX - so no, GCC and BSD, etc were far better off than Mono, or Linux now.
This is only bullshit, as you say, because none of us can see the future. You choose to assume good intent - fair enough. I'm not claiming they are sneaking MS patents into Linux, merely that they're setting themselves up to be able to do so.
I'm calling for cautious and skeptical analysis of everything MS does in light of their track record. My fears are justified, your blanket denials of things you can't know are not.
A simple logical examination of the situation is enough. Why would there be courts if police judged crimes and carried out punishments? Further, India's legal system is somewhat similar to English law, for obvious reasons. Contract and tort law are similar enough that you can reason about the means of limiting the right to take photographs and how these would have to be communicated, how they would be enforceable, and the means by which you could seek compensation. Nowhere in the world do the police solve contract disputes, or complex issues of intellectual property.
Sometimes all you have to do is be able to tell the difference between a touchdown and a hole-in-one.
If Novell wanted to help the community they'd have gotten MS to agree to blanket indemnity, not just via Novell. As is, their actions are entirely self-serving.
And yes, laws that would allow software patents are bad laws, but people who exploit these laws knowing full well that their actions are harmful to others are bad people. Takes both to actually abuse something.
Why should I give a rat's ass about convincing your/any company to use Linux? If you're too afraid to use it you'll fall behind companies that aren't. Linux has powered billions of dollars of ISPs, not to mention other businesses. Their less successful competitors were wasting money buying licenses to MS products and wasting time getting hammered by code-red type crap.
Personally, I hope that every "You've gotta do X for businesses to use Linux" whiner never uses Linux. Just as I hope you use astrology to plan your business activities. Or Ouija boards and chicken entrails...
It just gives me an even larger benefit (relative to the market as a whole) for being able to evaluate software solutions.
They could write 89% of kernel code for all it matters. If they're trying to encumber it with software patents, especially on behalf of Microsoft, it's all totally worthless. Worth less than worthless for that matter, actually harmful.
Besides, there's a difference between actually funding the development of something and merely donating to a developer who was writing that code anyways.
Sure, it's done all the time, but it's never legal for the officers to do.
Even if cameras were banned, and even if this was enforceable (not written on the back of the ticket, etc) this doesn't mean possession of photos taken at the event are themselves illegal. For starters, it'd be a civil matter.
Even where the photos are presumably a security risk, such as of a flaw at a military base, the correct procedure would be to confiscate the photos until this was proven in court, not to delete them without proving damage and/or guilt.
[..] often have to make the call to make decisions that afterward an "armchair quarterback" might disagree with. [..] in the interest of public safety the deletion of the photos could be considered a sound decision.
Armchair quarterbacks may not have as tough a job as a real quarterback, but that's not to say the real quarterbacks are always right. Ditto the police. It's understandable that mistakes are made, but we need to correct mistakes, not allow them because of who makes them. And frankly your assertion that public SAFETY might be harmed by these photos is asinine. What possible scenario has pictures taken at a publicly accessible conference about open source actually being a threat to the safety of anyone, let alone the public at large?
No idiot, the same does NOT go for two new cars. They'd both crumple and the drivers would be even better off.
That's the problem though - you think we're debating this. We aren't, we're right and we're telling you how it is. What we are debating is the nature of your mental impairment. Did your mother drink heavily while pregnant?
I didn't see anything in that quoted section about absolute freedom - maybe it was in the next paragraph? Funny though, all the laws we have - they seem to limit a lot of things that people must have wanted to do...
Besides, Fugue was simply saying that his friend's inability to consider biking as an option is bad, not that not-choosing biking is bad. It obviously IS bad to refuse to consider the options. Not morally bad, stupid bad. As in, thus incapable of ever taking advantage of the options when they would be better.
You have such a problem with such a simple concept that you obviously need to be talked down to. Either because you're too stupid to follow the big words, or more likely because you're being intentionally obtuse.
Yeah, because the topic of code ownership is irrelevant. Who cares if it will remain free? Who cares if the companies involved are trying to use software patents to embrace and extend?
Only everyone actually serious about using open source. Which leaves you in the idiots-on-the-sideline-without-a-clue category. Or astroturfing-assholes-making-shit-up...
So why does Microsoft make such a big deal out of the patent indemnity issue if it's useless to them? Can you really imagine them spending a ton of money on lawyers and going through all the anti-GPLv3 nonsense if they didn't plan on violating the spirit of the GPL?
When has MS ever NOT tried to embrace and extend? Which MS CEOs have NOT called open source a communist cancer, etc?
Are you retarded? Linux's tools are the GNU toolset, and the kernel was written from scratch. While many companies would love to claim total ownership of any UNIX-like software that doesn't mean they've got a legal-leg on which to stand.
The point YOU'RE missing is that Novell's main contribution to open source is patent-encumbering things and spreading Microsoft's filth under a different name. They aren't altruistic in the slightest because they intend their "open" source contributions to entangle you in non-open patents.
They'd help the community far more if they deleted everything they'd written and closed up shop.
I was with you until you got to them deleting photos. How does removing a protester ever justify deleting their photos? Even if there ever were justification, how could it be the job of the officers involved to judge/execute the sentence?
If your job insists on handing you shifts that are inconvenient/harder and not compensating you for that (by perhaps, paying taxi fare when you do shift-work) they aren't a good place to work.
Yes, we get the idea that changing your driving might require changing your employer, which might require changing your housing... It is complicated. But your life will be better if you pay attention to it.
Why have you made 3-5 posts in this thread all saying "Sure, but then when a problem (not enough cargo capacity/not enough transit/etc) looms, WHAT DO I DO!?" Isn't it fairly clear? You do something else. If there's no cargo capacity buy a basket/trailer/take the bus, if the bus doesn't run, haul cargo another day, if your work is inaccessible on weekends, refuse weekend shifts. If you can't choose your shifts at all (what are you, an elementary school child? Do you need to ask for potty breaks?) find another job. If you can't, consider moving closer to other jobs.
Maybe we'll do this another way. What parts of what you're doing are so sacred you can't consider changing them. Is that apartment/whatever special, or just the one you got when you needed one? Is the job making some life-saving thing that won't be made if you don't do it, or can you pick up another job elsewhere? Is your kid's school the only one that works with their special needs? Then sure, make that one thing fixed. But if you're like everyone else, 99% of what you do is dictated by chance, not design. So if part of that 99% must change, it should be painless because you didn't specifically pick it.
Your rant *IS* typical, to the point of being a stereotypical opinion of the Starbucks crowd. It's fashionable to talk about how corporate excess is destroying the world, then go jump in your SUV. Or simply drink $5 coffees which profits a semi-abusive company instead of helping people in other countries build an economy which isn't based on resource exportation. In other words, pick a specific problem and blame it for everything thus attempting to minimize your impact.
You said '50" plasma TVs... put an existing TV in the landfill'. This is an easy shot, because TVs are obviously a luxury item, and 50" is "just too big!" Never mind that a new 50" LCD is likely to take less resources and be less damaging to manufacture. (Sure, LCD plants pollute, but do you think the process of making/disposing of a CRT is clean?)
But what do you buy? Whatever it is it either puts an existing version of itself in the landfill (instead of employing a valuable craftsman to fix it), or displaces the non-corporate crafts of some disadvantaged people, or wastes labor by being hand-made instead of efficiently machine made, or whatever. There's always something wrong with everything.
But instead of saying that everyone should merely be more conscious of the potential harm you picked the low-hanging fruit, the fat American TV obsessed stereotype, and you blame their hypothetical simultaneous demand for more plasma TVs. It's an easy shot, but it ignores any reality (are they recycling the old TVs, etc?).
Then you go on, similarly free of facts or even basic reasoning, about how a small backyard/garden is unsustainable - but maybe trendy shared gardens would work - but only if we would tout kinship and reform local bonds... Surely a personal garden for everyone is just the answer to centralized corporate farming, right? What will we all be doing wrong then, oh wise one?
The poster who responded to you made a very valid point - it's not the American Dream to accumulate stuff - the American Dream is the freedom to be able to do anything - one of which is accumulate stuff... the others are minor crap about being able to say and think what you want. Nothing really.
Not only are you slandering many socially responsible Americans, but you totally ignore that a rich Saudi, or Israeli, or Russian, or Maori, would all take the opportunity to buy toys, the same environmentally damaging ones those bastard Americans buy.
So really you're just a cliche-spouting, blame dodging racist, too busy covering up problems by promoting classism through calling for prohibitions against things you see as worthless while clinging tenaciously to your own wasteful habits - screaming about other people's excesses all the louder to drown out and questioning of your own activities.
It's very libertarian to expect you to pay for the harm you cause to others. If dumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere is a problem then it's reasonable to hand you a bill for your portion.
The problem is that of a government, who can arrest you if you refuse to pay, rather than voluntary trade organizations who could choose not to deal with you.
Of course the benefit to a government, for everyone else, is that they could make you stop/pay even if you didn't want to.
The reality of government though is that they'd take a bribe from you to allow it - far smaller than a fair amount and all going to the politicians instead of towards repair/cleanup.
Slashdot Mirror
Not allow, no. But they shouldn't be able to stop those who can build a Hackintosh, or those who sell it.
If you want to sell something you give away your rights to control how it's used. Apple wants to be in the rental market.
Apple wants us to let them abuse contract and copyright law to turn their trademark and EULA into effective monopoly control. I don't see what's in it for us...
It's a bot that exploits WoW's grind-based gameplay. On an MMO with a real fun-based game they'd copy your bot as better UI.
Why would I have to prove it?
You wanted me to prove the existence of what would be undisclosed MS patents, I thought you liked throwing out impossible challenges. Besides, you're the one claiming there is NO problem, so maybe you should attempt to prove it.
The problem with Novell's deal is that they're setting themselves up to be the only legit distributor of Linux, once it becomes encumbered with MS patents. (By anyone - even if the patented code was reproduced by Linus himself.) If there are no patents life goes on as now - if there are, Novell wins big.
And with all of the AT&T BSD threat, patents weren't involved. Software patents are a far bigger worry than copyright issues because they don't allow for independent invention. BSD survived, it wouldn't have if AT&T had had software patents.
Mono isn't my concern - using a spin-off MS technology is going to be encumbered enough simply by being guided by MS. Enjoy. It's Linux in general - an actual alternative to their OS lock-in, that MS really wants to destroy.
You haven't even tried to explain why assuming that Novell's MS-patent-indemnity scheme could be harmful is FUD... Why would they have bothered with this agreement if they didn't expect Microsoft's patents to otherwise encumber Linux?
They don't have to be the ones who slip in the patent-bearing code, that can even happen by accident due to the nature of patents, but they're setup to be a defacto monopoly when it happens. Rather than fight the issue alongside Redhat, the community, etc, they'll sit back as the only "legal" distributors while Microsoft pulls a SCO.
Why else would they have entered into the deal with MS if not to take advantage of such a deal?
Can you prove that Microsoft doesn't have any submarine software patents? That nothing in Linux could be seen to infringe any of their patents? If not, you're just lying when you say they haven't tried anything like this. You couldn't possibly know.
Novell on the other hand, decided to enter into this licensing deal, presumably for a good reason. What do they know that you do not?
They may be benign, but if they want any support from the community they shouldn't appear to be supporting MS. With MS's track record why would anyone give them the benefit of the doubt?
Ever hear of submarine patents? They could keep the existence of their patents secret for years. In fact, as they likely don't care to bother collecting royalties from small-fry developers but instead prevent competition they'd be very likely to do so.
Furthermore, the patents wouldn't even have to be infringed in Novell's contributions - they'd still be the only ones protected regardless of who wrote the code. They have a profit motive to help MS - a chance to be the sole distributors of Linux.
Why don't you prove the non-existence of any MS patents (secret or otherwise) related to all GNU/Linux code contributions in the last few years?
Regardless of what you've written, you can't be very serious about wanting to keep using free software, as you're willing to support a company whose major actions are setting up a way by which they could patent-encumber Linux, simply because they have not yet (that we can tell) done such a thing.
I haven't heard any compelling arguments for how the Novell-MS partnership helps FOSS as a whole, only shrill astroturfers such as yourselves with no more proof than myself, who are insisting it's harmless. Based on MS's track record there's no reason to assume friendly or harmless motives. Based on the damage that could be caused it's reasonable to expect Novell to either drop the deal or get it extended to everyone if they don't want to appear to be a tool of the next MS monopoly grab.
Novell MAY not be planning any harm, but they have prepared themselves to do harm, and have allied themselves with a company whose history is littered with illegal and abusive sabotage of anything they consider to be a competitor. Why should we assume benevolence?
Software was believed to be unpatentable during the creation of UNIX - so no, GCC and BSD, etc were far better off than Mono, or Linux now.
This is only bullshit, as you say, because none of us can see the future. You choose to assume good intent - fair enough. I'm not claiming they are sneaking MS patents into Linux, merely that they're setting themselves up to be able to do so.
I'm calling for cautious and skeptical analysis of everything MS does in light of their track record. My fears are justified, your blanket denials of things you can't know are not.
A simple logical examination of the situation is enough. Why would there be courts if police judged crimes and carried out punishments? Further, India's legal system is somewhat similar to English law, for obvious reasons. Contract and tort law are similar enough that you can reason about the means of limiting the right to take photographs and how these would have to be communicated, how they would be enforceable, and the means by which you could seek compensation. Nowhere in the world do the police solve contract disputes, or complex issues of intellectual property.
Sometimes all you have to do is be able to tell the difference between a touchdown and a hole-in-one.
If Novell wanted to help the community they'd have gotten MS to agree to blanket indemnity, not just via Novell. As is, their actions are entirely self-serving.
And yes, laws that would allow software patents are bad laws, but people who exploit these laws knowing full well that their actions are harmful to others are bad people. Takes both to actually abuse something.
Why should I give a rat's ass about convincing your/any company to use Linux? If you're too afraid to use it you'll fall behind companies that aren't. Linux has powered billions of dollars of ISPs, not to mention other businesses. Their less successful competitors were wasting money buying licenses to MS products and wasting time getting hammered by code-red type crap.
Personally, I hope that every "You've gotta do X for businesses to use Linux" whiner never uses Linux. Just as I hope you use astrology to plan your business activities. Or Ouija boards and chicken entrails...
It just gives me an even larger benefit (relative to the market as a whole) for being able to evaluate software solutions.
They could write 89% of kernel code for all it matters. If they're trying to encumber it with software patents, especially on behalf of Microsoft, it's all totally worthless. Worth less than worthless for that matter, actually harmful.
Besides, there's a difference between actually funding the development of something and merely donating to a developer who was writing that code anyways.
Sure, it's done all the time, but it's never legal for the officers to do.
Even if cameras were banned, and even if this was enforceable (not written on the back of the ticket, etc) this doesn't mean possession of photos taken at the event are themselves illegal. For starters, it'd be a civil matter.
Even where the photos are presumably a security risk, such as of a flaw at a military base, the correct procedure would be to confiscate the photos until this was proven in court, not to delete them without proving damage and/or guilt.
[..] often have to make the call to make decisions that afterward an "armchair quarterback" might disagree with. [..] in the interest of public safety the deletion of the photos could be considered a sound decision.
Armchair quarterbacks may not have as tough a job as a real quarterback, but that's not to say the real quarterbacks are always right. Ditto the police. It's understandable that mistakes are made, but we need to correct mistakes, not allow them because of who makes them. And frankly your assertion that public SAFETY might be harmed by these photos is asinine. What possible scenario has pictures taken at a publicly accessible conference about open source actually being a threat to the safety of anyone, let alone the public at large?
No idiot, the same does NOT go for two new cars. They'd both crumple and the drivers would be even better off.
That's the problem though - you think we're debating this. We aren't, we're right and we're telling you how it is. What we are debating is the nature of your mental impairment. Did your mother drink heavily while pregnant?
i understand that all, trust me, im an engineer
Really? What does Amtrak pay? Because you certainly aren't the thinking/calculating kind of engineer.
I didn't see anything in that quoted section about absolute freedom - maybe it was in the next paragraph? Funny though, all the laws we have - they seem to limit a lot of things that people must have wanted to do...
Besides, Fugue was simply saying that his friend's inability to consider biking as an option is bad, not that not-choosing biking is bad. It obviously IS bad to refuse to consider the options. Not morally bad, stupid bad. As in, thus incapable of ever taking advantage of the options when they would be better.
You have such a problem with such a simple concept that you obviously need to be talked down to. Either because you're too stupid to follow the big words, or more likely because you're being intentionally obtuse.
Yeah, because the topic of code ownership is irrelevant. Who cares if it will remain free? Who cares if the companies involved are trying to use software patents to embrace and extend?
Only everyone actually serious about using open source. Which leaves you in the idiots-on-the-sideline-without-a-clue category. Or astroturfing-assholes-making-shit-up...
So why does Microsoft make such a big deal out of the patent indemnity issue if it's useless to them? Can you really imagine them spending a ton of money on lawyers and going through all the anti-GPLv3 nonsense if they didn't plan on violating the spirit of the GPL?
When has MS ever NOT tried to embrace and extend? Which MS CEOs have NOT called open source a communist cancer, etc?
Are you retarded? Linux's tools are the GNU toolset, and the kernel was written from scratch. While many companies would love to claim total ownership of any UNIX-like software that doesn't mean they've got a legal-leg on which to stand.
The point YOU'RE missing is that Novell's main contribution to open source is patent-encumbering things and spreading Microsoft's filth under a different name. They aren't altruistic in the slightest because they intend their "open" source contributions to entangle you in non-open patents.
They'd help the community far more if they deleted everything they'd written and closed up shop.
I was with you until you got to them deleting photos. How does removing a protester ever justify deleting their photos? Even if there ever were justification, how could it be the job of the officers involved to judge/execute the sentence?
If your job insists on handing you shifts that are inconvenient/harder and not compensating you for that (by perhaps, paying taxi fare when you do shift-work) they aren't a good place to work.
Yes, we get the idea that changing your driving might require changing your employer, which might require changing your housing... It is complicated. But your life will be better if you pay attention to it.
Why have you made 3-5 posts in this thread all saying "Sure, but then when a problem (not enough cargo capacity/not enough transit/etc) looms, WHAT DO I DO!?" Isn't it fairly clear? You do something else. If there's no cargo capacity buy a basket/trailer/take the bus, if the bus doesn't run, haul cargo another day, if your work is inaccessible on weekends, refuse weekend shifts. If you can't choose your shifts at all (what are you, an elementary school child? Do you need to ask for potty breaks?) find another job. If you can't, consider moving closer to other jobs.
Maybe we'll do this another way. What parts of what you're doing are so sacred you can't consider changing them. Is that apartment/whatever special, or just the one you got when you needed one? Is the job making some life-saving thing that won't be made if you don't do it, or can you pick up another job elsewhere? Is your kid's school the only one that works with their special needs? Then sure, make that one thing fixed. But if you're like everyone else, 99% of what you do is dictated by chance, not design. So if part of that 99% must change, it should be painless because you didn't specifically pick it.
Everyone says "But I need my car to get to work", but how many actually stopped to consider getting a new job, or apartment, instead?
Whenever anyone says "people should just ...", they're wrong.
Whenever anyone says "people who have no choice but to ...", they're wrong.
Guh, are you that clueless?!
Your rant *IS* typical, to the point of being a stereotypical opinion of the Starbucks crowd. It's fashionable to talk about how corporate excess is destroying the world, then go jump in your SUV. Or simply drink $5 coffees which profits a semi-abusive company instead of helping people in other countries build an economy which isn't based on resource exportation. In other words, pick a specific problem and blame it for everything thus attempting to minimize your impact.
You said '50" plasma TVs ... put an existing TV in the landfill'. This is an easy shot, because TVs are obviously a luxury item, and 50" is "just too big!" Never mind that a new 50" LCD is likely to take less resources and be less damaging to manufacture. (Sure, LCD plants pollute, but do you think the process of making/disposing of a CRT is clean?)
But what do you buy? Whatever it is it either puts an existing version of itself in the landfill (instead of employing a valuable craftsman to fix it), or displaces the non-corporate crafts of some disadvantaged people, or wastes labor by being hand-made instead of efficiently machine made, or whatever. There's always something wrong with everything.
But instead of saying that everyone should merely be more conscious of the potential harm you picked the low-hanging fruit, the fat American TV obsessed stereotype, and you blame their hypothetical simultaneous demand for more plasma TVs. It's an easy shot, but it ignores any reality (are they recycling the old TVs, etc?).
Then you go on, similarly free of facts or even basic reasoning, about how a small backyard/garden is unsustainable - but maybe trendy shared gardens would work - but only if we would tout kinship and reform local bonds... Surely a personal garden for everyone is just the answer to centralized corporate farming, right? What will we all be doing wrong then, oh wise one?
The poster who responded to you made a very valid point - it's not the American Dream to accumulate stuff - the American Dream is the freedom to be able to do anything - one of which is accumulate stuff... the others are minor crap about being able to say and think what you want. Nothing really.
Not only are you slandering many socially responsible Americans, but you totally ignore that a rich Saudi, or Israeli, or Russian, or Maori, would all take the opportunity to buy toys, the same environmentally damaging ones those bastard Americans buy.
So really you're just a cliche-spouting, blame dodging racist, too busy covering up problems by promoting classism through calling for prohibitions against things you see as worthless while clinging tenaciously to your own wasteful habits - screaming about other people's excesses all the louder to drown out and questioning of your own activities.
It's very libertarian to expect you to pay for the harm you cause to others. If dumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere is a problem then it's reasonable to hand you a bill for your portion.
The problem is that of a government, who can arrest you if you refuse to pay, rather than voluntary trade organizations who could choose not to deal with you.
Of course the benefit to a government, for everyone else, is that they could make you stop/pay even if you didn't want to.
The reality of government though is that they'd take a bribe from you to allow it - far smaller than a fair amount and all going to the politicians instead of towards repair/cleanup.