I would say that, at the root, patents simply promote the idea that force is a valid business model. (The essence of patent law, like any instance of government, is the initiation of force -- not voluntary cooperation.) In many ways, interacting with others through force is quicker and easier than trying to persuade them voluntarily. Patents promote the short-term gain, get-rich-quick, screw-your-neighbor idealology.
Funny you refer to those who refuse this form of slavery (conscription) as "phychologically unfit" and needing to "grow up". The way I see it, the people that need to grow up are those who readily accept the idea that government owns your body and the fruits of your labor, and has the "right" to force people into labor against their will.
Human beings are unique, thinking individuals. We are not cows waiting to be milked and herded into conformity. We are not the borg.
It's unfortunate that nobody understands the real issue here. The issue is not privacy. The issue is force -- the fact that force will be employed as a means to an end. Government will force the manufacturers to produce according to government's idea of what's right, rather than producing according to what the consumer says is right. They will do this by forcibly extracting revenue from the people, diverting some of it to feed the new regulation, and keeping a cut for themselves.
Privacy? It's irrelevant to the real issue. If auto manufacturers and auto consumers actually had choice, they would be able to decide for themselves whether they want this "black box". The issue is that government has forcibly stripped us of this choice.
wealth, influence, popularity, knowledge, and ownership of material goods are almost always means by which one can encourage or coerce the use of physical force
A megacorp CEO, despite having all of those things, has no more ability or "tendency" to initiate force (to assume power over others) than a dirtbag thief who robs 7-11's. The choice is still theirs. The line between forceful interaction (which defines power) and voluntary interaction is completely unambiguous -- any possible human interaction is either one of force (employing actual violence or the threat of violence) or one of voluntary association. Don't try to blur the distinction so you can poo-poo on business.
I think we need to define "power". For me, power can mean only one thing: the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. It does not mean wealth, influence over others, popularity, knowledge, or ownership of business or material items. It is entirely possible to have all of those things and not posess an ounce of power.
I am only concerned with power as it relates to interaction between people, because as an individual with unique wants and needs, it is in my best interest to respect all other individuals EXCEPT those who operate on the principle of force (as opposed to the principle of voluntary association).
I would argue that Mandella had influence, but not power. I would argue that Mandella had great influence precisely because of his lack of power. Mandella fought against, not for, power.
Free market? Are you claiming that Telstra acquired their market dominance purely through voluntary association? (The core principle of free market economics is voluntary association.)
Personally I never understood the fascination with democracy. People speak of democracy (especially politicians) as if voting is guaranteed to bring about the most free, most fair and just society possible. But in the US, government just keeps getting more expensive and more intrusive, year after year. If this growth rate continues, we're headed straight for absolute oppression. This seems more like proof of democracy's potential for abuse, rather than it's promises of freedom.
The fact that the majority gets to choose who obtains power does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government. That is the achilles' heel of democracy: Power still exists. IMO, the root of our problems is not that the wrong people have obtained power -- it's that power exists in the first place and is there for the taking. Absolute power will be abused absolutely, as the saying goes.
The bottom line is individual freedom. I could really care less whether I lived under a democracy or a monarchy -- the bottom line is how much of my natural rights as a human being I will retain.
Damn near every network - including allegedly liberal networks like CNN - peddled the government propaganda to the American public without so much as a question during the Iraq conflict.
No surprise there. The more entangled government is in private affairs, the more influence government has over private affairs. As it stands, government is very entangled in the mass media business.
Keeping children safe is the responsibility of the parent, not the gov't.
I agree completely, and I'd note that people who propose government as the "solution" to this "problem" are really proposing to free themselves of personal responsibility and dump it on everyone else. I guess it's easier to cry to the nanny state than it is to admit you haven't done your job.
Like a politician, you have overlooked the most obvious and efficient solution: cut spending. Reduce the scope and power of government. Let people decide for themselves where to direct their money.
Personally, I don't recieve a return on approximately 95% of what I pay taxes for. Did you know that the average US citizen pays nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined? Do you really think government knows better how to spend this money than you, the one who earned it in the first place?
I'm not rich, mind you -- just an individual who insists on taking full responsibility for himself, and doesn't WANT to have life spoon-fed to him by government. Sure, "someone's got to pay", if you blindly assume that everything government does is for the better.
The libertarian party endorses the plan set forth by the founders: congress may provide for limited forms of IP where appropriate. The DMCA goes well beyond this prescription, and for that reason I believe they would repeal it.
Simple: Reduce the scope of government. (Make government smaller, less expensive, and less oppressive.) Of course, that stands in the way of the goals of nearly every politician.
Why are there are so many lawyers in the US? Because the law is overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable. If there wasn't any money to be made by exploiting the law (if the law was simple and fair), there wouldn't be any work for all those lawyers.
I can sell my piece of free software at any price I like, whether you choose to buy it of course, is your own freedom.
The relationship between software producer and software consumer is entirely voluntary, whether open source or proprietary. The "freedom" referred to by the open source folks is the freedom to inspect, modify, and distribute -- not the freedom to terminate the producer-consumer relationship and find another. (That is certainly a critical freedom, but it's not the one that distinguishes open source from proprietary software.)
Show me your own evidence of one single example, recorded anywhere, of a successful, long term, society (not some isolated few families that were massacred as soon as they ran up against the real world) brought about by, and based on, voluntary association.
Exactly. One doesn't exist, never has, and won't for a very long time, for the reason I stated in my previous post. The world is "not safe for anarchy", and won't be, until the majority of world governments move towards libertarianism and respect for individual freedom (which they have been, very slowly, over the past few centuries). But, as long as there exist superpower governments, anarchy doesn't stand a chance.
Philosophically speaking, the most fair, free, secure, and prosperous society possible is the one in which no individual posesses the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end (including the leaders or "government"). A society where the only permissable mode of human interaction is voluntary association (the other, force, being strictly forbidden except in defense of force). I know it seems impossible today, but how can we say it won't be possible in another 200, 500, or 1000 years?
You are assuming that certain services (like security) must be provided through the initiation of force (government), and couldn't possibly be provided through voluntary association (free market). You are speaking as though this is written in stone. Where's the beef?
You also seem to have confused the concepts of anarchy (lack of government) and cooperation. They are two entirely seperate issues, but you have implied that government leads to cooperation, and anarchy doesn't? Again, where is the evidence?
In fact, there is much evidence that human beings cooperate BETTER, not worse, when they do so voluntarily. The evidence is human nature itself!
The way I see it, everything you speak of (cooperation, efficiency, production, prosperity) could be achieved through voluntary association.
Anarchy does not mean that it is acceptable to initiate force. It means just the opposite: nobody has the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, including government.
Anarchy also does not mean that culture or social standards would be eliminated. It simply means that they can't be *forced* on people (through actual physical force or threat of force, as government operates).
Are you assuming that under anarchy, nobody would have the ability to protect themselves, or retaliate against the initiation of force?
You need to dig deeper before making such assumptions. Anarchy does not mean that security cannot exist -- it simply means that security would be provided through private enterprise (voluntary cooperation) rather than a forced collective. There is no objective reason why a service currently achieved through force couldn't be achieved through voluntary participation.
In the real world, there's little difference.
In the real world, there's no such thing as anarchy, and no such society will emerge during our lifetimes. The reason is simple. If a successful (peaceful, prosperous, voluntary) society were to emerge with no government (where the "right" to initiate force does not exist), it would be promptly destroyed by the current world superpower. There is absolutely no way that a person of policial power, who owes his success to organized coercion, is going to sit around and watch as a successful anarchy completely discredits everything government stands for.
I doubt they would advocate banning the media entirely. They have much more to gain by having government penalize the users of such media (via taxing), taking a cut for themselves, and passing the rest on to the music industry. Money for nuthin'. IIRC this is exactly what has happened in Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say that, at the root, patents simply promote the idea that force is a valid business model. (The essence of patent law, like any instance of government, is the initiation of force -- not voluntary cooperation.) In many ways, interacting with others through force is quicker and easier than trying to persuade them voluntarily. Patents promote the short-term gain, get-rich-quick, screw-your-neighbor idealology.
Funny you refer to those who refuse this form of slavery (conscription) as "phychologically unfit" and needing to "grow up". The way I see it, the people that need to grow up are those who readily accept the idea that government owns your body and the fruits of your labor, and has the "right" to force people into labor against their will.
Human beings are unique, thinking individuals. We are not cows waiting to be milked and herded into conformity. We are not the borg.
Privacy? It's irrelevant to the real issue. If auto manufacturers and auto consumers actually had choice, they would be able to decide for themselves whether they want this "black box". The issue is that government has forcibly stripped us of this choice.
A megacorp CEO, despite having all of those things, has no more ability or "tendency" to initiate force (to assume power over others) than a dirtbag thief who robs 7-11's. The choice is still theirs. The line between forceful interaction (which defines power) and voluntary interaction is completely unambiguous -- any possible human interaction is either one of force (employing actual violence or the threat of violence) or one of voluntary association. Don't try to blur the distinction so you can poo-poo on business.
You're right -- to assume the command of government is to assume pure power. His influence and popularity was achieved independent of this, however.
Not exactly. They see us as cows waiting to be milked.
I've been using Debian for years and have never touched dselect.
I think we need to define "power". For me, power can mean only one thing: the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. It does not mean wealth, influence over others, popularity, knowledge, or ownership of business or material items. It is entirely possible to have all of those things and not posess an ounce of power.
I am only concerned with power as it relates to interaction between people, because as an individual with unique wants and needs, it is in my best interest to respect all other individuals EXCEPT those who operate on the principle of force (as opposed to the principle of voluntary association).
I would argue that Mandella had influence, but not power. I would argue that Mandella had great influence precisely because of his lack of power. Mandella fought against, not for, power.
What definition of power are you using?
Free market? Are you claiming that Telstra acquired their market dominance purely through voluntary association? (The core principle of free market economics is voluntary association.)
Personally I never understood the fascination with democracy. People speak of democracy (especially politicians) as if voting is guaranteed to bring about the most free, most fair and just society possible. But in the US, government just keeps getting more expensive and more intrusive, year after year. If this growth rate continues, we're headed straight for absolute oppression. This seems more like proof of democracy's potential for abuse, rather than it's promises of freedom.
The fact that the majority gets to choose who obtains power does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government. That is the achilles' heel of democracy: Power still exists. IMO, the root of our problems is not that the wrong people have obtained power -- it's that power exists in the first place and is there for the taking. Absolute power will be abused absolutely, as the saying goes.
The bottom line is individual freedom. I could really care less whether I lived under a democracy or a monarchy -- the bottom line is how much of my natural rights as a human being I will retain.
No surprise there. The more entangled government is in private affairs, the more influence government has over private affairs. As it stands, government is very entangled in the mass media business.
I agree completely, and I'd note that people who propose government as the "solution" to this "problem" are really proposing to free themselves of personal responsibility and dump it on everyone else. I guess it's easier to cry to the nanny state than it is to admit you haven't done your job.
So you are against "outright" censorship, yet you still propose more government as a "solution"? (What exactly was the problem again?)
I don't want or need your rating system. I barely watch TV at all. Why should I be forced to support this expansion of government?
Like a politician, you have overlooked the most obvious and efficient solution: cut spending. Reduce the scope and power of government. Let people decide for themselves where to direct their money.
Personally, I don't recieve a return on approximately 95% of what I pay taxes for. Did you know that the average US citizen pays nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined? Do you really think government knows better how to spend this money than you, the one who earned it in the first place?
I'm not rich, mind you -- just an individual who insists on taking full responsibility for himself, and doesn't WANT to have life spoon-fed to him by government. Sure, "someone's got to pay", if you blindly assume that everything government does is for the better.
Look no further, your dream case is right here.
The libertarian party endorses the plan set forth by the founders: congress may provide for limited forms of IP where appropriate. The DMCA goes well beyond this prescription, and for that reason I believe they would repeal it.
I reckon the libertarian party is a lot more likely to eliminate unnecessary expansions of government than the greens or any "left wing" group.
Simple: Reduce the scope of government. (Make government smaller, less expensive, and less oppressive.) Of course, that stands in the way of the goals of nearly every politician.
At the root, TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.
Why are there are so many lawyers in the US? Because the law is overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable. If there wasn't any money to be made by exploiting the law (if the law was simple and fair), there wouldn't be any work for all those lawyers.
The relationship between software producer and software consumer is entirely voluntary, whether open source or proprietary. The "freedom" referred to by the open source folks is the freedom to inspect, modify, and distribute -- not the freedom to terminate the producer-consumer relationship and find another. (That is certainly a critical freedom, but it's not the one that distinguishes open source from proprietary software.)
Exactly. One doesn't exist, never has, and won't for a very long time, for the reason I stated in my previous post. The world is "not safe for anarchy", and won't be, until the majority of world governments move towards libertarianism and respect for individual freedom (which they have been, very slowly, over the past few centuries). But, as long as there exist superpower governments, anarchy doesn't stand a chance.
Philosophically speaking, the most fair, free, secure, and prosperous society possible is the one in which no individual posesses the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end (including the leaders or "government"). A society where the only permissable mode of human interaction is voluntary association (the other, force, being strictly forbidden except in defense of force). I know it seems impossible today, but how can we say it won't be possible in another 200, 500, or 1000 years?
You are assuming that certain services (like security) must be provided through the initiation of force (government), and couldn't possibly be provided through voluntary association (free market). You are speaking as though this is written in stone. Where's the beef?
You also seem to have confused the concepts of anarchy (lack of government) and cooperation. They are two entirely seperate issues, but you have implied that government leads to cooperation, and anarchy doesn't? Again, where is the evidence?
In fact, there is much evidence that human beings cooperate BETTER, not worse, when they do so voluntarily. The evidence is human nature itself!
The way I see it, everything you speak of (cooperation, efficiency, production, prosperity) could be achieved through voluntary association.
Anarchy does not mean that it is acceptable to initiate force. It means just the opposite: nobody has the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, including government.
Anarchy also does not mean that culture or social standards would be eliminated. It simply means that they can't be *forced* on people (through actual physical force or threat of force, as government operates).
You need to dig deeper before making such assumptions. Anarchy does not mean that security cannot exist -- it simply means that security would be provided through private enterprise (voluntary cooperation) rather than a forced collective. There is no objective reason why a service currently achieved through force couldn't be achieved through voluntary participation.
In the real world, there's little difference.
In the real world, there's no such thing as anarchy, and no such society will emerge during our lifetimes. The reason is simple. If a successful (peaceful, prosperous, voluntary) society were to emerge with no government (where the "right" to initiate force does not exist), it would be promptly destroyed by the current world superpower. There is absolutely no way that a person of policial power, who owes his success to organized coercion, is going to sit around and watch as a successful anarchy completely discredits everything government stands for.
I doubt they would advocate banning the media entirely. They have much more to gain by having government penalize the users of such media (via taxing), taking a cut for themselves, and passing the rest on to the music industry. Money for nuthin'. IIRC this is exactly what has happened in Canada.