The agreement of the countries (their governments) would be sufficient, if achievable.
I disagree completely. The people are not the government, and the government is not the people. The people are unique individuals who do not hold the power to initiate force; the government is a collection of individuals who do hold the power to initiate force.
Do you endorse 100% of what your government does? 75%? 50%? If it's any less than 100%, then you, like every individual, are being screwed over for the benefit of special interests. You are not the government -- you do not make any decisions regarding the initiation of force. Having a part in the voting process does not, in any possible way, represent a decision regarding the initiation of force.
Intellectual property is a contract designed to spur the creation of art and information by granting limited monopolies to creators.
Force does not have to be physical. Theft is force, even though the victim may not be present at the scene of the crime. Fraud is an example of force. Force is measured in loss of property rights (the most important of which is ownership of your own body), not necessarily physical assult. Accordingly, the [false] rationale for IP law is to protect IP holders against force -- to protect them against the loss of property. Of course, the variable here is the definition of "property", and personally I don't buy into the concept of ideas as "property".
One word: Pork. The occupation is a pork project designed to expand the scope, power, and expense of the US government, just like the pork projects we're forced to participate in at home. Why expand the scope of the US government? Why not cut expenses and let the people decide for themselves how to spend their money? Because expansion = power, and power = profit. We need to realize that government is a business, and like any business, the goal is profit.
Exactly. At the root of the issue, patent law is arbitrary. It's a complex, largely ambiguous system of law created and implemented entirely by government -- not a simple, "natural" law that would be inherently understood by human society and would be respected (or even conceived) with or without government.
What does this mean? In short, there is no possible way that every country -- let alone every human being in the world -- could agree to this concept of "intellectual property". Therefore, the implementation of intellectual property requires a major initiation of force, the very thing it proposes to protect us against. Not only is the concept of IP itself questionable (many, like myself, would oppose it outright), but the implementation could take any one of literally millions of different forms. Who's right and who's wrong? There is no answer, there will never be an answer, and there never could be an answer.
Like any law or set of laws that can't be agreed upon nearly unanimously, somebody will be screwed over in a big way. This is exactly why I advocate limited government -- beyond the core function of government (which is to protect the people against the initiation of force), every law is arbitrary to some degree, and necessarily screws over somebody at the expense of somebody else. IP does exactly that.
I agree with many of their positions but the zombirific way they rationalize them is totally off-putting.
Huh? Could you please rewrite what I stated in a more pleasant style? Just curious to see what you think I should have wrote, to convey the same rationale.
Also, how can you agree with the posistions but not the rationale? That's not very logical. The position *is* the rationale.
securing your property rights screws over somebody for the benefit of somebody else
Unless you consider the "social contract" (i.e. taxing) an initiation of force (and I would completely understand that), I can't imagine how the core function of government (which is to secure our natural property rights) represents an initiation of force.
What's this "us" and "them" stuff I keep hearing about? I've got news for you: There is no "us". There is no "them". There are only individuals, each equally important as the next.
I don't support the actions of the US government, and I don't support the actions of the terrorists. They are both evil as far as I am concerned, because they both kill innocent people. (Yes, the US government knew damn well that innocent people would be killed in Iraq, just like they know damn well that innocent people are killed nearly every time they invoke military force.) But this doesn't change my belief that 9/11, among other instances of terrorism, would never have occurred had the US government not adopted a foreign policy based on military force.
Law is all about drawing lines - what is acceptable and what isn't.
That's exactly the sort of thinking that got us into this mess of huge, bloated, corrupt, oppressive government in the first place -- the idea that government's function is to tell us what's "acceptable" and what's not. The idea that government -- or a majority -- knows what's best for an individual better than the individual themselves. This is a very dangerous mode of thinking.
Government's function is to protect us against the initiation of force -- to secure our property rights. Everything beyond that is arbitrary by definition, and necessarily screws over somebody for the benefit of somebody else.
People who break into other people's computers are trespassing. This represents an initiation of force -- a "natual crime" if you will -- because there is an actual breach of property rights. There is no question whether it is just to take action against these people.
People who use or trade drugs, on the other hand, have initiated no force. There is no breach of property rights. Drug "crimes" represent, at best, a breach of government-mandated conformity -- an "artificial crime" if you will.
To compare the two is not only illogical, but dangerously misleading.
It's an uncomfortable truth that complete suppression of terrorism requires complete suppression of freedom.
That is absolutely wrong. Government cannot possibly create "total peace", even under a complete and total police state. First, history shows that police states actually create more crime than they prevent. The "war on drugs" is a perfect example. Moreover, the implementation of a police state would do nothing to reduce initiation of force, because the very concept of the police state is based on initiation of force, and couldn't be implemented without it. Does anyone really believe that the rulers (those in power) are inherently more "righteous" than the subjects (those without power)?
But currently, the bullys can bully, but those bullied cannot fight back. So they resort to other tactics.
That is absolutly correct. It makes me sick when I hear people claim that the terrorists "hate us for our wealth, our culture, and success in general". What an arrogant, woefully ignorant statement that is.
I agree. "Terrorism" can and should be used in place of "collateral damage". Why? Because "collateral damage" is no accident. The US government knew damn well that innocent people would die in Iraq, just like they knew damn well that innocent people would die in Afghanistan, just like they know damn well that nearly every use of military force kills innocent people. They may not "intentionally" set out to kill innocents, but they are quite aware that the chances of killing innocent people is almost guaranteed when they initiate force. That, my friends, is no better that killing an innocent outright.
How about foreign policy? A foreign policy based on force -- like any initiation of force -- is guaranteed to create resentment. Does any of us actually believe that the family members, friends, and neighbors of those slaughtered by the US government are thinking to themselves, "you know, even though my brother was murdered by the US government, I still support what the US government is doing to our country"? Do you think these innocent victims buy into the lie of "collateral damage" that we're all supposed to believe like good little citizens?
I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you...
the majority of the population... would probably actually agree that communication between citizens is dangerous and should only be allowed through government approved channels
Sad, but true -- yet blatantly illogical. The core of this argument rests on the assumption that somehow, human beings of power (the rulers) are inherently more trustworthy than regular human beings (the subjects). But, what is it that actually differentiates the ruler from the subject? Is it knowledge? Education? Experience? Good will? None of the above: It's power and power alone. The true root of the argument, therefore, is that power (the "legal right" to initiate force) is inherently "just", which, when we put it that way, is simply ludicrous.
Another false belief that I run into is that a majority -- which is really just another group of human beings -- is somehow more trustworthy or rightous than an individual human being, and thus, the majority opinion is more valuable than the single opinion. This argument is illogical by the same token.
I agree. "Banning spam" will not do a thing to stop the spammers. The result would be that government grows bigger and more expensive, and we lose even more of what's left of our liberties. The only fair and reasonable thing to do is to make it possible for private parties (ISPs for example) to sue other private parties (the spammers) for network abuse. Otherwise, leave me out of it (that is, leave my tax dollars out of it).
Personally I am opposed to all types of patent law (it contaminates the basis of natural property rights), so my proposed solution is to simply eliminate patent law, instead of endlessly "reforming" it, year after year, knowing perfectly well that it will never reach a state that works for everyone.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Like any private organization or individual, AOL does not hold the right to initiate force against another organization or individual. Again, if it does happen that service providers are forced to disclose their data, we are looking at a failure of government, not a "market failure" as many here would have you believe.
the argument can be made that the spammers are initiating force against AOL by stealing their service.
Yes, of course, and I would agree with that stance.
Great, another reason to make government bigger. This is exactly why the US government today is more expensive than ever, and exactly why we're losing more and more of our civil rights every year. Government creates a "solution" (DMCA) to solve a "problem" (their intellectual property laws are inherently ambiguous and overly complex and thus are exploited very easily), and in the process, creates a new problem (nobody except the lawyers can understand the law) that they can solve, all the while making government more expensive and more oppressive. I'm not buying it.
Government is the problem here, not the solution. The solution involves reducing the scope and powers of government, not expanding those powers.
I agree. The solution to this problem (any problem) should not, under any circumstances, involve compromising the rights of others. Why should the service providers (and thier customers) be penalized because AOL has a problem with spam? If AOL and its lawyers cannot determine who is sending the spam, then AOL is out of luck.
Keep in mind, if it actually does happen that service providers are forced to disclose private data, then we are looking at a problem with government, not a problem with AOL. Only government has the power to initiate force, not AOL.
Way to moderate based on personal opinion, guys. Ironically, what I said was completely valid. Too bad the only counter-points you had were moderation points.
Now there's a pork barrel project if I've ever seen one. Creating new problems for the sake of making government bigger is quite the high-profile job nowadays.
Because of decisions made by those in power (government). Not decisions made by a private corporation. These are decisions that can be made only by a person of power -- a person who holds the "right" to use force against others. A private individual or corporation who uses force is called a criminal, and would (should) be dealt with accordingly.
The elite behind the corporations pulled the strings and the taxpayers barfed money to bail them out.
No, the government pulled the strings. Without the backing of government, those corporations would be equal in power to you and me.
There is no profit in protecting the environment.
Strong property rights -- which we don't currently have in the US -- is the answer to most (if not all) environmental issues. If a factory down the road from my house is polluting the water that flows through my backyard, I should have the right to sue them. If an oil refinery is pouring smoke into the air that I breathe, I should have the right to sue them. Search cato.org if you are interested in learning more about this. Incidentally, government itself creates more pollution than any one private corporation ever could.
But the private sector holds the keys to government.
The private sector does not "run" the government. A private corporation or lobbying group may attempt to bribe a person of political power, but if that person accepts the bribe, it is not the fault of the private corporation. They do not make that decision. They cannot make that decision because they do not hold the power to make that decision. Only government holds the power to make that decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. People need to realize that government is the problem here, not the solution.
I disagree completely. The people are not the government, and the government is not the people. The people are unique individuals who do not hold the power to initiate force; the government is a collection of individuals who do hold the power to initiate force.
Do you endorse 100% of what your government does? 75%? 50%? If it's any less than 100%, then you, like every individual, are being screwed over for the benefit of special interests. You are not the government -- you do not make any decisions regarding the initiation of force. Having a part in the voting process does not, in any possible way, represent a decision regarding the initiation of force.
Intellectual property is a contract designed to spur the creation of art and information by granting limited monopolies to creators.
Force does not have to be physical. Theft is force, even though the victim may not be present at the scene of the crime. Fraud is an example of force. Force is measured in loss of property rights (the most important of which is ownership of your own body), not necessarily physical assult. Accordingly, the [false] rationale for IP law is to protect IP holders against force -- to protect them against the loss of property. Of course, the variable here is the definition of "property", and personally I don't buy into the concept of ideas as "property".
One word: Pork. The occupation is a pork project designed to expand the scope, power, and expense of the US government, just like the pork projects we're forced to participate in at home. Why expand the scope of the US government? Why not cut expenses and let the people decide for themselves how to spend their money? Because expansion = power, and power = profit. We need to realize that government is a business, and like any business, the goal is profit.
If you ask me, the war itself is a pork project.
Exactly. At the root of the issue, patent law is arbitrary. It's a complex, largely ambiguous system of law created and implemented entirely by government -- not a simple, "natural" law that would be inherently understood by human society and would be respected (or even conceived) with or without government.
What does this mean? In short, there is no possible way that every country -- let alone every human being in the world -- could agree to this concept of "intellectual property". Therefore, the implementation of intellectual property requires a major initiation of force, the very thing it proposes to protect us against. Not only is the concept of IP itself questionable (many, like myself, would oppose it outright), but the implementation could take any one of literally millions of different forms. Who's right and who's wrong? There is no answer, there will never be an answer, and there never could be an answer.
Like any law or set of laws that can't be agreed upon nearly unanimously, somebody will be screwed over in a big way. This is exactly why I advocate limited government -- beyond the core function of government (which is to protect the people against the initiation of force), every law is arbitrary to some degree, and necessarily screws over somebody at the expense of somebody else. IP does exactly that.
Huh? Could you please rewrite what I stated in a more pleasant style? Just curious to see what you think I should have wrote, to convey the same rationale.
Also, how can you agree with the posistions but not the rationale? That's not very logical. The position *is* the rationale.
Unless you consider the "social contract" (i.e. taxing) an initiation of force (and I would completely understand that), I can't imagine how the core function of government (which is to secure our natural property rights) represents an initiation of force.
What's this "us" and "them" stuff I keep hearing about? I've got news for you: There is no "us". There is no "them". There are only individuals, each equally important as the next.
I don't support the actions of the US government, and I don't support the actions of the terrorists. They are both evil as far as I am concerned, because they both kill innocent people. (Yes, the US government knew damn well that innocent people would be killed in Iraq, just like they know damn well that innocent people are killed nearly every time they invoke military force.) But this doesn't change my belief that 9/11, among other instances of terrorism, would never have occurred had the US government not adopted a foreign policy based on military force.
That's exactly the sort of thinking that got us into this mess of huge, bloated, corrupt, oppressive government in the first place -- the idea that government's function is to tell us what's "acceptable" and what's not. The idea that government -- or a majority -- knows what's best for an individual better than the individual themselves. This is a very dangerous mode of thinking.
Government's function is to protect us against the initiation of force -- to secure our property rights. Everything beyond that is arbitrary by definition, and necessarily screws over somebody for the benefit of somebody else.
People who break into other people's computers are trespassing. This represents an initiation of force -- a "natual crime" if you will -- because there is an actual breach of property rights. There is no question whether it is just to take action against these people.
People who use or trade drugs, on the other hand, have initiated no force. There is no breach of property rights. Drug "crimes" represent, at best, a breach of government-mandated conformity -- an "artificial crime" if you will.
To compare the two is not only illogical, but dangerously misleading.
That is absolutely wrong. Government cannot possibly create "total peace", even under a complete and total police state. First, history shows that police states actually create more crime than they prevent. The "war on drugs" is a perfect example. Moreover, the implementation of a police state would do nothing to reduce initiation of force, because the very concept of the police state is based on initiation of force, and couldn't be implemented without it. Does anyone really believe that the rulers (those in power) are inherently more "righteous" than the subjects (those without power)?
That is absolutly correct. It makes me sick when I hear people claim that the terrorists "hate us for our wealth, our culture, and success in general". What an arrogant, woefully ignorant statement that is.
I agree. "Terrorism" can and should be used in place of "collateral damage". Why? Because "collateral damage" is no accident. The US government knew damn well that innocent people would die in Iraq, just like they knew damn well that innocent people would die in Afghanistan, just like they know damn well that nearly every use of military force kills innocent people. They may not "intentionally" set out to kill innocents, but they are quite aware that the chances of killing innocent people is almost guaranteed when they initiate force. That, my friends, is no better that killing an innocent outright.
How about foreign policy? A foreign policy based on force -- like any initiation of force -- is guaranteed to create resentment. Does any of us actually believe that the family members, friends, and neighbors of those slaughtered by the US government are thinking to themselves, "you know, even though my brother was murdered by the US government, I still support what the US government is doing to our country"? Do you think these innocent victims buy into the lie of "collateral damage" that we're all supposed to believe like good little citizens?
I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you...
Sad, but true -- yet blatantly illogical. The core of this argument rests on the assumption that somehow, human beings of power (the rulers) are inherently more trustworthy than regular human beings (the subjects). But, what is it that actually differentiates the ruler from the subject? Is it knowledge? Education? Experience? Good will? None of the above: It's power and power alone. The true root of the argument, therefore, is that power (the "legal right" to initiate force) is inherently "just", which, when we put it that way, is simply ludicrous.
Another false belief that I run into is that a majority -- which is really just another group of human beings -- is somehow more trustworthy or rightous than an individual human being, and thus, the majority opinion is more valuable than the single opinion. This argument is illogical by the same token.
I agree. "Banning spam" will not do a thing to stop the spammers. The result would be that government grows bigger and more expensive, and we lose even more of what's left of our liberties. The only fair and reasonable thing to do is to make it possible for private parties (ISPs for example) to sue other private parties (the spammers) for network abuse. Otherwise, leave me out of it (that is, leave my tax dollars out of it).
Personally I am opposed to all types of patent law (it contaminates the basis of natural property rights), so my proposed solution is to simply eliminate patent law, instead of endlessly "reforming" it, year after year, knowing perfectly well that it will never reach a state that works for everyone.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Like any private organization or individual, AOL does not hold the right to initiate force against another organization or individual. Again, if it does happen that service providers are forced to disclose their data, we are looking at a failure of government, not a "market failure" as many here would have you believe.
the argument can be made that the spammers are initiating force against AOL by stealing their service.
Yes, of course, and I would agree with that stance.
Great, another reason to make government bigger. This is exactly why the US government today is more expensive than ever, and exactly why we're losing more and more of our civil rights every year. Government creates a "solution" (DMCA) to solve a "problem" (their intellectual property laws are inherently ambiguous and overly complex and thus are exploited very easily), and in the process, creates a new problem (nobody except the lawyers can understand the law) that they can solve, all the while making government more expensive and more oppressive. I'm not buying it.
Government is the problem here, not the solution. The solution involves reducing the scope and powers of government, not expanding those powers.
"Intellectual property", like flying pigs, cannot be found in nature.
I agree. The solution to this problem (any problem) should not, under any circumstances, involve compromising the rights of others. Why should the service providers (and thier customers) be penalized because AOL has a problem with spam? If AOL and its lawyers cannot determine who is sending the spam, then AOL is out of luck.
Keep in mind, if it actually does happen that service providers are forced to disclose private data, then we are looking at a problem with government, not a problem with AOL. Only government has the power to initiate force, not AOL.
Way to moderate based on personal opinion, guys. Ironically, what I said was completely valid. Too bad the only counter-points you had were moderation points.
Now there's a pork barrel project if I've ever seen one. Creating new problems for the sake of making government bigger is quite the high-profile job nowadays.
Just curious... what are the backticks for? And why are you using a text field to store a foreign key of type integer? ;)
Here is a good intro if you are interested.
Politics over-ruled the law.
Because of decisions made by those in power (government). Not decisions made by a private corporation. These are decisions that can be made only by a person of power -- a person who holds the "right" to use force against others. A private individual or corporation who uses force is called a criminal, and would (should) be dealt with accordingly.
The elite behind the corporations pulled the strings and the taxpayers barfed money to bail them out.
No, the government pulled the strings. Without the backing of government, those corporations would be equal in power to you and me.
There is no profit in protecting the environment.
Strong property rights -- which we don't currently have in the US -- is the answer to most (if not all) environmental issues. If a factory down the road from my house is polluting the water that flows through my backyard, I should have the right to sue them. If an oil refinery is pouring smoke into the air that I breathe, I should have the right to sue them. Search cato.org if you are interested in learning more about this. Incidentally, government itself creates more pollution than any one private corporation ever could.
But the private sector holds the keys to government.
The private sector does not "run" the government. A private corporation or lobbying group may attempt to bribe a person of political power, but if that person accepts the bribe, it is not the fault of the private corporation. They do not make that decision. They cannot make that decision because they do not hold the power to make that decision. Only government holds the power to make that decision.