Yes but even they (black holes) eventually succumb to Thermodynamics and die-out
True enough. And similarly, I suppose, once formed, a monopoly must eventually fail and fall apart by itself.
The trouble is that it's still not a good idea to allow them to form. They do tremendous damage to the economy
while they exist, and we don't have any real grounds for speculating about how long it would take them to break
up. We don't know what the economic equivalent of Hawking radiation is. And we really don't want to
have to wait for the heat death of the universe in order to find out.
"everything deregulated" would mean no copyrights. Copyrights are a form of regulation. So how does Microsoft maintain their monopoly? 'Everything' is an expensive term to use, needless to say.
That only works with software though. The GP used MS as an example, but his point was wider than that.
Removing copyrights wouldn't stop one firm from consolidating all the gas stations in the US into one
giant chain, for example.
(I could have sworn I posted this earlier. Must have forgot to hit "submit")
I don't think I'll ever understand the thinking behind that notion.
The way I see it, the most perfect free market that ever has or ever can exist is that embodied in the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing happens in the physical universe that doesn't involve an exchange of energy. There is no regulation. There are no free lunches. Everyone pays the going rate. And yet, the physical universe brings forth singularities.
And if, in the one system we know that is fundamentally beyond regulation, a single body can grow so powerful as to swallow up all within its sphere of influence, why do we suppose this to be impossible in economic systems? It seems like pure magical thinking to me.
You really, really, really underestimate some people's stupidity.
This is NOT a technology problem. It's a stupid people problem:
The trouble is that "works for stupid people" is part of the minimum
acceptable spec for any voting machine. It has to be, because
"stupid" is a relative value. If we require a certain level of aptitude
to use these things, then we create an incentive for people to create
machines which require you to have a PhD and three weeks of intensive
training, just to stop it voting for [insert least favourite party here].
That's not a route I think anyone wants to do go down. So if it doesn't
work for "stupid" people, the technology, and not the with voters.
I appreciate there may be problems bringing the machines up to spec.
That's fair enough; we just won't use them. But you can't tell us
that all we need to do is breed a smarter electorate and the
machines will work perfectly. That wouldn't be acceptable for
an suite of office software, and it isn't acceptable for voting machines.
Nick, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but please, go back and read the first 20 comments that were posted in response to this article and tell me who's being rude.
Hmmm... what level are you browsing at? I'm at level 2 and I have to get well past twenty comments before I even see a
mention of linux.
The guy made a simple and sincere request, and the constant refrains of "you'd be better off if you used Linux" are not only unhelpful, but rude and wrong.
I don't see the problem. The main free anti-virus software packages are Avast, Avira, ClamAV, and (like it or not), changing O/S
to one that isn't so massively targeted by malware authors.
I haven't seen the Linux recommendations particularly outweighing those for the other possible solutions, and most of the
rudeness I've noticed has been from MS fans complaining that anyone dare mention Linux in this context. I appreciate a change of O/S
isn't the optimal solution for everybody, but it's certainly an option, and it would be remiss not to mention it.
Even if the piracy rate was much lower than 90%, that they cited it as the reason for shuttering the whole company after making a pretty decent game... is indicative of a problem, in my opinion.
Well, yes. There's always going to be some software piracy, and any software company that goes bust
is always going to think "if only a few of those guys had actually paid for the product, we might
still be in business".
But we also need to recognise that companies go bust all the time, even ones with good products.
Not just in the software industry either. So the question becomes how much of a problem is
piracy? If we accept that were never going to get rid of it entirely, where to do we draw the line
and accept losses due to unlicenced distribution as part of the overhead? How far can we go on with
measures like DRM and the DMCA before they start to become self defeating?
I have to say, I always feel somewhat in two minds on this subject. On the one hand, I'm a developer by
trade, and I would hate to see people just help themseleves to the fruits of my labours.
On the other hand... I don't think this is an argument that we're going to win.
I don't think that trying to control software distribution is going to remain viable
as a way of recouping development costs for very much longer.
Titan Quest and its expansion come to mind most immediately. Anything else I know I can't tell you because of NDA.
I did a bit of googling on that. The game seems linked to piracy mainly on account of
this post from Micheal Fitch following the close of Iron Lore Entertainment.
Now it's a terrible thing that he company went under, but I'm not sure how
objective he was being. I mean he not only estimates piracy rates at 90%
(which seems a little high to me) but he also goes on to also blame
the architecture of the PC, hardware manufactures, device drivers,
biased reviewers and an ungrateful public for Iron Lore's failure.
It's an interesting perspective on the problem, but on its own, it
falls short of a compelling argument.
And if Fitch's figures are right, how come games like Assassin's Creed and Bioshock
manage to turn a profit?
Unless you work for a game company whose revenues are down, copies pirated on the main torrent sites are way up, and is a publicly traded company so may legally be required to lay off employees to shore up their balance sheet...
Mmmm... you've mad that assertion a few times in this discussion. Just out of interest, do
you have any specific examples of good, well publicised games
that sold poorly, but for which the torrenting counts were high?
The general impression I get, (and this is utterly uninformed I admit), is that good games
sell if they have enough marketing behind them. If you can offer some evidence to the
contrary, it would add a lot of weight to your argument.
My point was that cookies just do not really store enough information to be of concern. They track what you tend to do on that website, unless I am totally wrong.
OK, that's fair enough. And to that extent, you're quite right. A site that uses cookies to track who's browsing which forum, for instance, doesn't really hold any
threat to privacy.
The problem arises with third party cookies, however. A lot of companies will pay a webmaster to have the site read and then set one of their cookies. And they'll do this for every site they can. Anywhere you go with one of these cookies on it, they know where you went, what time you were there, and what pages you visited
on the site. A lot of people see this as very intrusive.
Outfits like doubleclick do this with their ads. If you go to a site with a banner ad,
you can be reasonably sure it sets a cookie. If you go to another site with a banner from the same agency,
they read the cookie back, and then set it again. That way, over time, they build a picture of site you visit that
has one of their banners. Some companies don't even bother with the banners.
Outfits like that can pick up a very complete picture of your browsing habits. That's why so many companies are keen to set these
cookies - because that information is worth money to various people. Which is why some folks cry "no fair" if you happen to
talk about periodically clearing down your cookie jar.
My question has always been, are cookies even really that bad?
That depends on the level of privacy to which you aspire, online.
As far as I'm concerned, my business is my business. Of course, if you're
happy living your online existence in a goldfish bowl, that's different.
And who actually has time to poll through all that user data?
Data mining programs do. Then people get to see whatever the programs flag up.
So, let's just say that someone is using a shared object to store browsing history. So what? Unless my church saw that after I went to their website I visited some girl-on-girl site (or vice versa), I really don't care.
Well, all that data goes into databases, and the data gets leaked and sold and demanded by the government, and burned to CD-Rom which then gets lost... and on the way ends up being amalgamated with with other databases. It's already possible to uncomfortably detailed profiles of people using only Google. That's without mining someone's clickstream over a year or so.
Maybe you don't care who's looking over your metaphorical shoulder as you surf; I accept that many people do not. Nevertheless, for what I suspect are the majority of surfers, there's a definite issue here.
I don't think anyone is claiming it is a problem right now.
The concern is that it may be becoming a problem. Or more precisely,
that it may be becoming a problem in China, and that there's a risk
that western gaming communities may follow the trend.
People have killed each other over games of football, too; Football, however, is still a game
True But if they kill each other too often, it ceases to be just a game. That's why we
don't have a bare knuckle prizefighter circuit any more for instance. Beyond a certain point it
becomes a social problem.
People also kill and commit violent acts over girls, stupid pride, and people's driving habits. And the answer is what, government regulation of MMOs? I
To people killing each other over girls? Probably not. To violent disputes over virtual property?
I can't see how it would hurt matters if people had a way to resolve disputes non-violently.
It all depends on how it's handled, really.
I can't believe I'm seeing people here throw around labor theory of value for World of Warcraft.
I trust you noticed that I'm not one of them. All I'm doing is pointing out that
TFA doesn't actually say what you seem to think it says.
No, the question of entitlement is not a red herring
You're the one who raised the issue. The article doesn't say "we have a right to own our MMO stuff". It says (and I'm paraphrasing here) "there appears to be an emerging social problem here, and that is bound to put pressure on governments to address it in legislation".
They won't do anything? Tough, it's a fucking game.
It stops being a game when it leads to violence and murder on a regular basis.
Feel free to dispute whether we're in any danger of reaching that point - I don't think
TFA made that particularly clearly myself. But if the problem does exist, you can't just
wave it way by saying "it's just a game".
And if the games company chooses not to involve itself, what then?
The business of the games company is to make money. making society work
is the responsibility of the government. If there is an emerging
trend as TFA contends, waiting for the free market to select for
socially responsible game companies is probably not going to be a
particularly efficient approach.
Some of you may have an entitlement complex going on--"But it's mine! I am paying for it!" No, you are paying to RENT it, to have access based on their terms.
True. And that's one reason I don't play these games.
People seriously want to bring the government into this? If you don't like the terms, don't play.
Done deal:)
All the same, I think you're missing the point being made in TFA. The author cites a case of one gamer who stabbed someone he
knew because of a theft in-game. The aggrieved party did try and involve the police and handle the dispute in a civilised
manner, but there had been no law broken, and so nothing the police could do. The consequence was (again, according to TFA)
that the man, lacking an non-violent recourse, resorted to violence and lethal force.
So the argument is that if there were property laws for in-game objects, then this sort of murder would
be less likely to happen, much as physical property laws reduce the occurrence of neighbours murdering one another over
land disputes.
The question as I see it is whether the case cited in TFA is an isolated occurrence,
or an early indicator of an emerging trend. Either way, the question of entitlement is a bit of a red herring.
The truth is, as I see it, that everyone has the right to pick the tools that help them get their job done the best that they can using as little amount of time as they need to spend to do said task while gaining maximum enjoyment from performing said task.
Oh, certainly, everyone has that right. That said.... I don't think those are the only
considerations that should matter.
To me the very idea that I should force a view on someone is wrong.
OK, I can go along with that. Key word here being "force", of course. Visiting entire communities with Fire and Sword unless they bow down and worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster is clearly
a bad thing. Arguing with someone on Slashdot is something of a grey area in comparison.
The very idea that I should encourage someone to believe as I do smacks of religious dogma.
I'm not sure if some people are totalitarianism in nature or if their finding their own new religion and becoming profits of the day.
See, now this is where you lost me. Take someone like Louis Pasteur who worked long and hard to
get people to accept the idea that disease was caused by germs, and that simply washing your hands
before eating or preparing food could vastly improve people's health. Was he wrong to encourage
all those people to believe as he did? I'd have thought the benefits were undeniable.
Now personally, I think free software also has the potential to make life better for everyone,
and therefore I do encourage people to adopt its use. That said, I don't think the social and
economic benefits are the only considerations, or necessarily the most important considerations.
In the long run though, I think free software is a better way of doing things, and I don't
see anything wrong in a little polite advocacy.
If we step out of the belief, dogma if you will, and be objective about what we really believe freedom to be
So I should step out of my belief, and then step into into yours? But then aren't you being
all dogmatic and religious when you say that? That's the problem with trying to stigmatise
persuasion as you seem to be trying to do - it makes simple discussion unethical. I can't see
that as being a good thing under any circumstances.
I really think you need to think this one through again.
The bottom line is that we would be no better off without the 20
year extension, just confused and perhaps suffering a loss in taxable
revenue.
I think you're grasping at straws here. "Confused" is what the courts
and the lawyers are for; "perhaps" is a lousy excuse for passing a bad
law.
So companies with foot prints in any covered Eu country
would have had the 20 extra years automatically and the US would
have to honor them. So Disney, who has a presence in Europe, if they
sent part of any movie or productions to be worked on in Europe,
then they would automatically have a 20 years extension that could
be enforced in the US by means of cooperative treaty.
So they transfer the copyright to a euro subsidiary, licence it
back to the US branch for a nominal fee and continue as usual.
That makes the act even more pointless that before.
So we are going from stuff that was real and verifiable to
imagined conversations from someone who may or may not have
existed. I'm not asking you to do anything other then take a
look at what was going on at the time.
Yep. It's a little bit of speculation, clearly marked as such,
examining a possible scenario by which supposedly intelligent
men and women could have been persuaded to vote in something
so fundamentally broken. What's your problem? It's not like
I'm trying to present it as fact. That's why I started the
paragraph with "What I think happened is..."
It really doesn't matter if the arts and science are adversely
effected compared to previous limits in place. What matters
with the constitution if how they are effected with or without
copyright and patents. You can't argue that either is worse
of today then if copyright or patents never existed.
So the extent of the term, doesn't matter - it's purely
a binary thing? Then you should go with Jack Valenti's
proposal and go for forever minus a day.
You can't possibly believe that this is what your
founding fathers intended?
The constitutionality really doesn't come into play outside
that it specifically gives congress the ability to make laws
concerning it. The promotion of the arts and science is
the justification to why congress, and not the states get
to control it. It isn't a prime directive to how congress
is supposed to make laws.
But then you're the one who raised the constitution to show
that the obligations of elected officials was to the nation
first, and to the people second, if at all. That wasn't
a question of who got to pass laws about what.
You act as if the constitution changes daily or something.
Then I didn't express myself very clearly, for which I
apologise. My point is that the importance attached
to the constitution by some political debaters seems
to vary hugely according to whether or not it supports
their point. So, when we talk about whether or not the
government should serve the people it's presented
as a fundamental document, and one which may not be
ignored. We discuss CTEA a suddenly it's depicted
as a historical document, with little practical
bearing on the real world.
And I still don't think you can have it both ways
just because businesses lined up with it, or it somehow works to their
advantage or if the government attempts to do something that is restricted
by it, doesn't mean that we are communists or anything.
And I never said you were. What I said was that raising
Nation above People, (as you seem to suggest is required
by the constitution), has often worked out less well than
might have been hoped. It is and remains one of the central
tenets both of facisim, and of communism as practiced by
Stalin and Mao.
That doesn't mean that the US is a fascist or communist state.
But personally, I'd not be happy to see my natio
I think we might need to consolidate this down a little. Fell free to
just pick something and state not important any more or something.
Agreed. What I'll do is pick out what I see as the key points.
If you think I've skipped anything important, by all means re-raise
it.
The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 which you are referencing
was actually the US attempting to bring our copyright terms into line
with Europe's to advance a WIPO treaty. According to wikipedia, (I know,
always question it) the stated purpose in the senate was to "ensure
adequate copyright protection for American works in foreign nations
and the continued economic benefits of a healthy surplus balance
of trade in the exploitation of copyrighted works."
mmm... but, citing the same authority, the US was already
in compliance with the Berne Convention when they signed up to the
treaty. So this wasn't a simple a case of upping the copyright term
as required by the treaty. The 1976 act already set the period
to the minimum required for Berne.
So why pass the act? I mean assuming a reason other than naked
self interest on the part of Bono and Disney? Let's look
at that a bit closer.
Attempting to gain compliance with European standards in order to give the
same protections outside the country as that which is inside the country
has been a valid goal before and I don't understand why it can't be again
That's one of those arguments that makes superficial sense, but
doesn't really stand up to closer scrutiny. If the EU had a longer
copyright term, then US works would remain copyright in the EU for
longer than they would on the domestic market. So US companies
could be releasing Marlene Deitrich's greatest hits on cheapo
compilation DVDs while those same properties remained locked
up in Europe. The US lost nothing under the 1976 act, and gave up
competitive advantage under the CTEA. I suppose you could argue that
not to do so would have been unfair on European competitors, but
somehow, I doubt that was a motivating factor for many.
What I think happened is that some wonk at some PR agency has said
"how the hell are we going to sell this: it's unconstitutional,
it's unfair, it's bound to be unpopular - I know, let's equate length of the
copyright term with dick size! Damn, those euro bastards have one
that's bigger and longer than ours! We need an extension!" And it
worked. Didn't make one jot of sense, but sounded plausible enough
for long enough to get the measure passed.
But even if that wasn't the case, constitutionally it's hard to
see what useful art of science was advanced by extending the term
that wasn't already benefiting from the previous state of affairs.
And I've already explained how the arts would be adversely affected
by extending the measure. So really, if the constitution is going to
be the ultimate criterion by which US laws are judged, then this one
should have been kicked out - whether there was a business case for
it or not.
And that's the problem really. The constitution is really, really
important if it favours some corporation or other in doing something
unpleasant or unpopular. But when it's runs against what a business
wants to do, then all of a sudden the most important thing is suddenly
business and jobs and the economy and if you don't like that well
"what are you - some kind of communist?"
And with all due respect, I don't think they should be allowed to have
it both ways.
OK; on to business ethics:
Business ethics are generally encoded into law. Or at least the important ones are
First, a minor quibble - they're all important. Secondly, the trouble with that
attitude is that it leads people to discard the qualification and reason that
any business action is ethical if not illegal. For instance:
Sorry about that, I should have previewed by got rushed.
Easy done - especially on long and complex discussion like this one.
Well, you cannot deny someone employment after serving the public
trust. It would just be wrong.
I entirely agree. That said... there are private sector jobs where a
condition of employment is not working for certain industries within
a year or two of leaving the post. Why not prevent these people from taking
jobs with the corporations or industries on whose behalf they've
campaigned so vigorously? I mean if it _is_ their skills and experience
they're being hired for, then that will be valuable in other areas of
commerce. On the other hand, if it's purely a reward for looking after
vested interests, then they probably shouldn't be allowed to take it.
I'm not going to deny that someone might take advantage of their positions
and do something like that, but it isn't like one proves the other.
You mean the fact that there exists an avenue for corruption
doesn't mean the corruption is happening? That's fair, and
I don't know US current affairs well enough to offer concrete
examples. All the same, conceding the point purely for the sake
of argument, if you find a exploit in some software, you don't say
"oh well, no seems to be using it right now, so it's probably all right".
What you do is you fix it.
All you're saying here is that the will of the people will be followed
if the politician damn well feels like it. Again, this has been true of
almost every government and ruler in history. It makes no difference
You also appear to presuppose that the elected leaders are going to be
wise, ethical and responsible. I don't think that's a sensible assumption.
No, I'm saying that the will of the people will be followed when it is
prudent to do so. I'm saying that the will of the people isn't always
the best course for the country. I'm saying that you as an individual,
or through the process of banding together with others, have the ability
to show congress or the president that either your way is better or the
will of the people is better or worse then some other way.
Ah, but who decides what is prudent? The same politicians of course.
Which means that a politician determined to pursue his own agenda and
can ride roughshod over the will of the people with no consequence.
You have a distinction here that makes no functional difference.
It might be useful for party dogma, but in practical terms it has
no relevance.
And yes, the system works fine if you assume that the
rulers are basically clever, compassionate and wise, But then, _any_ political
system works if you take that for granted, from dictatorship to communism.
The mettle of a political system is how well it works when it is governed by
the stupid, foolish and/or uncaring.
Now I expect that you want to respond that the electoral process and the
process by which candidates are selected serves to weed out such people.
The trouble is that from a party viewpoint, wisdom, compassion and intelligence
are not the highest valued qualities for a candidate. The most important thing
is that he (or she) should be able to stand in front of a TV camera, promise
all things for all men, and have the electorate believe them. Given a choice
between a clever, wise and compassionate klutz and charismatic sociopath,
the parties will go with the sociopath every time.
The will of the people is no supreme bank on knowledge that should be
held higher then everyone elses.
mmmm.... we have a fundamental misunderstanding here. I'm not saying
follow the will of the people because they are always wise. I'm saying
follow the will of the people because policy has to start somewhere,
and asking politicians to set it is like asking that well known metaphorical
fox
I think we have one too many broken blockquotes in there (yours and mine)
and it's getting to hard to tell who said what and when. So I'll pull a
few points out of it all and we can start again from there if need be.
That would be about it. Except for the fact that they need the electorate
to remain in power so they have to have quite a bit of consideration or
in 2 or 4 years, someone else will take the job
And they go to take a cushy seat on the board of some large company,
made special peace envoy to the middle east - some such sinecure
provided by whatever special interest they pandered to at the expense
of the electorate. And the next guy in, seeing which side his bread is
buttered on does the same. So the threat of not being re-elected doesn't
seem sufficient to keep them honest. Maybe it was once, maybe we're just
getting better informed. But whichever way, it doesn't seem to be doing
a very good job right now.
The will of the people isn't ignored. If it is good and sound, it will
mirror that of any politicians. But when there are problems with it,
the politician has that right to ignore what the people want
All you're saying here is that the will of the people will be followed
if the politician damn well feels like it. Again, this has been true of
almost every government and ruler in history. It makes no difference
You also appear to presuppose that
the elected leaders are going to be wise, ethical and responsible. I
don't think that's a sensible assumption.
I'm assuming that you realise that managing a family of three presents
some distinct issue from managing a nation of three hundred million?
NO, it does carry the same principles
Some of the same principles, certainly - I never claimed the cases were
totally disjoint. On the other hand there are some significant differences
that you don't seem to be taking into account. For instance:
the majority of families have mutual bonds of love and affection. These
emotions make it unlikely that any one member of the family will be
systematically and unfairly exploited by the others. These emotional
restraints are not there for a politician with tens of thousands of
voters, most of whom he will never know personally, let alone care for
except perhaps in the most abstract sense.
If the children in a family decide to strike, the family does not
starve. The source of the capital in the family is also the one in whom
power is vested. This is not the case for an elected politician. He may
work at his job, but he doesn't produce the totality, or even the vast
majority of the output of the state.
When children are angry about the restrictions placed upon them, this
can generally be resolved by sending them to their room. This approach
does not scale well to millions and hundreds of millions. In particular,
when children throw temper tantrums, it very rarely results in widespread
violence, insurrection and the execution of the ruling elite. History
suggests that this may not always be the case with badly governed nations.
In general, it seems to me that the failure modes for government
are rather more severe than they are for families. To the extent that
drawing conclusions about government by analogy with family life is
must be considered foolish in the private citizen, and almost criminally
irresponsible in the politican.
The British elitist and comment before is your comments, not mine.
We've both been a little sloppy with our blockquote tags.
I was neither the first nor the last to mis-mark a quotation in this
discussion, so you needn't wear out that high horse on my account.
That said, a little more care on both our parts wouldn't hurt,
particularly in a thread as complex as this one.
And you wrong, it isn't an undeniable truth, just because
I think I see where you're coming from with this now. The idea is that the
US government is a republic with some democratic elements, correct?. So, the idea is
that they electorate get the obligation to abide by the result of elections
because that's democratic, but the government keeps the right to ignore the
electorate, if they feel that's for the best.
And the reason for this is that, not being a democracy per se, they have no
reciprocal obligation to consider the electorate.
Is that about right?
Well, there is our point of disconnect. I was, am and still are talking
about the US and the US government system. I'm sorry I didn't see that
you were floating around the world governments with your comments.
I was talking about modern western democracies. The clue was when I used the
phrase "modern western democracies". I know you read that part because you
replied thus:
From what I can tell, most people's beef with western democracy stem from not understanding it's role
So you were talking about western democracies there, and now you're only
talking about the US. If anyone's floating around, my friend, that would
be you.
Again, I'm talking about the american system but unless your living in a
true democracy, that potential is there. There is really no reason to have
elected officials if they have to find and follow the will of the people.
Really? Suppose we wanted do devise a political system to implement
the will of people. How would you do it apart from
having communities elect representatives to argue their case in
parliament/congress/what have you? How would you have done it
with 18th Century technology?
I don't see how else you'd do it if not using elected representatives.
There may be other possible explanations for what your founders had in mind
but I don't think we can rule implementing the people's will
based on the fact that they said "hold elections".
The US government is created by the constitution and no where doe it say to follow the will of the people.
Which doesn't, of course, mean that such wasn't what they had in mind.
I can't find anywhere in the document where it says whose interests
the US Government should place first.
It talk about regulating commerce and all the other stuff necessary
to be a functioning government but says nothing about doing what the
people want.
Exactly. All really says is that they thought sensible government was
basically a good idea. All we can really say from the constitution
is that it doesn't address the question at all.
No, limited input doesn't mean absolutely no input. What it does is
not create a set of dictators but a set of representatives who aren't
beholden to idiocy. Under King George, Stalin, Pol Pot, you weren't
able to state your case or convince the politician that your position
wasn't idiocy.
Of course you could. Courtiers were the first lobbyists, and existed for
no other reason than to try and influence the ruler. The soviet union
had elections - there was only one party on the ballot sheet, but anyone
who wanted to join the communist party could see abut getting elected so
they could change things. As Gorbachev and Yeltsin eventually did.
I won't claim these were hugely effective ways of influencing the
governemnt, but then you did say that "limited" is sufficent. So the
question then becomes just how limited can the public input become
before tyranny sets in? And how far are you willing to see participation
become limited in your own country?
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were examples not points.
Indeed . And you got so carried away with your examples that you never did give a
"secondly" to go with your "firstly". Which is sad really. Your "firstly" was
less that compelling to beg
We are talking about both. You can't separate them in the US because we are a representative democracy that is formed under a republic and uses elements of democracy.
Sure you can. Democracy is a system for choosing leaders by means of popular vote, while a republic is a nation that is not ruled by a king. See? One is an electoral mechanism, the other describes the govermental form. It's entriely possible to discuss either in isolation.
I only mention it, because I've noticed that some people, especially on the political right, like to conflate the two ideas when they get into difficulty. One debater makes a telling point about the government only to be told that he lives in a democracy and has to abide by the rule of the elected
government. But if the same debater later points out that the government is being undecomcratic in some way, he is told that he lives in a republic, not a democracy and that his complaint is thus invalid.
In this case, I at least was talking about democracy, purely in the sense of how a country's leaders are selected. I'm not talking about the US as republic. Not that "repubic" tells us an awful lot anyway; the term is equally valid when applied to the People's Republic of China and Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, so I don't see the term as being in any way germaine. Still, it would help if we could at least agree on the terminology.
Government isn't really the "will of the people" except when it is in agreement with the betterment of the country.
I don't believe that's set down in stone anywhere. It's one political theory, perhaps, about what the priorities of government ought to be. But I don't think it's anywhere accepted that the will of the people must be subordinate in order for governemnt to take place. Now it might be true of the US government, but even then, I believe that's open to debate.
You don't have to support it, but make no illusions that you don't live under it or that the government is supposed to follow the will of the people. That has never been, and will never be, the way the government in the US works and will probably never be the way it works
That's not an either/or choice though, is it? There's a whole spectrum possible governmental postures in between absolute subservience to the people and
absolute contempt for them. I would contend that current state is way too far over towards the "contempt" side of the scale at the moment.
If you need to know what is so good about the American system of government, then your high schools civics teacher has really failed you
Quick news flash: I'm not a US citizen and never had a "civics" teacher. That said: until fairly recently, I thought I did understand
what was so good about the US system of government. Right now though, you're very busy trying to persuade me that all those things I admired
are purely the product of my ignorance. Hence I asked you to explain.
it limits the effect of mob stupidity that will be evident in all "majority rules-what does this crowd think".
Pshaw! That's a virtue it shares with Britain under George III, the Soviet Union under Stalin and North Korea under the Kims.
Pol Pot insulated the process of goverment from mob stupidity, as did Robert Mugabe.
You'll have to do better than that, my friend.
Umm... you got so carried away with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that you never did get around to your second point.
You did have a second point, I take it?
Support my vision? This is the vision this country was founded on
You've got a fair way to go to make that particular point stick. You quoted from point the Declaration of Independance,
pointed out that it didn't explictly say "the government serves the people first" and from that, you appear to conclude that
the founding fathers
OK. There's a lot of stuff I could pick up on there, and probably will
before we're done with this. But first I'd like you to answer a couple of questions.
First of all, what do you call this system that you're describing. I don't want to be
quibbling over "democracy" vs. "republic" for the whole debate. Pick a name and I'll
use it. What do you call this thing?
Secondly... I've always been a strong supporter of democracy at least to the extent that it
implements the will of the people. This doesn't sound much like that. So my second question is
what's so good about this system that you're describing? Why should I support this
system you describe given that it sees no difficulty with empowering corporations at the
expense of voters, and prioritises its own objectives (whatever they may be and whoever they may
benefit) over those of the electorate.
Why should I support this vision of yours, as opposed to seeking a fairer system,
one more representative of the will of the people. Because I can't see anything at all
admirable or desirable about the system you describe.
But that being aside, all the elements of a democracy are there and I strongly believe that the education is the fundemental problem with why we are the way we are today.
Mmmm....
I think the problems of most modern western democracies go deep than public education.
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
I'm not sure what your attempting to prove with that statement.
Just pointing out that there's something nicely Orwellian about the assertion that public servants
are not in fact there in order to serve the public.
But it is common knowledge that the term public servant is just a wording for someone who works in the public service or civil service
I take issue with the "just". They are supposed to serve the public. That's why they call it "service".
You can tell me that no one in office takes that obligation seriously, and I might believe you. I might even
accept that the expectations have fallen so low, that no one expects any better of today's politicians.
But as far as I'm concerned, it's still on the job description.
This is why you see government doing things to benefit business at the expense of the public, because the government needs the jobs to be present for the people to work. This is why you see politicians who take positions contrary to what the majority of the people want, because they see the benefit to the governed more then what the people want
Whatever happened to "by the people, of the people for the people", I wonder. Instead, you seem to be asking us to accept that "of the people, by two main political parties, for the multinational corporations" is what was always on the table. I think you may have something of a
mountain to climb, if that's the educational program you hope will make everything all right once again.
Tell me, what is missing today that was there at some point in history?
How about confidence in the system on the part of the electorate?
I think the point here is not so much that the mechanisms of democracy have been removed.
Rather it's that a system that worked well for a nation with tens of thousands of citizens
doesn't appear to have scaled particularly well for a nation with hundreds of millions
of voters.
And here is another hint, the term public servant has no correlation to serving anyone.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
Slashdot Mirror
True enough. And similarly, I suppose, once formed, a monopoly must eventually fail and fall apart by itself. The trouble is that it's still not a good idea to allow them to form. They do tremendous damage to the economy while they exist, and we don't have any real grounds for speculating about how long it would take them to break up. We don't know what the economic equivalent of Hawking radiation is. And we really don't want to have to wait for the heat death of the universe in order to find out.
That only works with software though. The GP used MS as an example, but his point was wider than that.
Removing copyrights wouldn't stop one firm from consolidating all the gas stations in the US into one giant chain, for example.
(I could have sworn I posted this earlier. Must have forgot to hit "submit")
I don't think I'll ever understand the thinking behind that notion.
The way I see it, the most perfect free market that ever has or ever can exist is that embodied in the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing happens in the physical universe that doesn't involve an exchange of energy. There is no regulation. There are no free lunches. Everyone pays the going rate. And yet, the physical universe brings forth singularities.
And if, in the one system we know that is fundamentally beyond regulation, a single body can grow so powerful as to swallow up all within its sphere of influence, why do we suppose this to be impossible in economic systems? It seems like pure magical thinking to me.
The trouble is that "works for stupid people" is part of the minimum acceptable spec for any voting machine. It has to be, because "stupid" is a relative value. If we require a certain level of aptitude to use these things, then we create an incentive for people to create machines which require you to have a PhD and three weeks of intensive training, just to stop it voting for [insert least favourite party here]. That's not a route I think anyone wants to do go down. So if it doesn't work for "stupid" people, the technology, and not the with voters.
I appreciate there may be problems bringing the machines up to spec. That's fair enough; we just won't use them. But you can't tell us that all we need to do is breed a smarter electorate and the machines will work perfectly. That wouldn't be acceptable for an suite of office software, and it isn't acceptable for voting machines.
Hmmm... what level are you browsing at? I'm at level 2 and I have to get well past twenty comments before I even see a mention of linux.
I don't see the problem. The main free anti-virus software packages are Avast, Avira, ClamAV, and (like it or not), changing O/S to one that isn't so massively targeted by malware authors.
I haven't seen the Linux recommendations particularly outweighing those for the other possible solutions, and most of the rudeness I've noticed has been from MS fans complaining that anyone dare mention Linux in this context. I appreciate a change of O/S isn't the optimal solution for everybody, but it's certainly an option, and it would be remiss not to mention it.
Well, yes. There's always going to be some software piracy, and any software company that goes bust is always going to think "if only a few of those guys had actually paid for the product, we might still be in business".
But we also need to recognise that companies go bust all the time, even ones with good products. Not just in the software industry either. So the question becomes how much of a problem is piracy? If we accept that were never going to get rid of it entirely, where to do we draw the line and accept losses due to unlicenced distribution as part of the overhead? How far can we go on with measures like DRM and the DMCA before they start to become self defeating?
I have to say, I always feel somewhat in two minds on this subject. On the one hand, I'm a developer by trade, and I would hate to see people just help themseleves to the fruits of my labours. On the other hand ... I don't think this is an argument that we're going to win.
I don't think that trying to control software distribution is going to remain viable
as a way of recouping development costs for very much longer.
I did a bit of googling on that. The game seems linked to piracy mainly on account of this post from Micheal Fitch following the close of Iron Lore Entertainment.
Now it's a terrible thing that he company went under, but I'm not sure how objective he was being. I mean he not only estimates piracy rates at 90% (which seems a little high to me) but he also goes on to also blame the architecture of the PC, hardware manufactures, device drivers, biased reviewers and an ungrateful public for Iron Lore's failure. It's an interesting perspective on the problem, but on its own, it falls short of a compelling argument.
And if Fitch's figures are right, how come games like Assassin's Creed and Bioshock manage to turn a profit?
Mmmm... you've mad that assertion a few times in this discussion. Just out of interest, do you have any specific examples of good, well publicised games that sold poorly, but for which the torrenting counts were high?
The general impression I get, (and this is utterly uninformed I admit), is that good games sell if they have enough marketing behind them. If you can offer some evidence to the contrary, it would add a lot of weight to your argument.
OK, that's fair enough. And to that extent, you're quite right. A site that uses cookies to track who's browsing which forum, for instance, doesn't really hold any threat to privacy.
The problem arises with third party cookies, however. A lot of companies will pay a webmaster to have the site read and then set one of their cookies. And they'll do this for every site they can. Anywhere you go with one of these cookies on it, they know where you went, what time you were there, and what pages you visited on the site. A lot of people see this as very intrusive.
Outfits like doubleclick do this with their ads. If you go to a site with a banner ad, you can be reasonably sure it sets a cookie. If you go to another site with a banner from the same agency, they read the cookie back, and then set it again. That way, over time, they build a picture of site you visit that has one of their banners. Some companies don't even bother with the banners.
Outfits like that can pick up a very complete picture of your browsing habits. That's why so many companies are keen to set these cookies - because that information is worth money to various people. Which is why some folks cry "no fair" if you happen to talk about periodically clearing down your cookie jar.
That depends on the level of privacy to which you aspire, online. As far as I'm concerned, my business is my business. Of course, if you're happy living your online existence in a goldfish bowl, that's different.
Data mining programs do. Then people get to see whatever the programs flag up.
Well, all that data goes into databases, and the data gets leaked and sold and demanded by the government, and burned to CD-Rom which then gets lost... and on the way ends up being amalgamated with with other databases. It's already possible to uncomfortably detailed profiles of people using only Google. That's without mining someone's clickstream over a year or so.
Maybe you don't care who's looking over your metaphorical shoulder as you surf; I accept that many people do not. Nevertheless, for what I suspect are the majority of surfers, there's a definite issue here.
I don't think anyone is claiming it is a problem right now. The concern is that it may be becoming a problem. Or more precisely, that it may be becoming a problem in China, and that there's a risk that western gaming communities may follow the trend.
True But if they kill each other too often, it ceases to be just a game. That's why we don't have a bare knuckle prizefighter circuit any more for instance. Beyond a certain point it becomes a social problem.
To people killing each other over girls? Probably not. To violent disputes over virtual property? I can't see how it would hurt matters if people had a way to resolve disputes non-violently. It all depends on how it's handled, really.
I trust you noticed that I'm not one of them. All I'm doing is pointing out that TFA doesn't actually say what you seem to think it says.
You're the one who raised the issue. The article doesn't say "we have a right to own our MMO stuff". It says (and I'm paraphrasing here) "there appears to be an emerging social problem here, and that is bound to put pressure on governments to address it in legislation".
It stops being a game when it leads to violence and murder on a regular basis. Feel free to dispute whether we're in any danger of reaching that point - I don't think TFA made that particularly clearly myself. But if the problem does exist, you can't just wave it way by saying "it's just a game".
And if the games company chooses not to involve itself, what then?
The business of the games company is to make money. making society work is the responsibility of the government. If there is an emerging trend as TFA contends, waiting for the free market to select for socially responsible game companies is probably not going to be a particularly efficient approach.
True. And that's one reason I don't play these games.
Done deal :)
All the same, I think you're missing the point being made in TFA. The author cites a case of one gamer who stabbed someone he knew because of a theft in-game. The aggrieved party did try and involve the police and handle the dispute in a civilised manner, but there had been no law broken, and so nothing the police could do. The consequence was (again, according to TFA) that the man, lacking an non-violent recourse, resorted to violence and lethal force.
So the argument is that if there were property laws for in-game objects, then this sort of murder would be less likely to happen, much as physical property laws reduce the occurrence of neighbours murdering one another over land disputes.
The question as I see it is whether the case cited in TFA is an isolated occurrence, or an early indicator of an emerging trend. Either way, the question of entitlement is a bit of a red herring.
Oh, certainly, everyone has that right. That said .... I don't think those are the only
considerations that should matter.
OK, I can go along with that. Key word here being "force", of course. Visiting entire communities with Fire and Sword unless they bow down and worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster is clearly a bad thing. Arguing with someone on Slashdot is something of a grey area in comparison.
See, now this is where you lost me. Take someone like Louis Pasteur who worked long and hard to get people to accept the idea that disease was caused by germs, and that simply washing your hands before eating or preparing food could vastly improve people's health. Was he wrong to encourage all those people to believe as he did? I'd have thought the benefits were undeniable.
Now personally, I think free software also has the potential to make life better for everyone, and therefore I do encourage people to adopt its use. That said, I don't think the social and economic benefits are the only considerations, or necessarily the most important considerations. In the long run though, I think free software is a better way of doing things, and I don't see anything wrong in a little polite advocacy.
So I should step out of my belief, and then step into into yours? But then aren't you being all dogmatic and religious when you say that? That's the problem with trying to stigmatise persuasion as you seem to be trying to do - it makes simple discussion unethical. I can't see that as being a good thing under any circumstances.
I really think you need to think this one through again.
I think you're grasping at straws here. "Confused" is what the courts and the lawyers are for; "perhaps" is a lousy excuse for passing a bad law.
So they transfer the copyright to a euro subsidiary, licence it back to the US branch for a nominal fee and continue as usual. That makes the act even more pointless that before.
Yep. It's a little bit of speculation, clearly marked as such, examining a possible scenario by which supposedly intelligent men and women could have been persuaded to vote in something so fundamentally broken. What's your problem? It's not like I'm trying to present it as fact. That's why I started the paragraph with "What I think happened is ..."
So the extent of the term, doesn't matter - it's purely a binary thing? Then you should go with Jack Valenti's proposal and go for forever minus a day. You can't possibly believe that this is what your founding fathers intended?
But then you're the one who raised the constitution to show that the obligations of elected officials was to the nation first, and to the people second, if at all. That wasn't a question of who got to pass laws about what.
Then I didn't express myself very clearly, for which I apologise. My point is that the importance attached to the constitution by some political debaters seems to vary hugely according to whether or not it supports their point. So, when we talk about whether or not the government should serve the people it's presented as a fundamental document, and one which may not be ignored. We discuss CTEA a suddenly it's depicted as a historical document, with little practical bearing on the real world.
And I still don't think you can have it both ways
And I never said you were. What I said was that raising Nation above People, (as you seem to suggest is required by the constitution), has often worked out less well than might have been hoped. It is and remains one of the central tenets both of facisim, and of communism as practiced by Stalin and Mao.
That doesn't mean that the US is a fascist or communist state. But personally, I'd not be happy to see my natio
Agreed. What I'll do is pick out what I see as the key points. If you think I've skipped anything important, by all means re-raise it.
mmm... but, citing the same authority, the US was already in compliance with the Berne Convention when they signed up to the treaty. So this wasn't a simple a case of upping the copyright term as required by the treaty. The 1976 act already set the period to the minimum required for Berne.
So why pass the act? I mean assuming a reason other than naked self interest on the part of Bono and Disney? Let's look at that a bit closer.
That's one of those arguments that makes superficial sense, but doesn't really stand up to closer scrutiny. If the EU had a longer copyright term, then US works would remain copyright in the EU for longer than they would on the domestic market. So US companies could be releasing Marlene Deitrich's greatest hits on cheapo compilation DVDs while those same properties remained locked up in Europe. The US lost nothing under the 1976 act, and gave up competitive advantage under the CTEA. I suppose you could argue that not to do so would have been unfair on European competitors, but somehow, I doubt that was a motivating factor for many.
What I think happened is that some wonk at some PR agency has said "how the hell are we going to sell this: it's unconstitutional, it's unfair, it's bound to be unpopular - I know, let's equate length of the copyright term with dick size! Damn, those euro bastards have one that's bigger and longer than ours! We need an extension!" And it worked. Didn't make one jot of sense, but sounded plausible enough for long enough to get the measure passed.
But even if that wasn't the case, constitutionally it's hard to see what useful art of science was advanced by extending the term that wasn't already benefiting from the previous state of affairs. And I've already explained how the arts would be adversely affected by extending the measure. So really, if the constitution is going to be the ultimate criterion by which US laws are judged, then this one should have been kicked out - whether there was a business case for it or not.
And that's the problem really. The constitution is really, really important if it favours some corporation or other in doing something unpleasant or unpopular. But when it's runs against what a business wants to do, then all of a sudden the most important thing is suddenly business and jobs and the economy and if you don't like that well "what are you - some kind of communist?"
And with all due respect, I don't think they should be allowed to have it both ways.
OK; on to business ethics:
First, a minor quibble - they're all important. Secondly, the trouble with that attitude is that it leads people to discard the qualification and reason that any business action is ethical if not illegal. For instance:
Easy done - especially on long and complex discussion like this one.
I entirely agree. That said... there are private sector jobs where a condition of employment is not working for certain industries within a year or two of leaving the post. Why not prevent these people from taking jobs with the corporations or industries on whose behalf they've campaigned so vigorously? I mean if it _is_ their skills and experience they're being hired for, then that will be valuable in other areas of commerce. On the other hand, if it's purely a reward for looking after vested interests, then they probably shouldn't be allowed to take it.
You mean the fact that there exists an avenue for corruption doesn't mean the corruption is happening? That's fair, and I don't know US current affairs well enough to offer concrete examples. All the same, conceding the point purely for the sake of argument, if you find a exploit in some software, you don't say "oh well, no seems to be using it right now, so it's probably all right". What you do is you fix it.
Ah, but who decides what is prudent? The same politicians of course. Which means that a politician determined to pursue his own agenda and can ride roughshod over the will of the people with no consequence. You have a distinction here that makes no functional difference. It might be useful for party dogma, but in practical terms it has no relevance.
And yes, the system works fine if you assume that the rulers are basically clever, compassionate and wise, But then, _any_ political system works if you take that for granted, from dictatorship to communism. The mettle of a political system is how well it works when it is governed by the stupid, foolish and/or uncaring.
Now I expect that you want to respond that the electoral process and the process by which candidates are selected serves to weed out such people. The trouble is that from a party viewpoint, wisdom, compassion and intelligence are not the highest valued qualities for a candidate. The most important thing is that he (or she) should be able to stand in front of a TV camera, promise all things for all men, and have the electorate believe them. Given a choice between a clever, wise and compassionate klutz and charismatic sociopath, the parties will go with the sociopath every time.
mmmm.... we have a fundamental misunderstanding here. I'm not saying follow the will of the people because they are always wise. I'm saying follow the will of the people because policy has to start somewhere, and asking politicians to set it is like asking that well known metaphorical fox
I think we have one too many broken blockquotes in there (yours and mine) and it's getting to hard to tell who said what and when. So I'll pull a few points out of it all and we can start again from there if need be.
And they go to take a cushy seat on the board of some large company, made special peace envoy to the middle east - some such sinecure provided by whatever special interest they pandered to at the expense of the electorate. And the next guy in, seeing which side his bread is buttered on does the same. So the threat of not being re-elected doesn't seem sufficient to keep them honest. Maybe it was once, maybe we're just getting better informed. But whichever way, it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job right now.
All you're saying here is that the will of the people will be followed if the politician damn well feels like it. Again, this has been true of almost every government and ruler in history. It makes no difference
You also appear to presuppose that the elected leaders are going to be wise, ethical and responsible. I don't think that's a sensible assumption.
Some of the same principles, certainly - I never claimed the cases were totally disjoint. On the other hand there are some significant differences that you don't seem to be taking into account. For instance:
In general, it seems to me that the failure modes for government are rather more severe than they are for families. To the extent that drawing conclusions about government by analogy with family life is must be considered foolish in the private citizen, and almost criminally irresponsible in the politican.
We've both been a little sloppy with our blockquote tags. I was neither the first nor the last to mis-mark a quotation in this discussion, so you needn't wear out that high horse on my account. That said, a little more care on both our parts wouldn't hurt, particularly in a thread as complex as this one.
I think I see where you're coming from with this now. The idea is that the US government is a republic with some democratic elements, correct?. So, the idea is that they electorate get the obligation to abide by the result of elections because that's democratic, but the government keeps the right to ignore the electorate, if they feel that's for the best. And the reason for this is that, not being a democracy per se, they have no reciprocal obligation to consider the electorate.
Is that about right?
I was talking about modern western democracies. The clue was when I used the phrase "modern western democracies". I know you read that part because you replied thus:
So you were talking about western democracies there, and now you're only talking about the US. If anyone's floating around, my friend, that would be you.
Really? Suppose we wanted do devise a political system to implement the will of people. How would you do it apart from having communities elect representatives to argue their case in parliament/congress/what have you? How would you have done it with 18th Century technology?
I don't see how else you'd do it if not using elected representatives. There may be other possible explanations for what your founders had in mind but I don't think we can rule implementing the people's will based on the fact that they said "hold elections".
Which doesn't, of course, mean that such wasn't what they had in mind. I can't find anywhere in the document where it says whose interests the US Government should place first.
Exactly. All really says is that they thought sensible government was basically a good idea. All we can really say from the constitution is that it doesn't address the question at all.
Of course you could. Courtiers were the first lobbyists, and existed for no other reason than to try and influence the ruler. The soviet union had elections - there was only one party on the ballot sheet, but anyone who wanted to join the communist party could see abut getting elected so they could change things. As Gorbachev and Yeltsin eventually did.
I won't claim these were hugely effective ways of influencing the governemnt, but then you did say that "limited" is sufficent. So the question then becomes just how limited can the public input become before tyranny sets in? And how far are you willing to see participation become limited in your own country?
Indeed . And you got so carried away with your examples that you never did give a "secondly" to go with your "firstly". Which is sad really. Your "firstly" was less that compelling to beg
Sure you can. Democracy is a system for choosing leaders by means of popular vote, while a republic is a nation that is not ruled by a king. See? One is an electoral mechanism, the other describes the govermental form. It's entriely possible to discuss either in isolation.
I only mention it, because I've noticed that some people, especially on the political right, like to conflate the two ideas when they get into difficulty. One debater makes a telling point about the government only to be told that he lives in a democracy and has to abide by the rule of the elected government. But if the same debater later points out that the government is being undecomcratic in some way, he is told that he lives in a republic, not a democracy and that his complaint is thus invalid.
In this case, I at least was talking about democracy, purely in the sense of how a country's leaders are selected. I'm not talking about the US as republic. Not that "repubic" tells us an awful lot anyway; the term is equally valid when applied to the People's Republic of China and Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, so I don't see the term as being in any way germaine. Still, it would help if we could at least agree on the terminology.
I don't believe that's set down in stone anywhere. It's one political theory, perhaps, about what the priorities of government ought to be. But I don't think it's anywhere accepted that the will of the people must be subordinate in order for governemnt to take place. Now it might be true of the US government, but even then, I believe that's open to debate.
That's not an either/or choice though, is it? There's a whole spectrum possible governmental postures in between absolute subservience to the people and absolute contempt for them. I would contend that current state is way too far over towards the "contempt" side of the scale at the moment.
Quick news flash: I'm not a US citizen and never had a "civics" teacher. That said: until fairly recently, I thought I did understand what was so good about the US system of government. Right now though, you're very busy trying to persuade me that all those things I admired are purely the product of my ignorance. Hence I asked you to explain.
Pshaw! That's a virtue it shares with Britain under George III, the Soviet Union under Stalin and North Korea under the Kims. Pol Pot insulated the process of goverment from mob stupidity, as did Robert Mugabe. You'll have to do better than that, my friend.
Umm... you got so carried away with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that you never did get around to your second point. You did have a second point, I take it?
You've got a fair way to go to make that particular point stick. You quoted from point the Declaration of Independance, pointed out that it didn't explictly say "the government serves the people first" and from that, you appear to conclude that the founding fathers
OK. There's a lot of stuff I could pick up on there, and probably will before we're done with this. But first I'd like you to answer a couple of questions.
First of all, what do you call this system that you're describing. I don't want to be quibbling over "democracy" vs. "republic" for the whole debate. Pick a name and I'll use it. What do you call this thing?
Secondly... I've always been a strong supporter of democracy at least to the extent that it implements the will of the people. This doesn't sound much like that. So my second question is what's so good about this system that you're describing? Why should I support this system you describe given that it sees no difficulty with empowering corporations at the expense of voters, and prioritises its own objectives (whatever they may be and whoever they may benefit) over those of the electorate.
Why should I support this vision of yours, as opposed to seeking a fairer system, one more representative of the will of the people. Because I can't see anything at all admirable or desirable about the system you describe.
Mmmm.... I think the problems of most modern western democracies go deep than public education.
Just pointing out that there's something nicely Orwellian about the assertion that public servants are not in fact there in order to serve the public.
I take issue with the "just". They are supposed to serve the public. That's why they call it "service". You can tell me that no one in office takes that obligation seriously, and I might believe you. I might even accept that the expectations have fallen so low, that no one expects any better of today's politicians. But as far as I'm concerned, it's still on the job description.
Whatever happened to "by the people, of the people for the people", I wonder. Instead, you seem to be asking us to accept that "of the people, by two main political parties, for the multinational corporations" is what was always on the table. I think you may have something of a mountain to climb, if that's the educational program you hope will make everything all right once again.
How about confidence in the system on the part of the electorate?
I think the point here is not so much that the mechanisms of democracy have been removed. Rather it's that a system that worked well for a nation with tens of thousands of citizens doesn't appear to have scaled particularly well for a nation with hundreds of millions of voters.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."