"We just expect you to handle all the consequences of your decision. So everything Libertarians espouse is basically individual rights and personal responsibility."
But that is the whole sticking point.
The conceptions of what one should be a responsible for or have the right to do is are so varied that to simply say that that is what you espouse is meaningless.
As Badnarik asks, "Why would you let the government tell you what to do?" This is not a reasonable argument against other parties: Libertarians still tell you what to do. They say you have to respect what Badnarik calls "divine rights." No one would agree with Badnarik's exact intepretation of "divine rights" and many would not agree with anything significantly close to it.
It seems anarchists outdue the libertarians with regards to personal liberty: they say the government shouldn't tell you what to do at all. Libertarians say that the government should tell you to do some things. Marxist-Leninists says that the government should tell you to do other things. Libertarians have just picked one of many positions of the government telling you what to do. And they don't offer any definitive reasons that trump any other political parties' reasons for choosing their particular ideological position. They're saying: "everyone must have these rights simply because it's natural/divine." I don't see any evidence whatsoever that their conceptions of rights and responsibilities are natural. You can say they're "nice" or "moral", but to claim their natural is to claim that the universe is bound to your ideals. Perhaps it is, but I don't see the evidence.
Does anyone more familiar with Libertarian thought have more evidence? I'm glad to dicuss this and think about it moreso.
Yeah, I'm not actually familiar with the event too much. I was just trying to say that the same logic can be applied in the opposite direction, as I'm sure you can tell.
People get into situations where they can sue for millions. People aren't always happy with letting those chances pass them by.
Those people's solution? Take that chance. Why? Because millions of dollars is very nice.
It's unfornute that McDonald's was unable to defend themselves properly. It is unfortunate that companies run the risk of having to pay up millions of dollars becase really good lawyers are more than willing to act on people who burn themselves' behalf.
But it's an accepted risk of life. Don't want to risk it? Don't sell coffee.
Yeah, because France is particularly bad or something.
Yes, France is filled with people all trying to put out their little pet theories which ultimately tell you nothing except about their own idealistic positions. Just like every other country of people who have the time to do so. France isn't special, and neither is your country.
"Well, if that isn't a load of horseshit. If the tools to make modern plumbing disappeared tomorrow, I'm sure you and everyone else who has some fondness for it would goddamn well retain the desire to have it restored. Your children, living in their own shit and never knowing anything different, might not have the same yearning, but you certainly would."
Yes, I would care that plumbing disappeared tommorow. I don't really consider plumbing to be a "consumer product" like I was referring to however. Maybe plumbing that comes in flashy new colors and like has a figurative "swoosh" on it or something. If that stuff disappeared tommorow, yes, no one would care. They would use the regular plumbing.
"This is an idiotic argument. You point out specific professions - writer, singer, actor - and boldly proclaim that these 'artists' should work for free, or on charity, or at the whim of the rich and powerful. Why? Just because you possess the tools to take what they produce without paying for it."
I do not say how they should work. They should work however they want and are able to: and they will. People do what they want and are able to do, I think this is fairly evident. Say, why did you type your response? I'm guessing because you wanted to, and nothing stopped you.
"Fine, I have a tool for taking stuff from you too, without paying for it. It's called a 'gun'. I guarrantee that if I put this 'gun' of mine against your head and demand your stuff, you'll give it to me. Because if you don't I'll just shoot you and take it anyway. I can deprive you of your livelihood - or the products of your livelihood - with my tools, just as you can deprive artists of their livelihood with your computer."
Yes: if you threatened me with a gun I thought was real and loaded and working and whatever else, I'd give you anything I could. I would want to give you my stuff then, so I would try. I'm in full agreement with those comments: self-evident to me.
"I agree that both music and movies are overpriced. But I think only a fool would say that the obvious solution to overpricing is to make everything free. Either that, or a freeloader looking to justify why he doesn't feel like paying for a product."
I don't think they're overpriced: the owners/stores/whatever set the price and that's the way it is. Would only a fool or a freeloader? I don't know, never thought about it, you could very well be right. You doubt you want to hear my conjecture on it; I don't.
"And people lived before plumbing, automobiles, computers, powered flight, and antibiotics. So the fuck what? Why is art a special exception for people like you? The answer is obvious: simply because you claim it is, nothing more. And you have the tools to steal what you want without paying for it, with little chance of getting caught."
Why is it an exception? Well, not just it as I thought I made clear, but any consumer product. The jeans i mentioned, the music, whichever. Any product that is "essential" only because it's "cool" or whatever. I mean, you can argue that everything is a consumer product so etc. But I'll tell you right now, that's not what I mean when I say "consumer product." It's rather tautological I think: I mean anything that is appraised based on sign-exchange value, essentially. So, like the jeans, like this hypothetical "flashy" plumbing, and like the music I mention. I wouldn't say that plumbing is easy to steal with little chance of getting caught in particular, so...
"Ah, yes, when it comes right down to it you seem to think you occupy some moral high ground, commanding on high what the rest of us should value, and why. Perhaps you should join the fucking priesthood.
Get over yourself, kid; you aren't any better than the people around you, no matter what you might think. Worse, with that obnoxious arrogance of yours."
I definitely do not wish to tell you what you should value. I'm stating my position. When I sa
Then set those ground rules. It's in your benefit? Then do it. The vast masses of copyright infringers see disrespecting copyright to be in their benefit. So they do it. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing for any legal changes whatsoever; I have no interest in the law as it stands in the least. What I am arguing is that people don't fall for moral arguments when applied to a completely amoral system of consumption and production. They're not being asked by their girlfriends "don't hit me anymore, it really hurts", they're being told "be nice to us!" by people they've never met and don't give a shit about. They're not falling for that. And to that, a lot of them don't even "fall" for what their girlfriends' plea to them with tears. And I also argue that consumers are in no risk of losing sufficient entertainment. Many would say that modern man has too much stimulation. People find entertainment anywhere: it is not like heat in a cold climate. People can entertain themselves. People can't generate sufficient heat in some climates.
I don't think I have to respond to your hypothetical situation where copyright doesn't exist, because I'm not saying copyright shouldn't exist. So, I won't. I'll answer the question it implicitly asks, "would you like this?" though. No, I wouldn't like that if I couldn't own the books that I do. And you won't see me trying to repeal copyright acts. Would the abolishment of copyright create the situation you've drawn up? Maybe, I don't care. Anarchists of various degrees that call for the abolishment of institutions like that would definitely disagree and probably have a bunch of arguments for you, but I'm not an anarchist and I don't know. I really don't have any political, if you can call it political, viewpoints like that at all.
Okay, so they wouldn't get to finance the sequel. So? So they would be out of jobs. So? They would work somewhere else. Who cares? They do, but that's their problem. Everyone doesn't have to worry because they'll be out of jobs. You do what you want: don't buy their products out of charity if you don't want to. And the masses have made it quite clear that they do not want to.
Do you think that people have some default position of caring for others? The vast, vast, vast majority do not. Scarcely a soul lifts a single finger to help, in any way, the hordes of children rotting on shitty cots in Africa. And you expect these same people to worry about Hollywood movie makers and other "content producers" getting paid? Ha!
Or, are people to worry, for their own good? To worry that they won't have these wonderful movies and music to watch and to listen to no longer if they keep these terribly self-destructive actions up? Equally preposterous. Every modern consumer knows that with the production of a product comes, as well, the production of its desire. No movie is without its trailer, no album is without its hype, no hip new clothing brand is without its magazine spreads. People go to watch the Lord of the Rings because they're told to go watch Lord of the Rings. (Except for a few because they're fans or whatever, something not contained in the structure on production-consumption. And you'll notice that those are the people that pay for the DVD, that pay for the show. Just like the fans of bands who buy the albums, because you're a fan and that's what you do, you're not just buying a product.)
This is the advice of everyone in the business of selling shit: you have to tell people they want it. You have to persuade them. Who in their right mind is going to pay fifty dollars for a pair of jeans that are pre-worn and pre-ripped which say "I live so little, I have to pay for clothes that make it looked like I've lived instead?" Everyone! You just have to tell them that it's cool.
And, say all the makers of these clothes that everyone wants go out of business. Oh no, you say! A great tragedy for sure, right? I mean, it's obviously a good thing that must be saved because everyone pays their hard earned cash for these clothes! Not the case, however. As I said, every consumer knows, the production of any consumer product comes with it the production of its desire. When the product disappears, so will any desire for it. So, if all the super-cool jeans disappeared, no one would care. People would just buy some other jeans. And it is the same with movies, music, etc. Britney Spears no longer around to soothe me with her melodie dolce? I guess I'll, *gasp*, listen to something else? But from where, if the RIAA is fully out of business? And so we're brought to a question that if said, with seriousness, in front of any musician who knows the business would, no doubt, burst out laughing. Musicians make music, have for ten thousand years, won't stop because they're not making a living for it, like any artist. "Starving artist," ever heard the term? There's truth behind that. Would Van Gogh have stopped painting if he didn't make enough to live off of it? Oh wait, he didn't.
Indie artists with a small group of actual fans(like any artists, whereas big famous musicians have that along with a large group of people that purchase them for consumptive reasons that I mentioned) but with little production costs don't give a damn about copyright infringment of their work. Go ahead and download them as much as you want: they know that without the internet you would have never heard about them in the first place. Only the people they have immeadiate contact with at shows, around their town, in their musical community would: and those are where the actual fans are, and they buy the music anyway.
So, musics with million dollar productions won't exist any longer. And Hollywood movies with 500 million dollar productions won't either. Like the jeans, is this not a trage
Continuing in the logic of receiving rewards for your work and skill: consider the poor people who figured something out and decided to take away these hard workers' money through taxes. Why should they not be rewarded for their cunning strategy?
If they take it upon themselves to implement socialist practices, then they will receive due benefits.
Don't want people to take away your property through "communism" or whatever you want to call it? Then you and like-minded people have to leverage your resources to battle it. Telling critically thinking people "it's not nice!" doesn't work: people aren't going to pretend they have morals when they have actual, material pleasures to gain if they don't.
The mainstream media is all a comedy show. "Chistopher Reeve killed himself so Kerry could win." "Four blades are the ULTIMATE POWER! ULTIMATE SHAVING POWER!" Or the best, "the Terrorists are coming to get you!!!" It's just like that radio show from the 50's, the "Mars attacks!" thing. People actually believed that Martians were invading earth. It was just comedy. Same thing here. People watch the tv and actually take things at face value whilst in actuality, it's completely mediatized, worth only for its comic value. You can see it in George Bush's face. He's like an actor on the Saturday Night Live show just about to burst into laughter. I'm sure the political class learned a lot from that Mars attacks show: that people will believe anything if you say it with a straight face and it's broadcasted.
Okay, Fahrenheit 9/11 is worhtless. It's entertainment. Who is it that actually cares about it? I guess people who care about the election, which is just entertainment too. A fake documentary for fake liberals who care about conversative "power" that doesn't exist. Just like the fake responses from fake conservatives who care about a liberal "media bias" which doesn't exist.
Like in 1991, who knew who Beat Happening was? No one. Now in 2004, every music geek worth his or her weight in vinyl knows who they are and their mp3's are traded ruthlessly. When they actually existed they must have sold like 5000 albums, and they come out with a boxset in 2000 8 years after they broke up and sell, again, 5000. What? Everyone knows this super-cool band! Why don't they buy them? Because only the real fans buy them, but they still buy it, even though they could easily download it all off the internet. And what of like Calvin from Beat Happening now, doing his solo work or the Dub Narcotic Soundsystem? Probably just selling 5000 albums.
I can think of a number of examples like this. The Wipers, the Raincoats.
I know people rip off music from every source, RIAA or not. But they are obviously not true fans of that band. They can go on and on about how much they like them: but it's nothing. It's like love: you don't love someone if you don't try to do anything for that person. It's just part of it, if you love them, you'll do something for them, anything for them. And fans who like artists will buy their albums. These file downloading virtual fans, unless they're like sending the band a check, or doing something that we don't know about(which they may very well be), they're just that: fake, virtual fans.
It's true that a lot of artists who put up the money to make a run of cds end up losing money. But they should know when it's not going to work and when it isn't. That's the business side, if you want to make money off your art, you need a business side, plain and simple. You got to know when something's a good plan or not: if you don't have a good number of fans, don't start running cds.
It's like asking for a dream job, being an artist that makes a living off of your art: unless you compromise it(most do) you don't stand much of a chance.
You continue creating music like most everyone else: for very little reward. No one wants to buy your albums? Join the club. Need to support yourself? Get a day job, like most musicians.
Getting into a real musical community would be nice thing to try to. True indie artists have no problem selling albums if people like them(I admit, as I said, chances are no one will like you). Why? Because that's what you do, you buy the albums of artists you like, it's just what you do. It's an integral part of being a fan, being involved in the community. Unlike RIAA records, which have no community so no one gives a shit if they disappear. Create product, people will consume it, and for the cheapest price possible. And because of the internet that price is free. It's like at shows when a band's selling their albums. You're in line the guy ahead of you "Oh, I'm two bucks short, is that alright?" Them: "Yeah that's cool." What do you do? You pay the full amount anyway, even though you could easily save two bucks if you lied. Why? Because, it's not about the money, it's about paying what you got, the money's a gift, and so is the album.
This kind of worked too, though. At least they got a few headlines. Why start with a whole network when you can just crash some parties; at least to start it off.
How were they free not to do it? They did it. They eventually got arrested, but they still did it. Sounds like they were free to do it to me. Just like the cops were free to arrest them.
All this talk about "property rights' is bullshit. If you're not happy with people going on your property kick them off, if you need help, I'm sure your friends or the cops will help.
"I am going to assume you are against the war." Huh? I don't give a shit about "the war". It's beyond intelligibility; completely meaningless and not worth analysing. Why even mention that? Why go to the length to assume that? And why would you come to that conclusion: do you have some sort of secret knowledge? But hey, I'm going to assume you like the Beatles, I don't know why, for fun! How about we trade bootlegs!? Phssh.
Are you saying the war is bad, because people die? Is this some sort of moral call to arms? Ha. If you care so much about people dying, how about you jump on to the next Medicins Sans Frontieres boat to Darfur? They could use your help saving thousands of lives. These are little children dying sir, why aren't you going to go help them? You have the chance, people will die without your help! But you aren't going, and do you know why? Because you don't give a shit about things that you believe won't affect you in anyway. And neither do I.
So, you say it's when a sperm meets an egg. Again, just within that, ontological questions could be raised. So, asking ontological questions against someone else's belief of when life begins as to say that the insolubility of those questions somehow prove your belief is ridiculous: such can be equally waged against your's.
The concept of natural law is only one perspective of many. It is claimed to be totalising, but it is not. Who would enforce natural law except for humans?
The question can be asked both ways!! Ontological questions aren't soluble. That's why we have philosophers. If it's when they're conceieved. Then when is conception? When the first sperm touches the egg? When the first sperm starts to break into the egg? When it's inevitable the sperm will reach the egg? When the sperm releases its DNA into the egg? When the one set of chromosomes combines with the other chromosomes? When is it considered combined? What if it combines unusually? Is it still a human if it's so unusual that it could never develop into even a foetus? How ridiculous to start asking ontological questions...
Anyway. What does it matter if someone aborts their baby? How does it affect you? Chill out go home, don't worry about. It will never harm you except for perhaps your moral beliefs, but if you are so stressed out because your moral beliefs that you have to go around enforcing laws on what people to do shit that is gestating inside them, then maybe you should reconsider your beliefs.
Yeah. Let's attack the physics someone is talking about because they had a dangling participle that made it, in the literal, confusing. That's real syncretism right there.
What bad situation? This is a serious question. There's people being massacred all over Africa right now. Does that make it a bad situation? Not if you have billions of dollars and get to buy whatever you want. So, for those who wanted and bankrolled this war, billionaire financiers, how is Iraq a bad situation? There's politcal backlash and humanist problems, but David Rockefeller's neither a humanist nor a politician, so what does it matter? You should read Machiavelli.
Okay. Poor people get all sorts of "unfair" benefits, because those who aren't poor, know their would be anarchy in the streets if you didn't make life tolerable for the poor. So, yeah go ahead, crack down on the lower income persons, and stop giving them free education and everything like that. I wouldn't mind, it's your car I'll be stealing when the riots begin.
Modern systems of welfare is a reaction to the socialist project, not part of it. If you're rich, be happy it's there.
It's George Soros. The unrelenting capitalist. He's advocating his plan for world stability so he and others can capitalize even more. As if Soros is liberal. Liberal market, if that's what you mean.
Just because it's anti-Bush or pro-Kerry doesn't mean it's liberal. Just as if it was pro-Bush or anti-Kerry doesn't mean it's right-wing.
Slashdot Mirror
"We just expect you to handle all the consequences of your decision. So everything Libertarians espouse is basically individual rights and personal responsibility."
But that is the whole sticking point.
The conceptions of what one should be a responsible for or have the right to do is are so varied that to simply say that that is what you espouse is meaningless.
As Badnarik asks, "Why would you let the government tell you what to do?" This is not a reasonable argument against other parties: Libertarians still tell you what to do. They say you have to respect what Badnarik calls "divine rights." No one would agree with Badnarik's exact intepretation of "divine rights" and many would not agree with anything significantly close to it.
It seems anarchists outdue the libertarians with regards to personal liberty: they say the government shouldn't tell you what to do at all. Libertarians say that the government should tell you to do some things. Marxist-Leninists says that the government should tell you to do other things. Libertarians have just picked one of many positions of the government telling you what to do. And they don't offer any definitive reasons that trump any other political parties' reasons for choosing their particular ideological position. They're saying: "everyone must have these rights simply because it's natural/divine." I don't see any evidence whatsoever that their conceptions of rights and responsibilities are natural. You can say they're "nice" or "moral", but to claim their natural is to claim that the universe is bound to your ideals. Perhaps it is, but I don't see the evidence.
Does anyone more familiar with Libertarian thought have more evidence? I'm glad to dicuss this and think about it moreso.
Yeah, I'm not actually familiar with the event too much. I was just trying to say that the same logic can be applied in the opposite direction, as I'm sure you can tell.
People get into situations where they can sue for millions. People aren't always happy with letting those chances pass them by.
Those people's solution? Take that chance. Why? Because millions of dollars is very nice.
It's unfornute that McDonald's was unable to defend themselves properly. It is unfortunate that companies run the risk of having to pay up millions of dollars becase really good lawyers are more than willing to act on people who burn themselves' behalf.
But it's an accepted risk of life. Don't want to risk it? Don't sell coffee.
Yeah, because France is particularly bad or something.
Yes, France is filled with people all trying to put out their little pet theories which ultimately tell you nothing except about their own idealistic positions. Just like every other country of people who have the time to do so. France isn't special, and neither is your country.
"Well, if that isn't a load of horseshit. If the tools to make modern plumbing disappeared tomorrow, I'm sure you and everyone else who has some fondness for it would goddamn well retain the desire to have it restored. Your children, living in their own shit and never knowing anything different, might not have the same yearning, but you certainly would."
Yes, I would care that plumbing disappeared tommorow. I don't really consider plumbing to be a "consumer product" like I was referring to however. Maybe plumbing that comes in flashy new colors and like has a figurative "swoosh" on it or something. If that stuff disappeared tommorow, yes, no one would care. They would use the regular plumbing.
"This is an idiotic argument. You point out specific professions - writer, singer, actor - and boldly proclaim that these 'artists' should work for free, or on charity, or at the whim of the rich and powerful. Why? Just because you possess the tools to take what they produce without paying for it."
I do not say how they should work. They should work however they want and are able to: and they will. People do what they want and are able to do, I think this is fairly evident. Say, why did you type your response? I'm guessing because you wanted to, and nothing stopped you.
"Fine, I have a tool for taking stuff from you too, without paying for it. It's called a 'gun'. I guarrantee that if I put this 'gun' of mine against your head and demand your stuff, you'll give it to me. Because if you don't I'll just shoot you and take it anyway. I can deprive you of your livelihood - or the products of your livelihood - with my tools, just as you can deprive artists of their livelihood with your computer."
Yes: if you threatened me with a gun I thought was real and loaded and working and whatever else, I'd give you anything I could. I would want to give you my stuff then, so I would try. I'm in full agreement with those comments: self-evident to me.
"I agree that both music and movies are overpriced. But I think only a fool would say that the obvious solution to overpricing is to make everything free. Either that, or a freeloader looking to justify why he doesn't feel like paying for a product."
I don't think they're overpriced: the owners/stores/whatever set the price and that's the way it is. Would only a fool or a freeloader? I don't know, never thought about it, you could very well be right. You doubt you want to hear my conjecture on it; I don't.
"And people lived before plumbing, automobiles, computers, powered flight, and antibiotics. So the fuck what? Why is art a special exception for people like you? The answer is obvious: simply because you claim it is, nothing more. And you have the tools to steal what you want without paying for it, with little chance of getting caught."
Why is it an exception? Well, not just it as I thought I made clear, but any consumer product. The jeans i mentioned, the music, whichever. Any product that is "essential" only because it's "cool" or whatever. I mean, you can argue that everything is a consumer product so etc. But I'll tell you right now, that's not what I mean when I say "consumer product." It's rather tautological I think: I mean anything that is appraised based on sign-exchange value, essentially. So, like the jeans, like this hypothetical "flashy" plumbing, and like the music I mention. I wouldn't say that plumbing is easy to steal with little chance of getting caught in particular, so...
"Ah, yes, when it comes right down to it you seem to think you occupy some moral high ground, commanding on high what the rest of us should value, and why. Perhaps you should join the fucking priesthood.
Get over yourself, kid; you aren't any better than the people around you, no matter what you might think. Worse, with that obnoxious arrogance of yours."
I definitely do not wish to tell you what you should value. I'm stating my position. When I sa
Then set those ground rules. It's in your benefit? Then do it. The vast masses of copyright infringers see disrespecting copyright to be in their benefit. So they do it. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing for any legal changes whatsoever; I have no interest in the law as it stands in the least. What I am arguing is that people don't fall for moral arguments when applied to a completely amoral system of consumption and production. They're not being asked by their girlfriends "don't hit me anymore, it really hurts", they're being told "be nice to us!" by people they've never met and don't give a shit about. They're not falling for that. And to that, a lot of them don't even "fall" for what their girlfriends' plea to them with tears. And I also argue that consumers are in no risk of losing sufficient entertainment. Many would say that modern man has too much stimulation. People find entertainment anywhere: it is not like heat in a cold climate. People can entertain themselves. People can't generate sufficient heat in some climates.
I don't think I have to respond to your hypothetical situation where copyright doesn't exist, because I'm not saying copyright shouldn't exist. So, I won't. I'll answer the question it implicitly asks, "would you like this?" though. No, I wouldn't like that if I couldn't own the books that I do. And you won't see me trying to repeal copyright acts. Would the abolishment of copyright create the situation you've drawn up? Maybe, I don't care. Anarchists of various degrees that call for the abolishment of institutions like that would definitely disagree and probably have a bunch of arguments for you, but I'm not an anarchist and I don't know. I really don't have any political, if you can call it political, viewpoints like that at all.
Okay, so they wouldn't get to finance the sequel. So? So they would be out of jobs. So? They would work somewhere else. Who cares? They do, but that's their problem. Everyone doesn't have to worry because they'll be out of jobs. You do what you want: don't buy their products out of charity if you don't want to. And the masses have made it quite clear that they do not want to.
Do you think that people have some default position of caring for others? The vast, vast, vast majority do not. Scarcely a soul lifts a single finger to help, in any way, the hordes of children rotting on shitty cots in Africa. And you expect these same people to worry about Hollywood movie makers and other "content producers" getting paid? Ha!
Or, are people to worry, for their own good? To worry that they won't have these wonderful movies and music to watch and to listen to no longer if they keep these terribly self-destructive actions up? Equally preposterous. Every modern consumer knows that with the production of a product comes, as well, the production of its desire. No movie is without its trailer, no album is without its hype, no hip new clothing brand is without its magazine spreads. People go to watch the Lord of the Rings because they're told to go watch Lord of the Rings. (Except for a few because they're fans or whatever, something not contained in the structure on production-consumption. And you'll notice that those are the people that pay for the DVD, that pay for the show. Just like the fans of bands who buy the albums, because you're a fan and that's what you do, you're not just buying a product.)
This is the advice of everyone in the business of selling shit: you have to tell people they want it. You have to persuade them. Who in their right mind is going to pay fifty dollars for a pair of jeans that are pre-worn and pre-ripped which say "I live so little, I have to pay for clothes that make it looked like I've lived instead?" Everyone! You just have to tell them that it's cool.
And, say all the makers of these clothes that everyone wants go out of business. Oh no, you say! A great tragedy for sure, right? I mean, it's obviously a good thing that must be saved because everyone pays their hard earned cash for these clothes! Not the case, however. As I said, every consumer knows, the production of any consumer product comes with it the production of its desire. When the product disappears, so will any desire for it. So, if all the super-cool jeans disappeared, no one would care. People would just buy some other jeans. And it is the same with movies, music, etc. Britney Spears no longer around to soothe me with her melodie dolce? I guess I'll, *gasp*, listen to something else? But from where, if the RIAA is fully out of business? And so we're brought to a question that if said, with seriousness, in front of any musician who knows the business would, no doubt, burst out laughing. Musicians make music, have for ten thousand years, won't stop because they're not making a living for it, like any artist. "Starving artist," ever heard the term? There's truth behind that. Would Van Gogh have stopped painting if he didn't make enough to live off of it? Oh wait, he didn't.
Indie artists with a small group of actual fans(like any artists, whereas big famous musicians have that along with a large group of people that purchase them for consumptive reasons that I mentioned) but with little production costs don't give a damn about copyright infringment of their work. Go ahead and download them as much as you want: they know that without the internet you would have never heard about them in the first place. Only the people they have immeadiate contact with at shows, around their town, in their musical community would: and those are where the actual fans are, and they buy the music anyway.
So, musics with million dollar productions won't exist any longer. And Hollywood movies with 500 million dollar productions won't either. Like the jeans, is this not a trage
Continuing in the logic of receiving rewards for your work and skill: consider the poor people who figured something out and decided to take away these hard workers' money through taxes. Why should they not be rewarded for their cunning strategy?
If they take it upon themselves to implement socialist practices, then they will receive due benefits.
Don't want people to take away your property through "communism" or whatever you want to call it? Then you and like-minded people have to leverage your resources to battle it. Telling critically thinking people "it's not nice!" doesn't work: people aren't going to pretend they have morals when they have actual, material pleasures to gain if they don't.
Oh okay, sorry.
The mainstream media is all a comedy show. "Chistopher Reeve killed himself so Kerry could win." "Four blades are the ULTIMATE POWER! ULTIMATE SHAVING POWER!" Or the best, "the Terrorists are coming to get you!!!" It's just like that radio show from the 50's, the "Mars attacks!" thing. People actually believed that Martians were invading earth. It was just comedy. Same thing here. People watch the tv and actually take things at face value whilst in actuality, it's completely mediatized, worth only for its comic value. You can see it in George Bush's face. He's like an actor on the Saturday Night Live show just about to burst into laughter. I'm sure the political class learned a lot from that Mars attacks show: that people will believe anything if you say it with a straight face and it's broadcasted.
Hey man: right above you. You just said what I just said: "both worthless."
Okay, Fahrenheit 9/11 is worhtless. It's entertainment. Who is it that actually cares about it? I guess people who care about the election, which is just entertainment too. A fake documentary for fake liberals who care about conversative "power" that doesn't exist. Just like the fake responses from fake conservatives who care about a liberal "media bias" which doesn't exist.
As example.
Like in 1991, who knew who Beat Happening was? No one. Now in 2004, every music geek worth his or her weight in vinyl knows who they are and their mp3's are traded ruthlessly. When they actually existed they must have sold like 5000 albums, and they come out with a boxset in 2000 8 years after they broke up and sell, again, 5000. What? Everyone knows this super-cool band! Why don't they buy them? Because only the real fans buy them, but they still buy it, even though they could easily download it all off the internet. And what of like Calvin from Beat Happening now, doing his solo work or the Dub Narcotic Soundsystem? Probably just selling 5000 albums.
I can think of a number of examples like this. The Wipers, the Raincoats.
I know people rip off music from every source, RIAA or not. But they are obviously not true fans of that band. They can go on and on about how much they like them: but it's nothing. It's like love: you don't love someone if you don't try to do anything for that person. It's just part of it, if you love them, you'll do something for them, anything for them. And fans who like artists will buy their albums. These file downloading virtual fans, unless they're like sending the band a check, or doing something that we don't know about(which they may very well be), they're just that: fake, virtual fans.
It's true that a lot of artists who put up the money to make a run of cds end up losing money. But they should know when it's not going to work and when it isn't. That's the business side, if you want to make money off your art, you need a business side, plain and simple. You got to know when something's a good plan or not: if you don't have a good number of fans, don't start running cds.
It's like asking for a dream job, being an artist that makes a living off of your art: unless you compromise it(most do) you don't stand much of a chance.
You continue creating music like most everyone else: for very little reward. No one wants to buy your albums? Join the club. Need to support yourself? Get a day job, like most musicians.
Getting into a real musical community would be nice thing to try to. True indie artists have no problem selling albums if people like them(I admit, as I said, chances are no one will like you). Why? Because that's what you do, you buy the albums of artists you like, it's just what you do. It's an integral part of being a fan, being involved in the community. Unlike RIAA records, which have no community so no one gives a shit if they disappear. Create product, people will consume it, and for the cheapest price possible. And because of the internet that price is free. It's like at shows when a band's selling their albums. You're in line the guy ahead of you "Oh, I'm two bucks short, is that alright?" Them: "Yeah that's cool." What do you do? You pay the full amount anyway, even though you could easily save two bucks if you lied. Why? Because, it's not about the money, it's about paying what you got, the money's a gift, and so is the album.
Yeah, just what we need to keep the spiral of information addiction we all have going.
Like the Wikipediaholic who reads articles to find answers to questions no one asked, we're all writhing addicts to information systems.
This kind of worked too, though. At least they got a few headlines. Why start with a whole network when you can just crash some parties; at least to start it off.
How were they free not to do it? They did it. They eventually got arrested, but they still did it. Sounds like they were free to do it to me. Just like the cops were free to arrest them.
All this talk about "property rights' is bullshit. If you're not happy with people going on your property kick them off, if you need help, I'm sure your friends or the cops will help.
"I am going to assume you are against the war." Huh? I don't give a shit about "the war". It's beyond intelligibility; completely meaningless and not worth analysing. Why even mention that? Why go to the length to assume that? And why would you come to that conclusion: do you have some sort of secret knowledge? But hey, I'm going to assume you like the Beatles, I don't know why, for fun! How about we trade bootlegs!? Phssh.
Are you saying the war is bad, because people die? Is this some sort of moral call to arms? Ha. If you care so much about people dying, how about you jump on to the next Medicins Sans Frontieres boat to Darfur? They could use your help saving thousands of lives. These are little children dying sir, why aren't you going to go help them? You have the chance, people will die without your help! But you aren't going, and do you know why? Because you don't give a shit about things that you believe won't affect you in anyway. And neither do I.
So, you say it's when a sperm meets an egg. Again, just within that, ontological questions could be raised. So, asking ontological questions against someone else's belief of when life begins as to say that the insolubility of those questions somehow prove your belief is ridiculous: such can be equally waged against your's.
The concept of natural law is only one perspective of many. It is claimed to be totalising, but it is not. Who would enforce natural law except for humans?
The question can be asked both ways!! Ontological questions aren't soluble. That's why we have philosophers. If it's when they're conceieved. Then when is conception? When the first sperm touches the egg? When the first sperm starts to break into the egg? When it's inevitable the sperm will reach the egg? When the sperm releases its DNA into the egg? When the one set of chromosomes combines with the other chromosomes? When is it considered combined? What if it combines unusually? Is it still a human if it's so unusual that it could never develop into even a foetus? How ridiculous to start asking ontological questions...
Anyway. What does it matter if someone aborts their baby? How does it affect you? Chill out go home, don't worry about. It will never harm you except for perhaps your moral beliefs, but if you are so stressed out because your moral beliefs that you have to go around enforcing laws on what people to do shit that is gestating inside them, then maybe you should reconsider your beliefs.
Yeah. Let's attack the physics someone is talking about because they had a dangling participle that made it, in the literal, confusing. That's real syncretism right there.
What bad situation? This is a serious question. There's people being massacred all over Africa right now. Does that make it a bad situation? Not if you have billions of dollars and get to buy whatever you want. So, for those who wanted and bankrolled this war, billionaire financiers, how is Iraq a bad situation? There's politcal backlash and humanist problems, but David Rockefeller's neither a humanist nor a politician, so what does it matter? You should read Machiavelli.
What's with people like you? Here's my impression of you:
"OH O!H ! THEN JohN KERRY!@ SHOULD BE TOO!@@ OH oH!! HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT! NOT JUST BUSH!! SO DON"T SAY THAT, UNLESS YOU WANT DEMOCRATS in BAD TOO!@"
Go ahead. Throw that criminal in jail too. No one except assholes like you have any qualms with the destruction of either major party.
Okay. Poor people get all sorts of "unfair" benefits, because those who aren't poor, know their would be anarchy in the streets if you didn't make life tolerable for the poor. So, yeah go ahead, crack down on the lower income persons, and stop giving them free education and everything like that. I wouldn't mind, it's your car I'll be stealing when the riots begin.
Modern systems of welfare is a reaction to the socialist project, not part of it. If you're rich, be happy it's there.
You want right wing? You got it here.
It's George Soros. The unrelenting capitalist. He's advocating his plan for world stability so he and others can capitalize even more. As if Soros is liberal. Liberal market, if that's what you mean.
Just because it's anti-Bush or pro-Kerry doesn't mean it's liberal. Just as if it was pro-Bush or anti-Kerry doesn't mean it's right-wing.