You seem to be implying that an author should have absolute control over all copies of his work for his lifetime or longer. This is simply not enforceable.
Actually no I think copyrights are not valid, but if I did I'd think they should never expire and be inheritable.
The article claims to maximize "welfare" by maximizing production of works. Why not simply force the producers to produce, by threatening their lives ? Oh the welfare of the producers would diminish ? By how much ? How do you compare the welfare of different people ?
There is no such thing as "welfare". Copyright is a matter of *right*, not of regulation. The article also omits to mention the cost of enforcement which can be tremendously high.
You're implying that the purpose of intercourse is reproduction. One of the characteristic of man (and higher mammals) is that sexual intercourse is also used for recreative purpose, therefore your argument of the anus not having reproductive structures does not by itself prove anal sex "unnatural". The unhealthy part is factually true, std's are transmitted much more easily through anal intercourse that vaginal intercourse.
As for global warming, I think you raise a very valid point questioning the surgeon's general authority on that matter.
And they'll lose their marketshare to another email service who will guarantee a lifetime of receiving email with no fees. Oh no in fact they won't do it in the first place so that this doesn't happen.
Companies make money by providing services, not by restricting services.
How exactly is it "hard"? The only way for freedom to be hard to have is through external coercion. Did those big companies actually do anything to you?
That someday you *may* have something to hide. The argument presupposes an omnibenevolent government. Although people could argue about the benevolence of the current government historically many governments are widely regarded as indisputably malevolent, which is argument enough.
Commercialization *is* the expression of the individual freedom of the shareholders of eBay, AOL, Digg youtube or myspace and the individual freedom of their customers. Individual freedom is about freedom, not about [insert random subculture].
Of course there is no "shortage" in the US, but it is still a much more restricted market than the world, which means more cost to the company and eventually less R&D produced. I hope they hurt the US government as much as they can. I'm just sorry for the guys that won't find these job in the US because the gov forced MS to move... as for the one who shamelessly called for protectionism (often seen on/.) I hope they starve to death.
Capitalism is the system by which private property is used for production instead of pure consumption.
It is not about vendors 'competing' or any other fantasy. The proper definition of "monopoly" is a privilege that forbids other people to compete with you, although its meaning shifted to "something big I don't like". Microsoft does have a monopoly since the government prevent other company to distribute its softwares. Intellectual property laws grants it a monopoly over Windows XP for example, not on "operating systems", and many operating systems are not windows based. Linux and Symbian are very common.
but then in the morning you find yourself unable to count matches spilled on the floor, break the bank playing blackjack and eventually communicate with the objects around you. Beware, beware.
Individuals do vary, and it has been argued many times in history that different kind of men should get different rights. Segregation is an example of such a belief. However, the characteristic of man that are relevant to the definition of rights (we need to use natural resources to live for example, no ethic of rights can be consistent in preventing us to use natural resources) do not vary.
Our individuality is shaped by internal and external factors, you mention family and individual experience for example, but this is *culture* while we are concerned with man's *nature*, which by definition is not influenced by these factors, it is the common characteristic of man once these factors have been removed.
As for the state, it is perfectly legitimate to transfer your rights to a statesman, but of course you can only transfer the rights you have. I have no rights over the life of my neighbor for example, so I cannot give a statesman the right to kill him. Similarly, 51% (or 99%) percent of voters cannot legitimately give him the right to do so.
Since one cannot give to a statesman rights he does not hold, it follows than the statesman cannot possibly have these rights. Should he act as if he did, he'd be a criminal, much like I'd be a thief if I took your computer arguing that my friends granted me the right to do so.
While morality which is often based on cultural values vary, people's ethic of rights (which is different from morality, it defines the set of acts that can legitimately be opposed to with force) vary much much less than you seem to imply. Ethic of rights are objective and their solid point of reference is man's nature.
I look at the definition of rights as a fractal boundary. It's very easy to see on which side most points lie, yet it's also very easy to create points close enough to the border so that much research is needed to know where they lie. This difficulty means that our knowledge of right can be greyish, not that rights themselves are.
To answer your question, the State has no right whatsoever, individuals have rights, not abstract entities. As for statesmen they have no more rights other than the natural rights of any individual and the rights that have been willingly transferred to them. Since generally they just take rights, skipping the willingness part, they *should* be considered and treated as criminals.
On the contrary, school kids would certainly not hold your positivist viewpoint. To you, a criminal is merely someone who has acted against the will of someone strong enough to enforce his preference. You completely fail to comprehend that "criminal" carries a strong ethics of right connotation. Being a criminal is about infringing on someone's right, not just any random, relative, absurd code of any sort set by some thug. Being an outlaw doesn't make you a criminal.
a) a law can only be declared by an authority b) an authority is someone who can enforce the law c) a crime is any act against the law
therefore, if you do not get caught, then it means the authority was unable to enforce the law, thus it is no an authority and thus it is not a law, so you've committed no crime. It's your own logic trap, deal with it.
So you would resent me not because I stole from you but because a bunch of other people I don't know and you don't know recognize your rights to own your computer ?
Ethics don't have to be metaphysical to be objective, I do not believe in any transcendental rights or ethic. I just hold that there can be only one rational, consistent (non-contradictory) ethic. I don't pretend to know it either, but parts of it are easy to discover.
It's curious, I didn't make any mention to economy in my message. The economics of antitrust regulations are indeed interesting but I don't see how they relate to my message.
If your theory doesn't fit reality then your theory is wrong. An ethic of rights cannot allow theft for example, it would require that, to live ethically, men surrender the product of their labor to anyone who simply takes it which is incompatible with human life. If rights can't be followed then they cannot be rights.
Since rights are just subjective, then there is nothing objectively wrong in me punching you in the face, smashing your teeth on your desk and stealing your computer I guess.
Windows is MS OS, I don't like it and don't use it, however it is *their* OS, not Google's not the consumer's not the regulators'. Using antitrust to attack competition destroys value, it's *evil*. Same goes for AMD: they lost technological ground, they switch to outsourcing their development to get cheaper products instead of investing in research and their desperate move is what: antitrust lawsuit against Intel. Shame shame on them all.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be implying that an author should have absolute control over all copies of his work for his lifetime or longer. This is simply not enforceable.
Actually no I think copyrights are not valid, but if I did I'd think they should never expire and be inheritable.
The article claims to maximize "welfare" by maximizing production of works. Why not simply force the producers to produce, by threatening their lives ? Oh the welfare of the producers would diminish ? By how much ? How do you compare the welfare of different people ?
There is no such thing as "welfare". Copyright is a matter of *right*, not of regulation. The article also omits to mention the cost of enforcement which can be tremendously high.
Good point, anal sex is merely unhealthier.
You're implying that the purpose of intercourse is reproduction. One of the characteristic of man (and higher mammals) is that sexual intercourse is also used for recreative purpose, therefore your argument of the anus not having reproductive structures does not by itself prove anal sex "unnatural". The unhealthy part is factually true, std's are transmitted much more easily through anal intercourse that vaginal intercourse.
As for global warming, I think you raise a very valid point questioning the surgeon's general authority on that matter.
And they'll lose their marketshare to another email service who will guarantee a lifetime of receiving email with no fees. Oh no in fact they won't do it in the first place so that this doesn't happen. Companies make money by providing services, not by restricting services.
How exactly is it "hard"? The only way for freedom to be hard to have is through external coercion. Did those big companies actually do anything to you?
That someday you *may* have something to hide. The argument presupposes an omnibenevolent government. Although people could argue about the benevolence of the current government historically many governments are widely regarded as indisputably malevolent, which is argument enough.
Commercialization *is* the expression of the individual freedom of the shareholders of eBay, AOL, Digg youtube or myspace and the individual freedom of their customers. Individual freedom is about freedom, not about [insert random subculture].
I never said it was the "most" restrictive market. If they gain any tax break in the process, good for them!
Of course there is no "shortage" in the US, but it is still a much more restricted market than the world, which means more cost to the company and eventually less R&D produced. I hope they hurt the US government as much as they can. I'm just sorry for the guys that won't find these job in the US because the gov forced MS to move... as for the one who shamelessly called for protectionism (often seen on /.) I hope they starve to death.
Capitalism is the system by which private property is used for production instead of pure consumption. It is not about vendors 'competing' or any other fantasy. The proper definition of "monopoly" is a privilege that forbids other people to compete with you, although its meaning shifted to "something big I don't like". Microsoft does have a monopoly since the government prevent other company to distribute its softwares. Intellectual property laws grants it a monopoly over Windows XP for example, not on "operating systems", and many operating systems are not windows based. Linux and Symbian are very common.
Isn't it very ironic for Al Gore's latest book to be titled "The Assault on Reason"?
but then in the morning you find yourself unable to count matches spilled on the floor, break the bank playing blackjack and eventually communicate with the objects around you. Beware, beware.
Individuals do vary, and it has been argued many times in history that different kind of men should get different rights. Segregation is an example of such a belief. However, the characteristic of man that are relevant to the definition of rights (we need to use natural resources to live for example, no ethic of rights can be consistent in preventing us to use natural resources) do not vary.
Our individuality is shaped by internal and external factors, you mention family and individual experience for example, but this is *culture* while we are concerned with man's *nature*, which by definition is not influenced by these factors, it is the common characteristic of man once these factors have been removed.
As for the state, it is perfectly legitimate to transfer your rights to a statesman, but of course you can only transfer the rights you have. I have no rights over the life of my neighbor for example, so I cannot give a statesman the right to kill him. Similarly, 51% (or 99%) percent of voters cannot legitimately give him the right to do so.
Since one cannot give to a statesman rights he does not hold, it follows than the statesman cannot possibly have these rights. Should he act as if he did, he'd be a criminal, much like I'd be a thief if I took your computer arguing that my friends granted me the right to do so.
While morality which is often based on cultural values vary, people's ethic of rights (which is different from morality, it defines the set of acts that can legitimately be opposed to with force) vary much much less than you seem to imply. Ethic of rights are objective and their solid point of reference is man's nature.
I look at the definition of rights as a fractal boundary. It's very easy to see on which side most points lie, yet it's also very easy to create points close enough to the border so that much research is needed to know where they lie. This difficulty means that our knowledge of right can be greyish, not that rights themselves are.
To answer your question, the State has no right whatsoever, individuals have rights, not abstract entities. As for statesmen they have no more rights other than the natural rights of any individual and the rights that have been willingly transferred to them. Since generally they just take rights, skipping the willingness part, they *should* be considered and treated as criminals.
On the contrary, school kids would certainly not hold your positivist viewpoint. To you, a criminal is merely someone who has acted against the will of someone strong enough to enforce his preference. You completely fail to comprehend that "criminal" carries a strong ethics of right connotation. Being a criminal is about infringing on someone's right, not just any random, relative, absurd code of any sort set by some thug. Being an outlaw doesn't make you a criminal.
A mobster can enforce some laws he makes up in his neighborhood, does that make the shopkeepers who do not pay protection to him "criminals" ?
You are the one who raised a semantic argument in the first place. I can't argue properly if you're inconsistent.
You claim that
a) a law can only be declared by an authority
b) an authority is someone who can enforce the law
c) a crime is any act against the law
therefore, if you do not get caught, then it means the authority was unable to enforce the law, thus it is no an authority and thus it is not a law, so you've committed no crime. It's your own logic trap, deal with it.
So you would resent me not because I stole from you but because a bunch of other people I don't know and you don't know recognize your rights to own your computer ? Ethics don't have to be metaphysical to be objective, I do not believe in any transcendental rights or ethic. I just hold that there can be only one rational, consistent (non-contradictory) ethic. I don't pretend to know it either, but parts of it are easy to discover.
It's curious, I didn't make any mention to economy in my message. The economics of antitrust regulations are indeed interesting but I don't see how they relate to my message.
If your theory doesn't fit reality then your theory is wrong.
An ethic of rights cannot allow theft for example, it would require that, to live ethically, men surrender the product of their labor to anyone who simply takes it which is incompatible with human life. If rights can't be followed then they cannot be rights.
Since rights are just subjective, then there is nothing objectively wrong in me punching you in the face, smashing your teeth on your desk and stealing your computer I guess.
So a crime is only a crime if you get caught ?
Windows is MS OS, I don't like it and don't use it, however it is *their* OS, not Google's not the consumer's not the regulators'. Using antitrust to attack competition destroys value, it's *evil*. Same goes for AMD: they lost technological ground, they switch to outsourcing their development to get cheaper products instead of investing in research and their desperate move is what: antitrust lawsuit against Intel. Shame shame on them all.