Most of the expansions of government awarded by the patriot act were in the works long before 9/11. The patriot act simply provided an open door for those who desired these expansions of government. They saw the door, and quickly slid the bill through before the people could blink. Viola -- government now has more revenue, more power over the people, and more "responsibility" than ever.
Mark my words, the patriot act will NEVER be repealed or expired. Refer to the history of the income tax if you don't believe me.
Let's rephrase that: The core concept, claims government, is that it is not only possible, but moral and just, to own an idea.
Jefferson: Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them...
And that's where Jefferson is confused (otherwise I agree 100%). You cannot grant an exclusive right to the application of an idea without claiming it as property. If government has the power to prohibit me from peacefully doing what I want with the idea (including "profit"), then the idea is, for all intents and purposes, owned.
Taught through simple experience, which can't be avoided unless the child is completely isolated while growing up. The first time a child experiences what it's like to be the victim is when the child realizes, quite naturally, that aggression (theft, physical force, etc) is wrong.
Let's call a spade a spade. Patents on software, patents on mechanics, patents on business models, patents on tools, patents on architecture, patents on nature -- no matter what type of patent, the core concept is that it is not only possible, but moral and just, to own an idea.
I'm not convinced that software patents are any more counter-productive and unjust than any other type of patent. When you look at the big picture, all patents oppose human nature, because none of them would be honored or even considered without the force of government. Patent law did not arise from human nature, like laws against theft, fraud, murder, or any other initiation of force. (Those laws would be understood and honored even in the total absence of government. Even a young child understands that it is wrong to hit another child or steal their toys.) Like prohibition, patent law did not arise because human nature demanded it -- it arose because the powerful elite demanded it.
The principle of first to market would easily take the place of patent law, as far as creating incentive to innovate and serve the consumer in general, in a market which allows force only in self-defense. (IP law is offensive, not defensive, because it requires an initiation of force. The concept of owning an idea is not found in human nature, and would not be honored without the threat of force.)
The proposition that technological firms would stop innovating or producing in the abscense of IP law stands in direct contrast to human history. Human beings have been doing clever things (some might say "innovating") for millions of years without the aid of IP law.
It's not just "Big Brother" who's watching, it could be anyone
The key difference (which most people fail to understand or realize) being that only government holds the unique right to initiate force (theft, fraud, extortion, physical force) as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. THAT is the reason why government needs to be strictly limited in their powers over the people: government is the most dangerous organization that could possibly exist. What other organization posesses the right to initiate force as a means to an end? None, unless they have been specifically granted that ability by government, in which case they become another arm of government.
As for the term "Big Brother", I don't like it either. That's like referring to a lion as a pussycat.
You're right, there is less misconduct today than 40 years ago. The problem is that misconduct isn't misconduct anymore -- it's everyday business. When police are using tasers on elementary school kids, and lawmakers defend the practice as if there's nothing morally wrong, you've just got to stop and think.
Re:What a stupid question....
on
No Pictures, Thanks
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Expansion of police powers increases the danger of a police state forming. It does not guarantee it.
So if police powers doubled tomorrow, we wouldn't actually be any closer to a police state, as long as (I assume) the police behave themselves?
That line of thinking is exactly why most Americans still believe they have freedom, when basic human rights like due process have been thrown out the window. As long as it's not happening to you, it's not really happening, right? Never mind that the police can seize your vehicle just by accusing you of posessing drugs, with no actual proof -- if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about, right?
Let's call a spade a spade. Expansion of police powers is *exactly* what makes a police state.
Unless you're a Firefox developer, that's not your decision to make, is it? By releasing Firefox under an open source license, the developers have already made clear that it's acceptable to modify and re-distribute the software.
Copyright is the legal recognition of natural property rights
Human beings have understood natural property rights since the beginning of time, but only recently in human history was the concept of IP invented. For this reason I don't consider IP "natural". It's a product of government, not human nature.
Natural property rights are tangible: the fish you caught for dinner; the spear you used to kill it; your own body (the most valuable property you could ever own). Human beings have understood this since the beginning of time, because it's part of human nature. Somewhere along the line, evolution determined that in order for intelligent life to succeed, its members must respect property rights. And so it happened -- even a young child instantly recognizes that it's wrong when another child hits him or steals his toy. Even less intelligent animals understand this basic concept of mutual respect. IP, on the other hand, can't even be understood by a young child. IP must be taught, or more appropriately, imposed.
Some members of society, namely criminals and governments, choose to disrespect our natural property rights at times, but regardless, all members of society DO understand natural property rights (only the insane would not understand).
Was the old opt-in copyright law in some way broken?
No, but it wasn't as easily exploitable. Governments naturally tend to expand in cost, power, and scope, becoming more exploitable over their lifetimes; oppressive IP law is just one way to accomplish that.
Force is only meaningful when defined as an interaction between human beings. Every interaction between human beings must take exactly one of two forms: force, or voluntary association. Force is demonstrated as aggression against property rights, your own body being the most valuable property you will ever own. Voluntary association is demonstrated as respect for those property rights.
Government interacts with others by force, by definition (as explained in my last post). Government is the only agency which holds this legal right to initiate force. Others may invoke force in self-defense (where it hasn't been criminalized by government), but only government holds the legal right to initiate force.
Ultimately, everything government does is backed by the threat of violence (physical force), and eventually violence itself. Whether or not you approve of government using violence to achieve their goals is a completely different issue.
when I fire up my chainsaw and cut through a tree
This scenario isn't relevant to the issue. Unless you are cutting down a tree owned by someone else -- thereby demonstrating aggression towards another's property -- you are not interacting with another human being.
Hardware support is a big plus, but it's obviously not the only thing that makes lossy compression useful. Your blanket assessment of ogg's usefulness was proven wrong before you even opened your mouth -- by the simple popularity and success of the project. Do you really think the project could have come so far when "OGG is not the answer to anyone"? Whether you like it or not, whether you understand it or not -- the fact is that people are using ogg, and that neatly proves you wrong.
I don't see the point of focusing on "physical" force.
Because that is the only meaningful, unambiguous definition of force.
Many laws impose fines or other penalties.
...which are ultimately backed by physical force.
Everything government does or could possibly do is backed by physical force -- that is what defines government and seperates it from everyone else. Government is the organization which holds the unique "right" to initiate physical force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal.
Democracy does not equate to freedom (the US has neatly proven that), nor should it be considered more important than freedom. Democracy should not be considered the goal in itself, but simply a means to achieve the goal. The goal is freedom, not majority rule. A monarchy which respects my natural human right to be free is moral and just; a democracy which doesn't respect that right is immoral and unjust.
Are you implying that it would be in any way moral to initiate physical force (impose a state-sanctioned "banning") against those who peacefully, voluntarily engage in sloth or greed?
The Chinese government, among others, has shown that they are willing to fund open source work.
Regardless of whether or not the people support it.
I'm pro-OSS, been that way since '97. But there's no way I would ever agree that it's moral to force people to support it. The way I see it, voluntary choice is the core paradigm of OSS. People don't work on OSS because they have to; they work on it because they want to. When you invoke the force of government to fund OSS, you destroy the core paradigm of voluntary choice.
Without copyright, then anyone could take the code, including large corporations, and modify it for their own interest, and sell it without releasing the source code.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but some people don't see anything wrong with that. That's why they created the BSD liscense.
some people like to say taxes are forced on us, but we always have the option to not pay them and go to jail
Some people like to say that kidnapping for ransom is an example of force, but we always have the option to ignore their demands and be murdered. (Your statement is looking reality in the face and denying it.)
Don't try to muddy the waters between force and voluntary will. Government operates on the principle of force, always and by definition. (Government is the organization which holds the unique right to initiate force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so, without the blessing of government, is a criminal. This is the universal definition of government.)
As for the pentalty issue, the offical rationale for social security (or any government program) does not, of course, imply that the taxpayer is being penalized. However, this is the viewpoint of the aggressors (government and those who support the scheme). From my viewpoint (the victim), a person who is forced to participate in the scheme against his will, it is quite rational and normal to view this coercive redistribution of wealth as a penalty.
I only pointed out that coercive punishment applies to those at fault (by simple human nature) -- those who have committed some initiation of force against others. I observed that since I am being penalized financially -- forced to buy into the scheme against my will -- that I must somehow be at fault. 1 + 1 = 2.
I think what you describe as "strawman" is simply the difference in thinking between one who willingly participates in the program, and one who unwillingly participates in the program. As a supporter, you can't understand why I don't accept the logic of the program, and that's why you raised the strawman flag.
As for me, I'm on the other side of the fence. I don't expect a dime back for my "investment" in social security. Ever. I won't trust it, I won't count on it -- the best I can do is try to ignore that part of my paycheck. And I'm a more responsible, more practical individual for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the expansions of government awarded by the patriot act were in the works long before 9/11. The patriot act simply provided an open door for those who desired these expansions of government. They saw the door, and quickly slid the bill through before the people could blink. Viola -- government now has more revenue, more power over the people, and more "responsibility" than ever.
Mark my words, the patriot act will NEVER be repealed or expired. Refer to the history of the income tax if you don't believe me.
I think you misunderstood. Government (the lawmakers) claim that patents are moral and just. I certainly do not.
You certainly are not. You are only obliged to provide source code IF you decide to distribute your modifications.
Jefferson: Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them...
And that's where Jefferson is confused (otherwise I agree 100%). You cannot grant an exclusive right to the application of an idea without claiming it as property. If government has the power to prohibit me from peacefully doing what I want with the idea (including "profit"), then the idea is, for all intents and purposes, owned.
I didn't think I did.
Taught through simple experience, which can't be avoided unless the child is completely isolated while growing up. The first time a child experiences what it's like to be the victim is when the child realizes, quite naturally, that aggression (theft, physical force, etc) is wrong.
Let's call a spade a spade. Patents on software, patents on mechanics, patents on business models, patents on tools, patents on architecture, patents on nature -- no matter what type of patent, the core concept is that it is not only possible, but moral and just, to own an idea.
I'm not convinced that software patents are any more counter-productive and unjust than any other type of patent. When you look at the big picture, all patents oppose human nature, because none of them would be honored or even considered without the force of government. Patent law did not arise from human nature, like laws against theft, fraud, murder, or any other initiation of force. (Those laws would be understood and honored even in the total absence of government. Even a young child understands that it is wrong to hit another child or steal their toys.) Like prohibition, patent law did not arise because human nature demanded it -- it arose because the powerful elite demanded it.
The principle of first to market would easily take the place of patent law, as far as creating incentive to innovate and serve the consumer in general, in a market which allows force only in self-defense. (IP law is offensive, not defensive, because it requires an initiation of force. The concept of owning an idea is not found in human nature, and would not be honored without the threat of force.)
The proposition that technological firms would stop innovating or producing in the abscense of IP law stands in direct contrast to human history. Human beings have been doing clever things (some might say "innovating") for millions of years without the aid of IP law.
The key difference (which most people fail to understand or realize) being that only government holds the unique right to initiate force (theft, fraud, extortion, physical force) as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. THAT is the reason why government needs to be strictly limited in their powers over the people: government is the most dangerous organization that could possibly exist. What other organization posesses the right to initiate force as a means to an end? None, unless they have been specifically granted that ability by government, in which case they become another arm of government.
As for the term "Big Brother", I don't like it either. That's like referring to a lion as a pussycat.
No.
OK, OK, you convinced me.
You're right, there is less misconduct today than 40 years ago. The problem is that misconduct isn't misconduct anymore -- it's everyday business. When police are using tasers on elementary school kids, and lawmakers defend the practice as if there's nothing morally wrong, you've just got to stop and think.
So if police powers doubled tomorrow, we wouldn't actually be any closer to a police state, as long as (I assume) the police behave themselves?
That line of thinking is exactly why most Americans still believe they have freedom, when basic human rights like due process have been thrown out the window. As long as it's not happening to you, it's not really happening, right? Never mind that the police can seize your vehicle just by accusing you of posessing drugs, with no actual proof -- if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about, right?
Let's call a spade a spade. Expansion of police powers is *exactly* what makes a police state.
Unless you're a Firefox developer, that's not your decision to make, is it? By releasing Firefox under an open source license, the developers have already made clear that it's acceptable to modify and re-distribute the software.
Human beings have understood natural property rights since the beginning of time, but only recently in human history was the concept of IP invented. For this reason I don't consider IP "natural". It's a product of government, not human nature.
Natural property rights are tangible: the fish you caught for dinner; the spear you used to kill it; your own body (the most valuable property you could ever own). Human beings have understood this since the beginning of time, because it's part of human nature. Somewhere along the line, evolution determined that in order for intelligent life to succeed, its members must respect property rights. And so it happened -- even a young child instantly recognizes that it's wrong when another child hits him or steals his toy. Even less intelligent animals understand this basic concept of mutual respect. IP, on the other hand, can't even be understood by a young child. IP must be taught, or more appropriately, imposed.
Some members of society, namely criminals and governments, choose to disrespect our natural property rights at times, but regardless, all members of society DO understand natural property rights (only the insane would not understand).
No, but it wasn't as easily exploitable. Governments naturally tend to expand in cost, power, and scope, becoming more exploitable over their lifetimes; oppressive IP law is just one way to accomplish that.
Government interacts with others by force, by definition (as explained in my last post). Government is the only agency which holds this legal right to initiate force. Others may invoke force in self-defense (where it hasn't been criminalized by government), but only government holds the legal right to initiate force.
Ultimately, everything government does is backed by the threat of violence (physical force), and eventually violence itself. Whether or not you approve of government using violence to achieve their goals is a completely different issue.
when I fire up my chainsaw and cut through a tree
This scenario isn't relevant to the issue. Unless you are cutting down a tree owned by someone else -- thereby demonstrating aggression towards another's property -- you are not interacting with another human being.
Hardware support is a big plus, but it's obviously not the only thing that makes lossy compression useful. Your blanket assessment of ogg's usefulness was proven wrong before you even opened your mouth -- by the simple popularity and success of the project. Do you really think the project could have come so far when "OGG is not the answer to anyone"? Whether you like it or not, whether you understand it or not -- the fact is that people are using ogg, and that neatly proves you wrong.
Because that is the only meaningful, unambiguous definition of force.
Many laws impose fines or other penalties.
...which are ultimately backed by physical force.
Everything government does or could possibly do is backed by physical force -- that is what defines government and seperates it from everyone else. Government is the organization which holds the unique "right" to initiate physical force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal.
Democracy does not equate to freedom (the US has neatly proven that), nor should it be considered more important than freedom. Democracy should not be considered the goal in itself, but simply a means to achieve the goal. The goal is freedom, not majority rule. A monarchy which respects my natural human right to be free is moral and just; a democracy which doesn't respect that right is immoral and unjust.
Are you implying that it would be in any way moral to initiate physical force (impose a state-sanctioned "banning") against those who peacefully, voluntarily engage in sloth or greed?
Regardless of whether or not the people support it.
I'm pro-OSS, been that way since '97. But there's no way I would ever agree that it's moral to force people to support it. The way I see it, voluntary choice is the core paradigm of OSS. People don't work on OSS because they have to; they work on it because they want to. When you invoke the force of government to fund OSS, you destroy the core paradigm of voluntary choice.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but some people don't see anything wrong with that. That's why they created the BSD liscense.
OK, I can live with that. It's more meaningful to describe forced participation as unfair than as a penalty.
Some people like to say that kidnapping for ransom is an example of force, but we always have the option to ignore their demands and be murdered. (Your statement is looking reality in the face and denying it.)
Don't try to muddy the waters between force and voluntary will. Government operates on the principle of force, always and by definition. (Government is the organization which holds the unique right to initiate force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so, without the blessing of government, is a criminal. This is the universal definition of government.)
As for the pentalty issue, the offical rationale for social security (or any government program) does not, of course, imply that the taxpayer is being penalized. However, this is the viewpoint of the aggressors (government and those who support the scheme). From my viewpoint (the victim), a person who is forced to participate in the scheme against his will, it is quite rational and normal to view this coercive redistribution of wealth as a penalty.
I only pointed out that coercive punishment applies to those at fault (by simple human nature) -- those who have committed some initiation of force against others. I observed that since I am being penalized financially -- forced to buy into the scheme against my will -- that I must somehow be at fault. 1 + 1 = 2.
I think what you describe as "strawman" is simply the difference in thinking between one who willingly participates in the program, and one who unwillingly participates in the program. As a supporter, you can't understand why I don't accept the logic of the program, and that's why you raised the strawman flag.
As for me, I'm on the other side of the fence. I don't expect a dime back for my "investment" in social security. Ever. I won't trust it, I won't count on it -- the best I can do is try to ignore that part of my paycheck. And I'm a more responsible, more practical individual for it.