For tangible products, which are intrinsically scarce, a right to enjoy demands a right to control, and thus includes a right to control. But the right to control is not fundamental. For intangible goods, which do not exhibit intrinsic scarcity, a right to enjoy is still possess by whomever labored to create them.
I think the exact opposite is true. Because tangible property is scarce, it is of a much greater importance that it is not under exclusive control, and that it be shared for the public good. This is especially true with land ownership, because the owner did not create the land - it was taken as the spoils of war, or inherited as the profits of nobility. But it still applies to property "created" by the owner, because the raw materials were taken from nature. The idea that one can own products of nature extends from that fallacy of land ownership.
Intellectual property, on the other hand, is a much truer "creation" of the owner/author than other forms of property. It also contains clauses for the public good, such as expiration of copyright, which don't apply to other forms of property. If you have lived on a piece of land for a certain number of years, it doesn't go back into the public domain, even if you have contributed nothing to it. Your emphasis on labor is interesting here, as property ownership requires little to no labor, yet owners are still richly rewarded even if they do no labor.
Copyright is legal restriction of freedom of speech and private communication.
Property rights are the legal restriction of freedom of ownership and geography. If libertarianism supports property rights, then why not intellectual property rights?
It could be argued that copyright is more just than physical property rights. After all, a person can be wealthy and powerful simply by inheriting land or gold, through no virtue of their own. Property can be gained simply through violence or dispossession. However, intellectual property requires some sort of intelligence, innovation or talent to generate, and thus moves humanity forward, rather than just being a bunch of land-owning aristocrats.
True libertarians do not believe in Adam Smith's philosophy.
Of course, there's no such thing as a "true libertarian," so your argument falls apart in the first sentence. Really, I wonder why people persist on lumping themselves in these categories. It's particularly ironic when dicussing libertarianism, because isn't it supposed to be about the individual? But instead of being an individual, you define yourself by way of these token political groupings.
What about closed shops, where corporate executives decide to sign an agreement with union executives whereby all workers must join a specific union and pay dues to that union in order to work for that company?
That's a private contract between two groups. How is that inconsistent with libertarian philosophy? In fact, that seems like the very essence of libertarianism. Libertarians typically espouse the right to employ whomever they wish, for whatever reason, and hold private contracts as the ultimate example of the free market at work.
There's no way in hell that Stallman is a libertarian in any common meaning of the term. I don't think there's any political category under which one can fit RMS other than "Richard Stallman."
I do believe that the freest market possible provides the greatest benefit to the most individuals, though many people who also believe this are unclear that unfettered capitalism will lead to capital concentration and a non-free market. Therefore regulation is required to approximate one.
This is where the real ideological test for libertarianism is, I believe. Judging by this statement, I don't think you fit the typical definition. So, isn't the term meaningless in this context? Why do you call yourself a libertarian?
Another question I have for all of the slashdot libertarians is: what is your opinion on the National Park concept? I think this is another good litmus test, though I'm pretty sure I know how you would answer that, feepness.
You get the OS, and no 3rd party crap that has to be uninstalled as soon as you unbox it.
Not strictly true. There have been third-party apps, such as a version of Omnigraffle and various games that have shipped with Macs and MacOS. However, it's generally not crap, doesn't draw attention to itself through advertising or require removal, it just sits there dormant unless you decide to use it. Apple also puts trial versions of iWork on Macs, and if memory serves correctly, has also pre-installed trial versions of MS Office in the past (but I might be wrong about that one) and definitely shipped with Internet Explorer at one time.
d) This post will be down-modded to -1, Flamebait, Troll, or Overrated, because I'm making statements which cause cognitive dissonance in Linux Youth.
Prove me wrong, Linux users.
Wow, that was a really convoluted way to get your post modded up. It was an OK post (that I don't wholly agree with) until you pulled out this old chestnut.
User 1: "You got Ubuntu in my Windows 7!" User 2: "No, you got Windows 7 in my Ubuntu!" User 1: "Hey, this actually isn't too bad." User 2: "Yeah, the rash clears up pretty quickly, then you're good to go."
Audience member: [...] in this new World, and you're talking about GPL going over to the next version, how do you see proprietary software businesses making a profit?
Richard Stallman: That's unethical, they shouldn't be making any money. I hope to see all proprietary software wiped out. That's what I aim for. That would be a World in which our freedom is respected. A proprietary program is a program that is not free. That is to say, a program that does respect the user's essential rights. That's evil. A proprietary program is part of a predatory scheme where people who don't value their freedom are drawn into giving it up in order to gain some kind of practical convenience. And then once they're there, it's harder and harder to get out. Our goal is to rescue people from this.
A lot of them thought it was funny watching the awkward guys up on stage going through having a girl dance next to them. Even more said they didn't even notice what was going on on stage.
How is what the women said about these activities not negative? Funny is laughing at awkward people? They didn't even notice what was happening on stage? Come on, it's a stage. If people don't notice what happening, that's not a good thing. A stage is supposed to draw attention.
Yeah, I wonder what the more Libertarian FOSS advocates think of this. On the one hand, it's providing liberty, on the other hand, it's evil government intervention in the holy Free Market!
Free markets are a different concept to capitalism. Now, would you say that contract law makes a society less capitalist? Because that also interferes in the free market.
Right now there are 100's of phones on the market, all running some sort of OS. Each of them appeal to different audiences, with different features, reliability, and carrier compatability.
And look at how well that's working for them, with profits of most mobile phone makers dropping through the floor.
Slashdot Mirror
Free markets have the virtue of being self-correcting
Got any evidence for this? Or at least, a historical example of what this mythical "free market" actually is?
The market have proven that, when governments and politicians manipulate it for their own power, markets will crash.
I'd submit that even without governments and politicians, markets would crash.
For tangible products, which are intrinsically scarce, a right to enjoy demands a right to control, and thus includes a right to control. But the right to control is not fundamental. For intangible goods, which do not exhibit intrinsic scarcity, a right to enjoy is still possess by whomever labored to create them.
I think the exact opposite is true. Because tangible property is scarce, it is of a much greater importance that it is not under exclusive control, and that it be shared for the public good. This is especially true with land ownership, because the owner did not create the land - it was taken as the spoils of war, or inherited as the profits of nobility. But it still applies to property "created" by the owner, because the raw materials were taken from nature. The idea that one can own products of nature extends from that fallacy of land ownership.
Intellectual property, on the other hand, is a much truer "creation" of the owner/author than other forms of property. It also contains clauses for the public good, such as expiration of copyright, which don't apply to other forms of property. If you have lived on a piece of land for a certain number of years, it doesn't go back into the public domain, even if you have contributed nothing to it. Your emphasis on labor is interesting here, as property ownership requires little to no labor, yet owners are still richly rewarded even if they do no labor.
Copyright is legal restriction of freedom of speech and private communication.
Property rights are the legal restriction of freedom of ownership and geography. If libertarianism supports property rights, then why not intellectual property rights?
It could be argued that copyright is more just than physical property rights. After all, a person can be wealthy and powerful simply by inheriting land or gold, through no virtue of their own. Property can be gained simply through violence or dispossession. However, intellectual property requires some sort of intelligence, innovation or talent to generate, and thus moves humanity forward, rather than just being a bunch of land-owning aristocrats.
True libertarians do not believe in Adam Smith's philosophy.
Of course, there's no such thing as a "true libertarian," so your argument falls apart in the first sentence. Really, I wonder why people persist on lumping themselves in these categories. It's particularly ironic when dicussing libertarianism, because isn't it supposed to be about the individual? But instead of being an individual, you define yourself by way of these token political groupings.
What about closed shops, where corporate executives decide to sign an agreement with union executives whereby all workers must join a specific union and pay dues to that union in order to work for that company?
That's a private contract between two groups. How is that inconsistent with libertarian philosophy? In fact, that seems like the very essence of libertarianism. Libertarians typically espouse the right to employ whomever they wish, for whatever reason, and hold private contracts as the ultimate example of the free market at work.
It could be argued that this is not really libertarianism, but I think it's a more practical idea of freedom that and unregulated free-market.
So, why call it libertarianism? It sounds more like liberalism to me.
and I think RMS is also a libertarian,
There's no way in hell that Stallman is a libertarian in any common meaning of the term. I don't think there's any political category under which one can fit RMS other than "Richard Stallman."
I do believe that the freest market possible provides the greatest benefit to the most individuals, though many people who also believe this are unclear that unfettered capitalism will lead to capital concentration and a non-free market. Therefore regulation is required to approximate one.
This is where the real ideological test for libertarianism is, I believe. Judging by this statement, I don't think you fit the typical definition. So, isn't the term meaningless in this context? Why do you call yourself a libertarian?
Another question I have for all of the slashdot libertarians is: what is your opinion on the National Park concept? I think this is another good litmus test, though I'm pretty sure I know how you would answer that, feepness.
Is Apple going to get one upped
when some super-genius comes up with the amazing idea
of Advertising on the OS...on a netbook!
or Advertising on the OS...on a laptop!
It's ridiculous.
Advertising on _anything_ is inherently an obvious idea.
Burma Shave!
You get the OS, and no 3rd party crap that has to be uninstalled as soon as you unbox it.
Not strictly true. There have been third-party apps, such as a version of Omnigraffle and various games that have shipped with Macs and MacOS. However, it's generally not crap, doesn't draw attention to itself through advertising or require removal, it just sits there dormant unless you decide to use it. Apple also puts trial versions of iWork on Macs, and if memory serves correctly, has also pre-installed trial versions of MS Office in the past (but I might be wrong about that one) and definitely shipped with Internet Explorer at one time.
Nah, a more fitting slogan would be "Slashdot: Because we just don't care anymore."
For people who don't read backwards R and backwards N containing languages..
Such as Lemonade-Standian?
d) This post will be down-modded to -1, Flamebait, Troll, or Overrated, because I'm making statements which cause cognitive dissonance in Linux Youth.
Prove me wrong, Linux users.
Wow, that was a really convoluted way to get your post modded up. It was an OK post (that I don't wholly agree with) until you pulled out this old chestnut.
User 1: "You got Ubuntu in my Windows 7!"
User 2: "No, you got Windows 7 in my Ubuntu!"
User 1: "Hey, this actually isn't too bad."
User 2: "Yeah, the rash clears up pretty quickly, then you're good to go."
Audience member: [...] in this new World, and you're talking about GPL going over to the next version, how do you see proprietary software businesses making a profit?
Richard Stallman: That's unethical, they shouldn't be making any money. I hope to see all proprietary software wiped out. That's what I aim for. That would be a World in which our freedom is respected. A proprietary program is a program that is not free. That is to say, a program that does respect the user's essential rights. That's evil. A proprietary program is part of a predatory scheme where people who don't value their freedom are drawn into giving it up in order to gain some kind of practical convenience. And then once they're there, it's harder and harder to get out. Our goal is to rescue people from this.
A lot of them thought it was funny watching the awkward guys up on stage going through having a girl dance next to them. Even more said they didn't even notice what was going on on stage.
How is what the women said about these activities not negative? Funny is laughing at awkward people? They didn't even notice what was happening on stage? Come on, it's a stage. If people don't notice what happening, that's not a good thing. A stage is supposed to draw attention.
How can people call Nolia a patent troll because some company comes in years after Nokia did all the work and steals the tech??
Because Nolia deliberately named their business with a similar-sounding name, and then tried to make claims on the patents held by Nokia?
Even the most optimistic numbers for Apple have Nokia selling almost 5 smartphones for every iPhone sold (source: Gartner).
If your source is Gartner, then it's almost guaranteed to be wrong.
The whole point of the kindle is that it has wireless GSM access built in....
I thought the whole point of it was to read books. I'm not sure why that would require any sort of wireless access.
People also forget he champions free as in speech software. He's never been anti commercial.
Except, of course, for his comments that making a profit from software was unethical. How could that ever be construed as being anti-commercial?
Yeah, I wonder what the more Libertarian FOSS advocates think of this. On the one hand, it's providing liberty, on the other hand, it's evil government intervention in the holy Free Market!
Capitalist markets are free markets.
Free markets are a different concept to capitalism. Now, would you say that contract law makes a society less capitalist? Because that also interferes in the free market.
Capitalism? Copyright is a form of government regulation on what would otherwise be a free market. It would be more capitalist to abolish copyright.
What's not capitalist about it? It's treating ideas and expression as a form of capital. It would be very un-capitalist not to exploit that for gain.
It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd.
When working together, they were known by the name "Kyd Shakez."
Right now there are 100's of phones on the market, all running some sort of OS. Each of them appeal to different audiences, with different features, reliability, and carrier compatability.
And look at how well that's working for them, with profits of most mobile phone makers dropping through the floor.