Hopefully, you can see that a corporation is no different than a private citizen lots of money.
If that were true, then the rich would hold their assets in their own names rather than in corporations and trusts. Two of the significant differences are (1) there is no legal category of "Limited Liability Citizens" in the sense that there is with corporations (2) the nature of corporations is defined by corporate law, making profit the overriding motive always. Few individuals will make financial gain the overriding factor in every decision.
Therefore, the only real cure is to make wealth concentration illegal. This of course would never fly without a revolution.
Doesn't fly with a revolution either, didn't you notice? And it can only be sustained by the vigorous suppression of the population, replacing the ambitious abuse by the rich with the unchecked abuse of the state. Your cure is worse than the illness.
Instead of making an economic calculation based on how many people wanting your intellectual production might see themselves obliged to pay for it, you'll do it based on how many people wanting your intellectual production are willing to voluntarily pay you for it.
Well, most purchases of copyright works are voluntary anyway, certainly music and movies. I do understand what you mean though. There is also, how many people will pay you to experience your production vs how may people will pay you because they experienced your production.
As an example: we bought the movie "Cars". Our children now have various items of Cars merchandise that they like because they like the movie. So we have paid money for the movie and because of the movie. If the movie had been offered as a free download, they still would have made money from us. Less though, and nobody wants less money.
One of the "bourgeois objections to Communism" in the communist manifesto:
"But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all
morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis;"
To which their answer is essentially, "Yes we will, because our system is superiour and supercedes those ideas."
"The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with
traditional property relations; no wonder that its development
involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas."
Since communism has not justified itself by demonstrating that superiority, it is appropriate to return to the thus unrefuted position that communism abolishes morality.
Bourgeoisie refers only to controllers of the work force
Such as shopkeepers, pawnbrokers or anyone who owns a rental property. No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer,
so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is
set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord,
the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
Or from your own deninition:
Marxism defines the bourgeoisie as the social class which obtains income from ownership or trade in capital assets, or from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares, and services.
People who obtain income from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares and services. This includes all self employed people and business owners. As the history of communism seems to confirm.
According to Marx and Engels, it is the abolition of law and morality...
"The proletarian is without
property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer
anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations; modern
industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in
England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him
of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion,
are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in
ambush just as many bourgeois interests."
...the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie (owners of private property)...
"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the
proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging
within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks
out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the
bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."
... and their elimination.
"Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other
words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."
So, if we include the extermination of all property owners in our
definition of a "working political system", then communism works,
on paper.
Anyone smart enough to go get a refund is also smart enough to know about the EULA.
Knowing about EULA's is not the same as knowing the terms of a particular EULA. I know about finance contracts. Yet there are dozens of businesses within a few minutes drive that offer goods on finance with terms that I am not familiar with. It is a fairly standard practice with software to present the EULA after purchase with provision for a refund. This seems to be quite different to the way most contracts operate and probably not a very good idea, but it is the way things are being done in the software industry. I don't know why you think it is "willful negligence" for a purchaser to read the terms of a licence when it is presented to them by the vendor.
On the other hand, perhaps you are willfully negligent because you don't seem to know what is in the EULA YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE.
In the EULA Microsoft offers a refund if you don't accept the terms. People are accepting the offer of a refund. The courts are making sure it is processed as a genuine offer. Willful negligence doesn't come into it.
AC in a car doesn't come with unknown licencing conditions. The EULA is essentially a contract, which means you must have the option to decline, but agree to it before it is valid. Someone could know Windows as a product, eg: by using it at work or seeing a freinds computer, but not know the conditions of the EULA. So they buy a computer with windows, read the EULA and don't accept it, why should they not get a refund?
But you get to see the EULA after your purchase. The windows EULA has changed over time. Someone buying a new computer may have never read that version. You may like the product, but not be willing to agree to the terms of the EULA. Therefore, you buy the product, but when you find you don't accept the licencing agreement, you return it. What's the problem with that?
Not all women are bad drivers and not all men are excellent drivers.
I've read before that some insurance companies charge women lower premiums. A quick search reveals
"Car insurance companies prefer lady drivers to their gentlemen counterparts because they are considered as much less risky drivers. It is not that the accident rates of ladies are low. They face as many accidents as males do. However, the damage caused by them is not as much in most of the cases. So, their claims after the accident are also less. That is why on an average women's car insurance premiums tend to be 30% lower than that of the male counterparts having same demographic profile.
They drive at speeds lower than men. Hence, accidents caused by lady drivers are not serious. So, even if they might claim as often as males do yet, in all they claim less amounts, giving insurers lesser premiums. Since the male drivers drive at higher speeds so even if they crash on their own, the loss is high."
So it seems that women drive less agressively/ engage in risky driving less and are therefore lower risk. My wife is certainly less a skilled driver than I in a mechanical sense, but since she is a much more cautious driver she would not be a higher risk of accident on the road (but perhaps higher risk of accident while parking).
I don't know if you realize how true this is. For a short time, I worked for an ISP. Our wholesale provider also trained us. Ineffective customer service was a part of the business plan. It was considered beneficial for customers who needed too much help (ie: problems aren't solved by running and automated setup program) or people who used their bandwidth to become dissatisfied and leave.
You said: "Ergo, you can't, in a practical sense, sell GPLed code."
but people do sell GPLed code. It isn't a matter of whether you think that is a good enough answer, your statement does not conform to known reality.
Why bother with me though, when you can discuss this with Bruce Perens Quote: "I have a start-up company making Open Source software. GPL3, and Affero GPL3, are my money-making tools."
I'll check replies to his comment tomorrow. I look forward to seeing you explain to Bruce that GPLed software can't be sold.
The point of the article is that a part human embryo was created, although probably not viable.
Oops. You caught me out. I posted that the day after I read the summary. Didn't RTFA until now.
... any definition will have ragged edges near birth and death.
A definition based on genetics doesn't, that's my point. You then define the rights or lack thereof rather than the humanity. As we already assign different levels of rights to people in different circumstances (including but not limited to actively killing people), this does not need to be the problem that many seem to think. As an example, we do not define our military adversaries as non-human (sure it is in propaganda, but there has been no legal arguement defining enemies as non-human) and this is not an obstacle to killing them. It is supposed to mean that certain boundaries of behaviour are in place that would not apply to an animal that we wish to kill, for example.
That's interesting, but I think it is not as big as the problems of development based definitions because:
1. Part human embryos are currently not known to exist.
2. As soon as they are known to exist, various radical religious groups are likely to kill them and their makers.
3. Even if (2) doesn't happen, they are likely to be a very small minority for a long time to come.
I don't think it necessary to take this into account at this stage. I think it is better to give reality as it is far greater weight in our deliberations than something that might possibly be someday.
That's a genetic definition of "human." I think we're discussing a more philosophical definition of what it means to "be human."
I think the discussion is really about how we are to define "human" legally, in particular how do we decide whether to give legal protection of human rights.
There are other wrinkles. We agree other people are human and we do terrible things to them all the time...so why should a baby or fetus or clump of cells get special treatment?
As I said: "That doesn't mean that no fertilised ovum could ever be killed, as we already have circumstances we consider it justifiable to kill an adult human." Not always is it terrible. While some may differ in opinion, most wouldn't think it terrible to kill for the protection of your family. Many places it can be a legally protected action if done within guidlines.
Interesting that you bring up the free will thing, I have noticed the Lefty...
Just to clarify, I'm not a lefty and I do believe in free will. I brought it up for an example of how attributing humanity on the basis of other than genetics can easily go awry.
How about Humanity being defined as having brain activity that allows them to respond to stimuli in a non-reflexive manner?
The are people who do not believe in free will. This belief, combined with your definition would mean that no-one is human.
As far as I can see, there are basically two ways we could define whether a developing being originating from human sperm and ovum is a human, by developed characteristic or by genetic heritage. I am personally convinced that to define humanity by genetic heritage is the only viable option. That doesn't mean that no fertilised ovum could ever be killed, as we already have circumstances we consider it justifiable to kill an adult human. The risk of an inadequate definition based on developed characteristics removing legal protection from people as a result of them being judged non-human or less human is too great. Check out Peter Singer and you will know what I mean, even if you don't agree with me.
If I lived in that school district and they tried to put one of those Lo-Jack things on my kid, I would wield the ACLU and smite the school district with them while shouting "SMITE" (Bard's Tale fans rejoice!)
Or you could figure out how to remove it at attach it to a bear. Possibly more fun.
Are those of you objecting upset because the kids are legally bound to attend school?
I haven't complained yet but that is it for me. Of course, kids are not really legally bound to attend school because you can home school. I do not see how compulsory incarceration five days a week (excepting holidays) for 12 years of a persons youth is compatible with the idea of a free society, even if you do learn something while you are there.
I'm very much in favor of education, very much against compulsion schooling.
The cost of imprisonment will be greatly reduced as there is no need to go to court. The police in the UK can now imprison you for a month without trial.
As I said: "If a substantial portion of the UK population started breaking the cameras, it would be all over." I have read that London has over 1/2 a million cameras, I don't know the right number. If 50,000 people went out and broke one camera each tomorrow, do you seriously think the British government will detain them all without trial? No doubt there would be a price to pay. Some would get locked up, some would be fined, but if a substantial portion of the population decided to do it until they won, it would all be over very quickly.
Maybe the Brits don't have it in them anymore. But it isn't because you can't do anything about it, it is because you have chosen not to.
The inquisition was also the first court in history that would refuse to convict people before facing them
John 7:51 "Does our law judge a man, unless it first hears from him personally and knows what he does?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law#Roman_litigation Cases were initiated by a summons which was followed by appointing a judge.
So from both secular and religious sources of our legal heritage there are traditions of courts who heard the accused as a matter of procedure which predate the inquisition.
(And maybe the use they are making of the patent is to hide the invention.)
The idea of patents is that the inventor gets a monopoly for a limited time in return for disclosure. It isn't hidden if it is patented (assuming proper process is followed).
If someone invents a life saving drug, what entitles people to that drug? What generates entitlement, production or need? If need creates entitlement, then why produce? Let us all aim for less competence and put in less effort in order to become entitled to the goods produced by creators. Of course, the taking of those goods will have to be backed by force, as producers have proved less than co-operative in the face of such philosophies.
What of someone who hasn't invented a life saving drug yet and isn't trying because they wish to own their work, so they work on something less usefull so it won't get taken away? Do we compel them to invent the drug if we find they have the capability? Where do we draw the line?
If the goods produced are so desirable then to produce them is virtuous. So a society that assigns entitlement by need is by necessity a society that uses force against the virtuous. I think most rational people would agree that becoming sick is not a cause for blame, but neither is it an excuse to acquire by force the produce of the virtuous. Give your own goods if you wish to, do not attempt to be generous with the goods of others.
Does somebody else's need give them a right to the product of my labor? Who gets to decide how great someone's need has to be before my labor (and therefore my life) are not my own?
If you want to give people medicines for nothing, then buy them or invent and make them and do so. If you want to be able to control the work of other people without giving them the appropriate reward for their efforts, you are just trying to position yourself as the master of slaves. Nobody else has an inherent right to the work of another.
Break the cameras? If a substantial portion of the UK population started breaking the cameras, it would be all over. Do it in groups, facing the cameras. Too many people to send to prison, too much expense to continually replace the cameras. When on jury duty, refuse to convict.
Slashdot Mirror
As an example: we bought the movie "Cars". Our children now have various items of Cars merchandise that they like because they like the movie. So we have paid money for the movie and because of the movie. If the movie had been offered as a free download, they still would have made money from us. Less though, and nobody wants less money.
One of the "bourgeois objections to Communism" in the communist manifesto:
"But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis;"
To which their answer is essentially, "Yes we will, because our system is superiour and supercedes those ideas."
"The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas."
Since communism has not justified itself by demonstrating that superiority, it is appropriate to return to the thus unrefuted position that communism abolishes morality.
No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
Or from your own deninition: People who obtain income from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares and services. This includes all self employed people and business owners. As the history of communism seems to confirm.
Not if you take the historical unfolding of communism as the context. Then it is spot on.
Text of the communist manifesto can be found here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt
...
...the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie (owners of private property) ...
... and their elimination.
So what is communism on paper?
According to Marx and Engels, it is the abolition of law and morality
"The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations; modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests."
"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."
"Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."
So, if we include the extermination of all property owners in our definition of a "working political system", then communism works, on paper.
McCarthy was right.
On the other hand, perhaps you are willfully negligent because you don't seem to know what is in the EULA
YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE.
In the EULA Microsoft offers a refund if you don't accept the terms. People are accepting the offer of a refund. The courts are making sure it is processed as a genuine offer. Willful negligence doesn't come into it.
AC in a car doesn't come with unknown licencing conditions. The EULA is essentially a contract, which means you must have the option to decline, but agree to it before it is valid. Someone could know Windows as a product, eg: by using it at work or seeing a freinds computer, but not know the conditions of the EULA. So they buy a computer with windows, read the EULA and don't accept it, why should they not get a refund?
But you get to see the EULA after your purchase. The windows EULA has changed over time. Someone buying a new computer may have never read that version. You may like the product, but not be willing to agree to the terms of the EULA. Therefore, you buy the product, but when you find you don't accept the licencing agreement, you return it. What's the problem with that?
"Car insurance companies prefer lady drivers to their gentlemen counterparts because they are considered as much less risky drivers. It is not that the accident rates of ladies are low. They face as many accidents as males do. However, the damage caused by them is not as much in most of the cases. So, their claims after the accident are also less. That is why on an average women's car insurance premiums tend to be 30% lower than that of the male counterparts having same demographic profile.
They drive at speeds lower than men. Hence, accidents caused by lady drivers are not serious. So, even if they might claim as often as males do yet, in all they claim less amounts, giving insurers lesser premiums. Since the male drivers drive at higher speeds so even if they crash on their own, the loss is high."
So it seems that women drive less agressively/ engage in risky driving less and are therefore lower risk. My wife is certainly less a skilled driver than I in a mechanical sense, but since she is a much more cautious driver she would not be a higher risk of accident on the road (but perhaps higher risk of accident while parking).
I don't know if you realize how true this is. For a short time, I worked for an ISP. Our wholesale provider also trained us. Ineffective customer service was a part of the business plan. It was considered beneficial for customers who needed too much help (ie: problems aren't solved by running and automated setup program) or people who used their bandwidth to become dissatisfied and leave.
Why bother with me though, when you can discuss this with Bruce Perens Quote: "I have a start-up company making Open Source software. GPL3, and Affero GPL3, are my money-making tools."
I'll check replies to his comment tomorrow. I look forward to seeing you explain to Bruce that GPLed software can't be sold.
That's interesting, but I think it is not as big as the problems of development based definitions because:
1. Part human embryos are currently not known to exist.
2. As soon as they are known to exist, various radical religious groups are likely to kill them and their makers.
3. Even if (2) doesn't happen, they are likely to be a very small minority for a long time to come.
I don't think it necessary to take this into account at this stage. I think it is better to give reality as it is far greater weight in our deliberations than something that might possibly be someday.
As far as I can see, there are basically two ways we could define whether a developing being originating from human sperm and ovum is a human, by developed characteristic or by genetic heritage. I am personally convinced that to define humanity by genetic heritage is the only viable option. That doesn't mean that no fertilised ovum could ever be killed, as we already have circumstances we consider it justifiable to kill an adult human. The risk of an inadequate definition based on developed characteristics removing legal protection from people as a result of them being judged non-human or less human is too great. Check out Peter Singer and you will know what I mean, even if you don't agree with me.
I'm very much in favor of education, very much against compulsion schooling.
Maybe the Brits don't have it in them anymore. But it isn't because you can't do anything about it, it is because you have chosen not to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law#Roman_litigation Cases were initiated by a summons which was followed by appointing a judge.
So from both secular and religious sources of our legal heritage there are traditions of courts who heard the accused as a matter of procedure which predate the inquisition.
When on jury duty, refuse to convict. And destroy them so frequently that it becomes impossible to process the court cases.
If someone invents a life saving drug, what entitles people to that drug? What generates entitlement, production or need? If need creates entitlement, then why produce? Let us all aim for less competence and put in less effort in order to become entitled to the goods produced by creators. Of course, the taking of those goods will have to be backed by force, as producers have proved less than co-operative in the face of such philosophies.
What of someone who hasn't invented a life saving drug yet and isn't trying because they wish to own their work, so they work on something less usefull so it won't get taken away? Do we compel them to invent the drug if we find they have the capability? Where do we draw the line?
If the goods produced are so desirable then to produce them is virtuous. So a society that assigns entitlement by need is by necessity a society that uses force against the virtuous. I think most rational people would agree that becoming sick is not a cause for blame, but neither is it an excuse to acquire by force the produce of the virtuous. Give your own goods if you wish to, do not attempt to be generous with the goods of others.
Does somebody else's need give them a right to the product of my labor? Who gets to decide how great someone's need has to be before my labor (and therefore my life) are not my own?
If you want to give people medicines for nothing, then buy them or invent and make them and do so. If you want to be able to control the work of other people without giving them the appropriate reward for their efforts, you are just trying to position yourself as the master of slaves. Nobody else has an inherent right to the work of another.