Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)Posted Nov 6, 2012 3:28 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155)Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)
The problem with patents (and copyrights, and other forms of intellectual poverty) is simple: applying rules of property to non-property (intangibles) is illogical and obviously produces irrational, malevolent, and unintended results.
Both the GNU GPL and this suggestion are attempts to PATCH a system that is fundamentally broken. As patches, they can only have a limited result.
Furthermore, this suggestion will never happen because it depends on legislators, and we all know which side of the bread legislators get their butter on. They set these irrational rules up, and profit from these irrational rules.
The solution is obvious: the institution that imposes these irrational rules causes these problems (and many others that dwarf free culture extinction in gravity) so it must end.
But Richard will never entertain that -- Richard believes that the institution which constantly sabotages free culture is a benevolent and necessary institution that he can somehow control and co-opt to get his way. He somehow doesn't see that the threats he sees are directly caused by this institution. So he will forever be doomed to run around putting fires out, trying to find ways to prop up the broken system, fighting a losing battle with the results produced by the very institution he begs for help from.
It is obvious: If you misidentify your enemy, you will necessarily lose the battle. Getting angry at Apple or Microsoft for exploiting some destructive rules, when both these companies and the rules were made and enforced by another institution, is useless and irrational.
Is it any surprise, then, that Richard has spent most of his life fighting numerous causes and lost his battles on most of them? He is fighting the wrong people.
(Log in to post comments)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 3:32 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
which institution do you think the real enemy is?
and you can't just say "the government"
you think what's being done is wrong and "the institution" needs to be eliminated, what specific change would you make to implement your 'fix'
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 3:46 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Oh, hi! I hope you are doing great.
The institution that needs to be eliminated is the irrational belief that a special exceptional group of people (should or do) have the magical superpower to dictate how everyone else must live their lives, and to punish those who disobey and resist... whether it is a person carrying around the "wrong" type of vegetation, or a person downloading the "wrong" type of MP3.
While historically this institution was called "church", in modern times, some people call this institution "government". It is a belief -- accordingly, when people no longer hold the belief, the influence of institution in human life will vanish.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 5:12 UTC (Tue) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link]
"The institution that needs to be eliminated is the irrational belief that a special exceptional group of people (should or do) have the magical superpower to dictate how everyone else must live their lives,"...
Is this libertarianism, anarchism, both, or neither?
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 6:19 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Honest question: Does the name matter? :-)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 14:01 UTC (Tue) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link]
The main difference between Anarchy and Libertarianism is the latter is advocated by rich people.
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/06/07/no-exit-libertarianis...
Libertarians still believes in in property laws (because they would prefer to keep their riches). Those libertarians that own patents or copyrights probably find reasons for imaginary property as well...
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:00 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I support a ruleset for property (the Hoppean one) just as much as you do. The difference between me and people who believe in the magical institution is rather that I just don't make magical exceptions to the rules of property.
Of course, the rules of property cannot apply to things that aren't property. That's how you get the monstrous boondoggle that is the contemporary intellectual poverty situation.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 18:10 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Duh. The good old one "I've got mine, now GTFO!" variant of libertarianism.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:21 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Ah, so your goal here is to mock, minimize, defame, straw man, and discredit ideas that you disagree with.
OK, no more attention for you. Good bye.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:35 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Sure. If the ideas had any grounding in reality then they'd be worth discussing. As it is, they are mostly childish dreams of those who read too much Ayn Rand.
In particular, the "real money" streak of this madness is the most virulent one. It sounds so nice (hey, gold is real!) but in reality is nothing more than physiocracy in modern clothes.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:48 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> childish dreams
> If the ideas had any grounding in reality
> "real money" streak of this madness is the most virulent on
> is nothing more than physiocracy
To everyone else:
You are witnessing the standard emotional defenses of a person so terrified of an idea, that he must discredit it at all cost (including human reason). I wish I could address them and calm this person down, but fear is just more powerful than reason.
I do have a question for the rest of you: Do you see the parallels of how he behaved here, and what Microsoft apologists did when Linux was the up-and-coming threat?
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:31 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Yeah. I know what happens when there's no government - it's called Somalia. It happens _invariably_, with no variations throughout the history of the world. It's also the reason why revolutions tend to lead power-hungry dictators to power instead of "the people".
And most of all, I utterly despise libertarians. They are beneath contempt. They profess that they don't like "intangible" stuff like fiat currency or government. But at the same time they are professing their belief in intangible "property rights" and very much want government to protect THEM.
At least, survivo-anarchists are honest. They admit that there are no "rights", there's only brute strength so strong can grab whatever they can defend (with guns).
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:54 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> And most of all, I utterly despise libertarians. They are beneath contempt.
See, guys, what I said about Cyberax and his anger? Was I mistaken or was I spot-on? Do you think that a productive conversation can be had with such an angry individual?
:-)
(The funniest thing is I'm not even a libertarian, bahahaa!)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:44 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Yeah, I am angry. Care to address any of my arguments?
In particular, why should "property rights" be treated different from anything else? What makes them so precious that you want them to be enforced, by government?
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 18:46 UTC (Wed) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Nope. You are a bully and a troll who has verbally abused several people here. Your craving for attention towards your non arguments won't be sated by me
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 11:30 UTC (Wed) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]
>Do you think that a productive conversation can be had with such an angry individual?
You don't have a choice - either you engage in the discussion, or you're provoking another poster for the fun of it. This is an ad-hominem attack - you're playing the person and not the debate - I call that trolling.
When it comes to it, your post which spawns this discussion says that we have to do something by definition it *can't* do: overcome the system. There's a legacy structure in place which we can't remove - our physical bodies, the laws of thermodynamics and a wealth system which motivates people to do work against the laws of thermodynamics (arranging a bit of temporary order in the chaos) on threat of depriving or harming your physical body. If you can come up with a way past that, I'll happily sublime into a state as an energy being with you.
So it's not about bringing down the government, or the monied people, or the entrenched system-as-it-is. We have to get people together to take apart and rebuild the system-as-it-is into the system-as-it-will-be. That's what Richard advocates, and why he's right and you're wrong.
K3n.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 18:59 UTC (Wed) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
You present a false choice. I do have the choice of pointing out verbal abuse and manipulation WHILE choosing not to engage the bully. Contrary to your implicit claim that I am "provoking" this provocateur, that is what I just chose to do. You may not like it and you may feel that I somehow have a duty to submit myself to more bullying, but that is the beauty of reality -- you don't get to choose what I will do.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 20:09 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
I thought the main difference between anarchism and libertarianism was that the libertarians were sell-outs who were cool with statist government.
Private property is a different matter altogether. There are plenty of anarchists who believe in strong private property rights. Anarchism is a very large tent. The one thread that binds them is a desire for non-physically-coercive legal structures for nonviolent behavior**. In practical terms that means no prison for civil violations of the local law. Everything else is basically up for grabs, including the meaning of "law".
** I would think, actually, that preservation of a private property right naturally follows from almost any anarchist school of thought.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:49 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Fully agreed.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 13:44 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
OK, so... if a special exceptional group of people don't have the magical superpower to pass laws to ban, e.g. murder, assault, and fraud, who would you propose do it? I might point out that private police services and private fire services have both been tried in the past. They are universally disastrous because of conflicts of interest that are obvious to anyone who thinks about the problem for five minutes.
(I also happen to like the whole 'democratic accountability' idea, also not present in private organizations, and also the extra services my government provides me which are not related to keeping warlords from taking over. Those services saved my life repeatedly, after all.)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 14:58 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I don't want to make this a political discussion more than it already is (RMS started it, hehe). But in the spirit of solving your question:
There is no need to fear the lack of belief in the magical group of people for whom up is down, violence is ethical, and rules are the opposite of the rest of us.
Security, law enforcement, transportation, education, individual reputation management, and the ten thousand other services currently monopolized by this magical group of people, are just services. There is nothing magical or special about them except for the "we say so" that the monopoly constantly spews. It's just people doing stuff.
Accordingly, if they are necessary, private actors can and will provide them in a decentralized fashion. All these services existed way before this magical group of people monopolized them under threat of punishment, and will continue to exist after people have ceased believing in their pretend superpower.
The rumors that these services can't be provided except by this magical little group of privileged people are incorrect -- in my direct experience, reality is the exact opposite of that, and the "failures" of these services are in fact sabotage (intended or otherwise) that politicians cause so these scum can sweep in as "saviors" and provide an inferior alternative.
Exempli gratia: I am from a Third World country where private police (hired as neighborhood guards) was accessible even to the poorest of the poorest living with $2 a day, and I can tell you right away that when these services were neutered politically (by a firearms ban imposed on these neighborhood guards), crime multiplied by 3 in as little as a week. 3X the number of robberies, 3X the number of burglaries, 3X the number of murders.
As for "what about the poor": ask yourself what about the poor in today's system where belief in this magical institution is at an all-time-high. They're padding prison rosters, they're unemployed, they're hopelessly dependent in the "favors" (political bribes) paid with other people's efforts by this magical institution. The institution does not care, and never will care, about the poor, for the same reason they don't care about free culture either -- they only care about public relations stunts, because they are power-hungry sociopaths. Groveling to sociopaths has never worked.
That's what I wish Richard understood.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:32 UTC (Tue) by jackb (subscriber, #41909) [Link] There is no need to fear the lack of belief in the magical group of people for whom up is down, violence is ethical, and rules are the opposite of the rest of us.When I ask me about voting I usually tell them that as an atheist I accept the fact that prayer doesn't work, but most of them don't see the connection.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:41 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I can sympathize with that because I've experienced the same thing.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 16:52 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Accordingly, if they are necessary, private actors can and will provide them in a decentralized fashion. All these services existed way before this magical group of people monopolized them under threat of punishment, and will continue to exist after people have ceased believing in their pretend superpower.As I said, the lesson of history is that this is untrue. No service for which provision to one person cannot be withdrawn without hurting the whole is usefully privatizable. Private fire services are a particularly bad example: the line between 'pay and we stop your house burning down' and 'pay and we stop your house burning down only if you're lucky enough to have a neighbour that pays too' is fine. Worse, it tended to rapidly evolve into 'do not pay and we quietly burn your house down, and use the unspoken threat of this to drum up new business'. Healthcare, in particular immunization and infectious disease control, is another similar example. Regarding your specific example, security guards are not equivalent to private police, even if they call themselves that: they are a workaround for the absence of an effective police service, more a firewall to keep the criminals out of your particular area than a means to actually prevent the criminals from committing crimes. (True private police can work, but conflicts of interest are avoided only if they are implemented via subscription from their entire force area. Since this is effectively identical to a tax I can't see a meaningful distinction between this and a system provided by a government, except that if your government is hopelessly incompetent this can provide an island of competence. The right long-term solution there is to make your government less hopelessly incompetent.)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:24 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> As I said, the lesson of history is that this is untrue.
No, sorry, you're incorrect about this. I can understand that your government has fed you this story of "everything was chaos until we monopolized all this stuff", but it's a lie.
I don't want to continue having this conversation here because it's off-topic now. If you are curious, you are invited to post to the /r/Anarcho_Capitalism or /r/AgainstAllArchons subreddits at reddit.com. There are thousands of people there qualified to answer in detail how the whole government belief system -- including the alleged "impossibility" of providing basic services without belief in government -- is a lie, complete with historical examples.
I hope you'll turn up. Have a nice day! :-)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:42 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] You must have taken the red pill, or at least it must have looked red. If this response seems condescending, reconsider the parent.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 19:03 UTC (Wed) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I took the red pill a long time ago. Side effects include being verbally abused, shamed, insulted, mischaracterized, told to shut up, provoked and otherwise manipulated by blue-pillers. For a sample, look at the responses I have gotten here. I did become a patient person and a good judge of character as a result.
Have a nice day! :-)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 8, 2012 11:21 UTC (Thu) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] You have the hallmarks of a convert; you are willing to explain things to other people, but you already know you are in possession of the truth. Most people here have strong opinions, but are still able to recognise them for opinions, not for the truth. If you stated your case as an opinion it would garner more sympathy. You write about the responses you have gotten, but you've certainly dished out as much as you've been given. There is a fine line between defending a point of view and preaching, and you've firmly crossed it. If you think other people are deluded, then there is no point in discussion. Just leave it at you're deluded.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 13:52 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
What, you think I should spend my time in a virtual room with a whole *bunch* of people whose response to arguments of the form "we tried this hundreds of years ago, and it didn't work" is "you're incorrect"? That's not terribly tempting.
Give us laws Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:08 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] That is a brilliant way of putting it. I am reminded of the time when Heraclitus was asked by his fellow Ephesians to give them laws; his reply was in character.The Ephesians deserve, man for man, to be hung, and the youth to leave the city, inasmuch as they have banished Hermodorus, the worthiest man among them, saying: "Let no one of us excel, and if there be any such, let him go elsewhere and among other people."It is worth noting, although completely off-topic, that the biggest peril for ancient democracies were not foreign invaders, but exceptional men -- that is why the Athenians exiled most of their great men at some time or another (including Pericles), and why Julius Cesar was such a perilous man that he had to be murdered. In modern times Napoleon or Hitler are great examples of the same phenomenon. That is why I am not angry anymore when mediocre men get to lead the government. Modern democracy is such a chore to rulers that most of them get weary after a time, and that is such a good thing.
Give us laws Posted Nov 10, 2012 16:10 UTC (Sat) by gek (subscriber, #18143) [Link] > [...] that is why the Athenians exiled most of their great men> at some time or another (including Pericles) [...] To my knowledge, Pericles was never exiled. Maybe you meant Themistocles or even Aristides?
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 5:58 UTC (Tue) by shentino (subscriber, #76459) [Link]
Hate to break it to you, but the government IS the problem.
I don't care if the lobbyists are the ones doing the corrupting.
The feds willingly cooperate, and as the ones with the actual power they hold the responsibility not to let their power be usurped by corporate pressure.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 6:23 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Agreed.
I told Richard personally that the government is the problem, and that he should consider to simply stop believing that he can get government to do anything for him. I told him this a few months ago in SF while having dinner with him, my girlfriend, and two other fairly cool guys. I tried to engage him about finding non-state solutions to the problems that his movements face.
He stopped me cold, "Not gonna happen. I have a pro-state gland."
I didn't pursue the matter further, but it seems to me that his pro-state isn't a gland... it's a cancer.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 12:34 UTC (Tue) by mhw (guest, #13931) [Link] RMS understands something that you and other Libertarians do not: the government is not the only danger to individual liberty. Corporations are also a very grave threat. This is probably why you were asked whether you were an anarchist or a Libertarian. Anarchists are against all forms of coercion, whereas Libertarians focus all of their ire on the government. I have no love of governments, but if you eliminate them you will have dismantled the last remaining constraint on corporations running the whole society. If you think that would be better, you are a fool. Government is at least accountable to the people in principle. Corporations have no accountability to anyone except their shareholders, and they are driven to maximize profits and minimize costs regardless of the consequences to anyone else. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine how much freedom that would leave to those of us who are part of their labor force.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:09 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> RMS understands something that you and other Libertarians do not: the government is not the only danger to individual liberty.
Suggestion: if you wish to engage others constructively, don't tell them what they do or don't understand. As it happens, I understand the dynamics of that particular problem very well.
> Corporations are also a very grave threat.
Corporations, as contemporarily understood, are universally and always government-created institutions. If you hate corporations, you must necessarily hate government, because all the magical privileges that corporations have over you and allow them to control you, are granted (and are only possible) because of government actions and threats against you.
Maybe in a society free of the belief in the magical institution, corporations would be different. They would obviously not have the magical privileges bestowed upon them by the magical institution. But today, they do.
> Corporations have no accountability to anyone except their shareholders,
And who do you think codified this destructive and anti-social reality into law?
Corporations? Their executives? Their employees?
Or the people we call "government"?
See why I am not a fan of this magical institution?
---------------------------
> Anarchists are against all forms of coercion, whereas Libertarians focus all of their ire on the government.
Good news: I'm against all forms of coercion -- private, corporate and political. I understand that the origin of the corporate aggression is political, and I understand that the origin of politics is the magical belief that a few people ought to have the power to invent rules and then punish everyone who disobeys them (such as, for example, corporate law).
That is why I have ceased to believe in such an irrational and destructive magical superpower.
--------------------------
NB: I would say "everything goes back to government". While it sounds tempting, and a very simple theory, that wouldn't be true, given my fairly recent discoveries. I now think everything goes back to child abuse by authority figures -- that is the key element that teaches children "you are not an autonomous individual, the authorities who can punish you are always right, never challenge them, or there will be consequences". This is *exactly* the belief exploited by people who believe in the magical institution (who position themselves as this authority).
I think talking about that is far more fascinating than talking about politics, because it is the original cause for all politics. Once we get rid of destructive parenting and education, the need for politics will vanish.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:56 UTC (Tue) by mhw (guest, #13931) [Link]
That's simply false. If government did not exist, corporations would be able to obtain the privileges they desire by brute force, and control the people much more effectively than they do now. All of the services that government currently provides to them (e.g. police protection, the military, coercion of their labor force) would move to the private sector. Unlike the current arrangement where these services are monopolized by an institution that is at least in theory accountable to the people and somewhat constrained by our political system, without the government these private services would have no respect for human rights and seek primarily to maximize their profits. Corporations and billionaires don't need the government. The rest of us do. If we can replace the services that government provides to us with decentralized alternatives that actually work to our benefit and respect human rights, that sounds great (though the devil is always in the details), but that job has to be done first, before you loudly advocate dismantling the only semi-democratic institution we have left that's strong enough to constrain the power of corporations.
The rich guy Posted Nov 6, 2012 19:22 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Instead of corporations, we used to have "the rich owner of the village" who hired thugs to intimidate everyone else. I will take a government I can safely distrust every time.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:39 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> If government did not exist, corporations would be able to obtain the privileges they desire by brute force
This is illogical.
(1) Corporations already don't exist today (ask a lawyer and the answer will contain the words "legal fiction").
(2) When the people that enforce the legal fiction lose all power to enforce the fiction (which happens when people stop believing that they are entitled to using force), obviously all the privileges that a "corporation" grants on certain people just vanish instantly.
If what you meant is that Apple and Microsoft employees and executives will suddenly turn into a Mad Max with Motorcycles Roving Band of Marauders, then that would be a different argument that has nothing to do with corporations.
For starters such a group of vandals would not be a corporation in any sense of the word, rather it would be just a gang. So you're still incorrect and your criticism just doesn't apply anymore.
More importantly, though, I've fielded literally thousands of arguments from catastrophe like yours, and they're just FUD. So I'm going to save myself some time and ignore it.
Seriously: You're proposing that people working for corporations will somehow turn into gangs if everyone ceases believing in Government. That is as ridiculous as proposing that regular peaceful human beings suddenly if everyone ceases believing in God. I can laugh at such preposterous what-if scenarios, but you can't expect me to take such scaremongering seriously.
-------------------------------
I use this argument as a basic logic test, a yardstick, that allows me to separate people who can logically deduce valid conclusions from a set of propositions, from people who cannot. You didn't fare very well. I'm sorry to say, but I have zero faith that you will be persuaded by logic. Since rational arguments are all I have to offer, I will stop here and focus my efforts on solving other people's questions. There are other people out there who don't have the "what if everyone turns into Mad Max" FUD cocked and ready to fire.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:40 UTC (Tue) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
>I use this argument as a basic logic test, a yardstick, that allows me to separate people who can logically deduce valid conclusions from a set of propositions, from people who cannot. You didn't fare very well. I'm sorry to say, but I have zero faith that you will be persuaded by logic.
Please stop this nonsense. It is one thing to claim to be a "libertarian" while misrepresenting libertarian beliefs and being a boor, since that label doesn't mean much (nor does it mean anything relevant to LWN.net). But you can't claim to be "logical" or "reasonable".
Logic and reason are intimately related to computing and software development, and many people here are experts in these fields. Even if your off-topic trolling were logical or reasonable, it would be offensive to accuse anyone here of being illogical. Especially people who are spending their own time and energy replying to your drivel, just to clean up the mess you are making in LWN's comment history.
-plonk-
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 18:32 UTC (Wed) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
People are perfectly capable of simultaneously being rational in one subject (programming) and highly irrational in others (superstitions like religion or your statism).
I can tell you are experiencing that localized irrationality because your name calling, engaging yourself in behaviors you just criticized, and discrediting, seem to be your preferred mode of "argumentation" when the topic of statist superstition is touched. Not very logical or reasonable, if you ask me.
That's fine -- I don't need to persuade you, nor do I care if stating facts or observations offends you. But you do seem to want to manipulate me into shutting up or experiencing shame. Learn to deal.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 8, 2012 2:01 UTC (Thu) by ajf (subscriber, #10844) [Link] If you hate corporations, you must necessarily hate governmentHere we observe the logical fallacy that underpins your entire belief system.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:17 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Just one more thing:
Groveling the state to end corporations or reform corporations is *never going to work*. The state is the entity that made corporations powerful, privileged, malevolent and sociopathic institutions to begin with.
Groveling the state to end intellectual poverty or reform intellectual poverty is *never going to work*. The state is the entity that made intellectual poverty a tool that corporations use to oppress and abuse you and me.
RMS believes that the "government" can "protect" you and me from these abuses and abusers; he is categorically wrong. Richard is trying to appeal to *the very group of people* who facilitates these abuses. How an otherwise brilliant man like Richard can't get this... frankly escapes me and makes me feel very, very sad. More importantly: His belief in this magical institution as benevolent protector displaces any potential attempts to invent better, more subversive, non-statist solutions to state-created problems. You know, like the GPL once was -- successfully subverting the copyright abuse created by this magical group.
The first step to get rid of the mafia isn't to grovel to them so they stop collecting protection money. It is to stop believing that this money goes into "protecting" anyone but themselves at all.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 17:06 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Groveling the state to end corporations or reform corporations is *never going to work*. The state is the entity that made corporations powerful, privileged, malevolent and sociopathic institutions to begin with.You're not aware of the existence of anti-trust laws? Reform happens, at intervals. The anti-trust laws in the US and UK are the result of the last big reform effort (or, depending on how you count, the last but one).
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:52 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I'm aware of these magical papers written to allegedly "reform" the existing magical papers. It usually backfires. If you go study antitrust, you'll discover that these magical papers were written to destroy businesses that were doing very well, in order to favor the losers who couldn't compete. And these papers were sold to the public using blatant lies. That is, what you're quoting is nothing but the product of political bribery and corruption defended with lies. IOW, standard statist M.O.
And I just don't have it in me to care about the statist mythology anymore.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 18:01 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
> Groveling the state to end corporations or reform corporations is *never going to work*. The state is the entity that made corporations powerful, privileged, malevolent and sociopathic institutions to begin with.
And abolishing the state would make corporations donate all their money to charities and start producing rainbows and pink unicorns?
Or may be it would allow corporations to hire militia and instead start murdering people they don't want to live?
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:44 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
No and no.
I know you have an existential fear of "what will happen if everyone stops believing in government". I know the source of this existential fear, because I also went to school and I also was told to fear the same thing.
Fact is, it is great business to tell people "if you don't believe in us, people will rape and rob you and your daughter". Especially to children, since they are too young to be able to rationally contest the lies.
If you want to have a serious conversation: you need to (1) set your fears aside, as they will prevent you from rationally deducing valid conclusions (2) set aside your impulse to discredit new ideas (which is obvious in your use of sarcasm).
Now: do you want to have a serious conversation or not? http://imgur.com/DEhIC
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:51 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
Please stop wasting our time and go live someplace else where you can try what you are advocating for a few years.
go find some island (or oil rig), declare it a separate country and try living by your ideals.
Until then, please stop wasting our time.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:29 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> Please stop wasting our time
If you think I am wasting your time, close the browser window instead of blaming me for your emotions.
I am not really wasting your time, though -- you are deliberately choosing to engage me because of some sort of rage (I assume, from my experience, that you're terrified of my ideas, so your response is rage). The only one wasting his time is you.
---------------------------
> and go live someplace else where you can try what you are advocating for a few years. [...] go find some island (or oil rig), declare it a separate country and try living by your ideals.
Umm, no thanks.
-----------------------------------
> Until then, please stop wasting our time.
Sorry, but you're going to have to learn to deal with me sticking around. To cope better, I suggest you first stop manipulating other people with the "you're wasting my time" meme, because it's a lie.
Or you can continue raging. Or you can go away.
Your problem, not mine.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:40 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
you are wasting my time in that I have to read enough of the post to figure out it's topic so that I can ignore the rest of it.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:49 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I reiterate: your problem, not mine. If my existence pisses you off, go beat up your wife/children or do some other similar statist activity to deal with your emotions.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:54 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
This is just not a "polite, respectful, and informative" comment. Whether you like it or not, the thread has strayed *far* from the topic, which inevitably leads folks to get irritated.
So, please (both of you and anyone else thinking of getting involved) just drop it here. The insults, anger, *and* off-topic posts are all unwelcome.
thanks,
jake
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:07 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Nah. If you want peace and quiet in your site, then go tell the other guy who is hurling verbal abuse and acting out. I'm not guilty of anything you're accusing me by lumping me with this angry person.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 14:00 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Um, wow. That's the single most unjustifiably entitled response to an editor's request to stop talking that I have ever seen on LWN. Hint: you just suggested, in the grandparent of this post I'm replying to, that your interlocutor "go beat up your wife/children" and implied that this was something that an opponent of your views would naturally consider, and you have the temerity to claim that this is not impolite, disrespectful and/or uninformative?
I don't know who's coming out best in this subthread -- but I know who's coming out worst. When in hole, stop digging. (And in my experience, on thi site, when an editor tells you to stop, they are right.)
I'm stopping now.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 19:12 UTC (Wed) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I think I am entitled not to be verbally abused and misrepresented by stranger assholes on a forum I enjoy, whenever I am participating in it. I also think I am entitled to respond accordingly when said abusive asshole continues on a pattern of abuse against me and demanding belligerently that I shut up. I am also entitled to tell the moderator of the site that I don't agree with his siding with bullies against me.
This is, contrary to what you seem to think, not only perfectly reasonable but also healthy. And you might try and shame me with your "you're coming out worst" quip, but you mistake me for someone who cares about being shamed.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 14:10 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>I reiterate: your problem, not mine. If my existence pisses you off, go beat up your wife/children or do some other similar statist activity to deal with your emotions.
From your posts in this thread, it is apparent that you are suffering from paranoid psychosis, and you need to seek professional psychological help.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 18:54 UTC (Wed) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Ah, the "you're crazy" card. All superstitious people resort to it at some point to try and shame anyone who questions their superstitions.
The LWN readership has quite a lot of rational people, but I never knew that hiding among this readership was such a small but dedicated gang of verbal abusers dedicated to manipulate and bully into silence anyone who presents new and "scary" ideas.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 8, 2012 12:13 UTC (Thu) by sdalley (subscriber, #18550) [Link]
How cleverly you defend yourself against what would actually help you.
Seriously, get yourself a psychological check-up from a competent professional. It can't hurt, and will quite likely help. If you want to be helped, that is.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 8:58 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Some people don't want to close the browser window, they want to continue enjoying this fine site. Your comments are crap-flooding the Comments/unread page.
LWN does have a kill-file feature, but it's only available to subscribers.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:53 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Oh, wait, I didn't notice it before: you're the guy who also used mockery, defamation, discrediting, minimization and other manipulative tactics with me earlier.
I rescind the offer to talk about the topic with you. Good bye.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:23 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Oh, one more thing, I promise, the last one :-)
Don't "hate" government. Don't "hate" corporations. It gets you nowhere but to ulcer central.
Just stop *believing* in them.
Start seeing their members as just *people doing things*, who just *happen* to believe that the use of certain forms of threats and violence against certain groups of people, will solve social problems, and they believe that they are entitled and righteous to inflict that violence.
Just try to analyze social dynamics from that perspective.
That's when you'll get how destructive, how malevolent, how one-sided, how inconsistent these beliefs are.
--------------------------
Dumbo only flew when he believed in the power of the magical feather... until he didn't need to believe in the feather at all. Flying was within him.
Flying is within you too.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 1:25 UTC (Wed) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
These terms "government" and "corporation" obscure the issues. "Public" and "private" are even worse. Public used to mean an institution directly benefiting from the statist's government ability to use physically coercive force, but most "public" institutions no longer have this characteristic, particularly after Roosevelt's New Deal. And in any anarchist frame of reference, that option doesn't exist so there's no public/private dichotomy we could recognize from grade school civics class.
Any anarchist system has a government (or a plurality of governments, not unlike advanced societies today), as in some organized form of decision making and dispute resolution which derives its legitimacy from its participants, who in turn feel bound (for whatever sociological or psychological reason) to honor its judgments with some significant degree of conviction. Likewise, conceptually, an anarchist collective is almost identical to a corporation, and don't think that this similarity didn't cross the mind of Justice Kennedy when he penned the Citizens United decision. (The opinion was bad because ideology should never trump facts.)
RMS seems to have understood the necessity of using more exacting terminology, to both reason logically as well as to effectively communicate non-intuitive ideas. "Intellectual property" was once a simplistic abstraction, with unobjectionable usage you can trace back to the 17th century. Today it's irreconcilably tainted by a narrow political perspective on the role of government in commerce.
Public, private, government, anarchy... these words are likewise no longer useful. Today they're merely euphemisms for different views and opinions. The world has outgrown their utility, and we should just stop using them.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 12:05 UTC (Wed) by jpnp (subscriber, #63341) [Link]
You feel free to believe in your magic feather, I believe in gravity. Doesn't seem the strongest analogy to pick to me.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 7:36 UTC (Tue) by cjwatson (subscriber, #7322) [Link]
Regardless of his reasons, working within the system amounts to a pragmatic position, and Richard has achieved a great deal of good over the course of his career with this position. I doubt he'd have managed that if he'd allowed himself to be distracted into trying to overthrow the government or whatever.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:47 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I respectfully beg to differ.
The only achievement of Richard's that we can consider unarguable success is the GNU GPL. And that is only because he artfully created a document that uses copyright against itself. I'm sure you disagree, but I would call that *working outside the system*.
All of his other initiatives -- which essentially are the standard "petition your corruptman for less corruption" -- are more or less rid with tumbleweeds, 100% futile, and the bad laws he decries are still in effect.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 9:25 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] applying rules of property to non-property (intangibles) is illogical and obviously produces irrational, malevolent, and unintended resultsReally? What do you think money is? There are tangible pieces of paper around, but the bulk of it (more than 90% in any civilized country) is just numbers on some computer -- previously scribbles on pieces of paper. Do you think intangible money should be abolished too? Then why should the special marks in government-printed money be so special? So should we abolish all currencies? Exchanging physical goods was not a good system, I tell you. Rights of way, land and everything else would not last much, leaving us with just those physical goods we can carry around in our hands. When there is a problem, the easy way out is always to blame government, society, or any other humongous institution and yearn for life in the woods when we were happy. Guess what? We were not that happy. Countries without effective government are usually run by armed militias; civilized countries have strong governments that provide lots of services to their citizens. Yes, there are stupid and ridiculous laws too, but as a whole they tend to last less than good laws. The hard way out is to think about how to improve the situation, not losing the benefits of government, currency and society in general in the process. Richard is a great thinker in our time, and he has probably thought long about the patent problem. He has considered all possible quick ways out, and disregarded them. In the end his solution applies its weight right where it is needed: when distributing software. Let hardware makers fight their way out of the thickets they have built; but software distributors should be free to do their jobs without any possible retribution. This is more or less the situation now, but having an official declaration to this effect. would be great for our industry. I say, let us go for it!
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 10:17 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] What do you think money is? There are two types of money. I think you are mixing two different issues:
Think land ownership: what can be more tangible than piece of land? Yet when you "own" it in reality you have only intangible piece of paper (or even some numbers in some register somewhere without any paper whatsoever). As long as your paper is backed by something real (land, coal, whatever) everything is fine (historically money were backed with gold). When US declared default money stopped being coupons for tangible goods and become just numbers on some computer. This happened many times in the history of world (well, computers are new, "just some numbers" are not) and the end result is always the same. Do you think intangible money should be abolished too? It does not matter what I think. The "hallucinogen money" will be abolished. The question is not if, but when and how. Then why should the special marks in government-printed money be so special? Oh, that. The only difference: the mighty army is still ready to receive them and in turn is ready to punish anyone who does not like to receive them. As long as that's the case they'll stay more viable than an alternatives. So should we abolish all currencies? Why? There are thousands of more tangible replacements waiting in the wings. Of course till inevitable collapse of the currency (printed by private institution BTW) these replacement can not start actively spreading, but when that happens some of them will win. Of course there people who try to replace "hallucinogen money" with absolute unsubstantial money, but I doubt these will last long (again: it was tried many times in the history of world and such abominations typically last for a few years, often much less then year).
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 13:21 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I don't usually read your messages, but this time I am going to answer once, out of concern for any confused minds that may be misled by your post. And I will do it using your favorite phrase: sorry but no.The Gold Standard is not the answer to anything. Neither is it a way to give money a tangible reality: the fact that one dollar or one euro can be exchanged for a (variable) amount of gold, should someone ever go to a Central Bank and request it, doesn't change the abstract nature of currencies. The value of things in tender can be matched to a certain amount of gold, but given that this amount fluctuates it is not any more tangible than a non-standard currency. Money is an abstract concept, such as beauty or kindness. The most important difference is that it can be quantified, and so is similar to other abstract notions such as height or temperature. It is also the base for a pyramid of concepts with an increasing degree of abstraction: accounts, bonds, insurance, stocks, derivatives and so on. That is how human societies build ideas; sometimes one of these concepts is seen as prejudicial and is regulated, such as the derivatives market, but they cannot be banned by decree. Not in a modern society. Trying to abolish intangible property (which was grandparent's original point) leads inevitably to abolishing currency and anything more abstract than exchanging physical goods one for one, even if one of these goods is actually a small amount of gold. Such slippery slope would be as fruitful to our software patent issue as trying to abolish temperature measurements to stop global heating.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 13:58 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
The funny thing about trying to replace paper money with gold is that the value of gold is actually just as intangible as the value of the printed paper. Intrinsically gold is quite worthless. You cannot eat it. It is a poor building material because it's so soft. Some properties make it a good choice in special cases like in electronics. But these use cases are in no relation at all to the value we assign to gold. One can argue that gold is pretty much as abstract a currency as the pure numbers in use today.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 14:16 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The funny thing about trying to replace paper money with gold is that the value of gold is actually just as intangible as the value of the printed paper. It's not the question of replacement of printed money with non-printed money. This is about replacement of "hallucinogen money" which are just numbers on some computer (which invariably leads to "irrational, malevolent, and unintended results") with something backed by tangible (which can be used as property even if indirectly). Some properties make it a good choice in special cases like in electronics. And some other properties return it back to forefront when yet-another-pyramid of paper money inevitably collapses. In reality gold has only three properties which are important in this case:
That's why after 1001th collapse of hallucinogen money people usually return back to gold.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:34 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Hahaha "hallucinogen money"! I think that's spot-on. I'm going to steal that phrase. Bankers and politicians are a smart bunch: they got people to call green pieces of paper "money", and to call precious metals "funny money". It takes a smart group of people to get people to hallucinate in that way.
In any case, I'll plug Bitcoin here. While not a store of value like gold, it's at least non-inflationary and it's more convenient for trade than walking around with gold is. As a complement for precious metals and commodities, it certainly has a place in my mind.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 16:59 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Look up the disastrous economic history of Spain after the conquistadors sent their spoils back from South America before you call gold 'non-inflationary'. Gold is just as inflationary, or deflationary, as any other value store -- it is merely that the money supply is controlled by miners (or, in that case, conquerors), rather than central banks. If miners and conquerors had any interest in controlling the stability of the economy, I'd be happier with this. They don't.
The point of money is to substitute for other things in transactions. It is those other things that are the real store of value in any society, and their value is *intrinsically* precisely what humans attach to it. Value is always, necessarily, a human social construct (unless we discover intelligent aliens or build strong AIs). Gold is not magical: its value is also a social construct, but a less conveniently controllable one.
If you think your governments are so corrupt that they cannot be trusted to reliably maintain a stable money supply, then gold (or some other hard-to-control store of exchange value) is preferable to fiat money. Otherwise, fiat money is preferable. In developed countries at present, the latter is very definitely absolutely the case: most of them have independent central banks whose entire raison d'etre is to keep the economy ticking over. (These are the very same independent entities, like the Federal Reserve, that gold bugs like you are constantly damning. Economic cluelessness of stunning magnitude, IMNSHO. The problem with the Fed is not that it is too independent: it's that it is not independent *enough*.)
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 19:13 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Not to speak about the dangers of having the economy artificially limited by some external factor. US commitment (and Britain's return) to the gold standard did not help the Great depression; it helped fuel the world crisis by an artificial shortage of circulating money. Deflation and a stagnant economy for a decade were the consequences.Every time that a bank lends money, in effect it is creating money: as long as the bank is not forced to keep reserves that balance the loan, this "new money" will circulate and fuel the economy. There are some marginal economists (e.g. our own Huerta de Soto) that call for a 100% reserve for every loan; it is another variant of the "let us go back to the gold standard olden days" fallacy. Such a measure would almost certainly lead to a credit crunch of monstruous proportions and paralyze the economy immediately and for centuries. In fact, I sometimes think that the reason why Arab countries fell behind Europe in the 15th century, after having lead the world for a millenium, is that the Quram forbids lending money at interest; while Venetian lenders were inventing modern banking. But I digress...
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 19:37 UTC (Tue) by fsateler (subscriber, #65497) [Link] I am not familiar with Huerta de Soto's work, but full reserve backing has nothing to do with the gold standard or hard money delusions (despite the fact that austrian economists are strong proponents of both ideas). The idea behind full reserve banking is to prevent private money creation, which is inherently unstable. During a boom, private lenders will increase the money supply, and during recessions they contract it. Full reserve backing would seriously reduce this instability. Also, a recession (or even depression) after implementing full reserve banking need not be true.See the recent IMF paper on the so called Chicago Plan.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:12 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Sure, full reserve backing (thanks for supplying the correct term) and the gold standard are completely different. They are both however supposed to be solutions to economic instability and cyclic crises; supported by the same people; supposed to be a return to a golden age where they were common; and are both fringe theories widely discredited by the mainstream. Huerta de Soto even has a transition plan from the current situation to a 100% reserve backing with gold standard. Oh, and both policies would benefit rich people: those with the gold and who don't need loans. That is where the (no doubt entirely coincidental) similarities end.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:31 UTC (Tue) by fsateler (subscriber, #65497) [Link]
Well, some people support both, but other people support just the reserve requirements.
Full reserve banking has rarely been implemented, so I doubt it is a return to a golden age where they were common. It also can be argued that the ability to create money induces wealth appropriation by the rich (see the paper I linked). Finally, many Chicago economists (and apparently some economists in the IMF too) believe full reserve banking is a worthwhile idea, so it cannot be that far from the mainstream.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 19:20 UTC (Tue) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652) [Link]
Very true, even in Harry Potter precautions were in place to stop wizards from conjuring gold out of thin air. It seems even Voldemort left bankers independent enough, but again he did not need money.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:59 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Bankers will fuck you up forrealz if you attempt to compete with them.
Look at how Bernard von NotHaus was called a "terrorist" and put in a cage, just because he minted precious metal coins that were starting to catch on. If someone doesn't accept that was a kangaroo trial... I don't know what is and I assume that person also believes rape is a Gift from God.
You've crossed the line there, mate. Posted Nov 7, 2012 10:24 UTC (Wed) by sdalley (subscriber, #18550) [Link]
You've crossed the line there, mate.
You've crossed the line there, mate. Posted Nov 7, 2012 14:08 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
He's clearly a very angry man. It's a shame he can't channel that anger into something useful.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:55 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> Look up the disastrous economic history of Spain after the conquistadors sent their spoils back from South America before you call gold 'non-inflationary'. Gold is just as inflationary, or deflationary, as any other value store -- it is merely that the money supply is controlled by miners (or, in that case, conquerors), rather than central banks.
You'll get no argument from me here.
Still, it bears reminding that the price of gold in terms of commodities has remained quite stable over the centuries. NO other fiat currency has managed to do this feat. NONE.
In any case, while I do own some gold, my currency of choice is Bitcoin. It has none of the problems you cited, and I don't have a religious dogma that my money need have "intrinsic" value for it to be useful, so Bitcoin suits me.
The easy way out Posted Nov 7, 2012 12:13 UTC (Wed) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"my currency of choice is Bitcoin"
You MUST be kidding.
If a government like the US decided to destroy bitcoin it could do it tomorrow.
There are many ways someone with the resources of the US could wage economic war on bitcoin, the simplest just being to use the enormous computing and cryptanalysis capability they have to just destroy its value or make the market so volatile it's unusable.
The easy way out Posted Nov 7, 2012 21:17 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Actually, it won't work because the number of bitcoins is limited by design (with about 25% of total coins already minted).
However, bitcoin markets are slowly destroying themselves just fine - they are a prime example of a deflationary spiral and why it's not good for economy.
The easy way out Posted Nov 9, 2012 11:03 UTC (Fri) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
It'll absolutely work. The number may be limited by design, but someone with enough computing power could be the one to farm effectively *all* of them as they become available before anyone else gets the chance.
Or someone with enough computing power might cause bitcoin to ramp up their "work proof" hardness, to the point that normal people can't really compete.
And this is totally ignoring the possibility of finding any cryptographic flaws in the algorithms which could make fraud (or "theft" - don't know what you'd call it) easy.
The easy way out Posted Nov 9, 2012 15:42 UTC (Fri) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
> Or someone with enough computing power might cause bitcoin to ramp up their "work proof" hardness, to the point that normal people can't really compete.
The bitcoin network is currently doing roughly 25 trillion (10^12) hashes per second. It is the most powerful computing network in the world, so somebody would need to invest a -lot- of money, and a -lot- of power for a -lot- of time to muck with it in any meaningful way.
> And this is totally ignoring the possibility of finding any cryptographic flaws in the algorithms which could make fraud (or "theft" - don't know what you'd call it) easy.
This would be very bad -- and not just for bitcoin, but for everything using ECC.
The easy way out Posted Nov 11, 2012 1:15 UTC (Sun) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"This would be very bad -- and not just for bitcoin, but for everything using ECC."
Even with theoretically perfect cryptography algorithms it is *very* difficult to design the surrounding mechanisms in a way that is immune to attack.
I mean even SSL/TLS protocol designers and implementers don't get it 100% right.
The easy way out Posted Nov 9, 2012 17:57 UTC (Fri) by jackb (subscriber, #41909) [Link] Or someone with enough computing power might cause bitcoin to ramp up their "work proof" hardness, to the point that normal people can't really compete."Normal people" don't have any need to solve blocks. Ramping up the difficulty has no effect at all on most Bitcoin users.
The easy way out Posted Nov 11, 2012 1:16 UTC (Sun) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"Normal people" here meaning anyone who isn't the US (or, I suppose, Chinese) government.
The easy way out Posted Nov 7, 2012 14:18 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
And we're back on topic! (Vaguely. At least it's computing-related.)
Bitcoin is a bad idea, for one reason that has nothing to do with its bizarre hyper-deflationary properties or its pyramid-scheme-like massive privileging of early adopters (who, in a world where Bitcoin becomes successful, do their mining before the supply of currency chokes off and everyone has to start using fractional Bitcoins for everything, the opposite of what happens to early adopters in most currency schemes and an excellent reason for late adopters to be suspicious of it).
It's a bad idea simply because it is utterly dependent on networked computers run by individuals remaining secure: an attacker can trivially steal your keys, and all Bitcoins controlled by them, and as so often with computer security, they only have to be lucky once. Worse yet, unlike with many other consequences of successful system compromises, restoring from backup and fixing the holes won't help you: the money is gone into your attacker's pockets. That this has happened repeatedly, even to major Bitcoin exchanges, suggests that the scheme is unusable by anyone who cares about the security of their money until such time as computer security improves radically.
Bank systems are a similar target in the real world, but at least there they have a non-computer-security-dependent monetary system to depend upon, and have legal guarantees and the like to ensure that if you are defrauded or the bank collapses you will be reimbursed, at least to sufficient degree as not to pauperize you.
I am rather surprised that, post-2008, anyone would consider a non-governmental monetary system worth the risk. Haven't depositor guarantee schemes proved their worth in the last few years? It's not even useful if you want to hide your transactions from the government: it's *much* more trackable than real-world money, and is trackable forever, though tying accounts to humans may be hard.
The easy way out Posted Nov 7, 2012 15:46 UTC (Wed) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
> It's a bad idea simply because it is utterly dependent on networked computers run by individuals remaining secure: an attacker can trivially steal your keys, and all Bitcoins controlled by them, and as so often with computer security, they only have to be lucky once. Worse yet, unlike with many other consequences of successful system compromises, restoring from backup and fixing the holes won't help you: the money is gone into your attacker's pockets. That this has happened repeatedly, even to major Bitcoin exchanges, suggests that the scheme is unusable by anyone who cares about the security of their money until such time as computer security improves radically.
The major exchanges that this happened to, have indeed tightened up their security, and there hasn't been a major exchange theft in quite a while. There have been several fly-by-nights, but these have been the same sort of scams that have always existed. The security problem is here because people haven't figured out that they can treat bitcoin as a toy, or as a store of significant value, but -not- -both-, or they'll have a bad time.
The problems you list are still problems for real banks, who deal primarily in database currency. In fact, they have much, much more complexity to deal with because the problems that bitcoin solves cryptographically (transaction verification, double-spending) need to be solved by manual tracking and extensive audit trails. The difference is that the people responsible for bank security (at least in the backend) know what they're doing, while bitcoin security is implemented by hackers with too much free time, many of whom have no knowledge or interest in financial security.
(Eventually, I expect everyone will offload their security to some bank, and just walk around with a bitcoin debit card. So the world would look the same, just with a more efficient backing store.)
> I am rather surprised that, post-2008, anyone would consider a non-governmental monetary system worth the risk.
Interestingly, for many people, the 2008 crash is exactly why they would seek out a system in which the central bank's power is severely limited.
It's interesting that Bitcoin showed up in a thread about software patents, because regardless of your feelings on its politics or economics, it is a -highly- nonobvious and innovative system. But it is unemcumbered by patents, its inventor is unknown except to (maybe) one or two people, and yet it keeps trucking along happily. In fact, Bitcoin is routinely copied and modified in trivial ways, and the resulting systems collapse under their own weight because they do not have the developer power or first-mover advantage that Bitcoin does.
The easy way out Posted Nov 7, 2012 21:34 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
No, the problem is - you can't rob all money in a bank by changing a few numbers in its database. Once the bank discovers it, they'd simply ask the central bank (FRS, ECB, whatever) to roll back fraudulent transactions. That'd probably require quite a lot of phone calls, scrambling for audit trails, court orders - but it can be done.
A real life example - a couple years ago someone tried to do this trick with the Pension Fund of Russia. They've mounted a virus attack on PF's computing system, forcing it to be turned off. Then attackers used faked identity to impersonate a worker of Pension Fund to gain access to Russian Central Bank operations hall and used a forged paper payment order to transfer $30 millions to an account in a small private Russian bank. That payment went through successfully.
However, it was discovered the next morning. Payment was rolled back and police then easily tracked down the attackers.
With bitcoins once your money is stolen - that's it. You can't do anything at all. And even police won't help you, because chances are your attackers are in China or some other nice place with an unfriendly government.
The easy way out Posted Nov 7, 2012 22:15 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Not quite. Central banks are not universal transaction stores: they can't roll back arbitrary fraudulent transactions on demand, because they don't know about them. Generally, the fraudster gets away with frauds in the sense that the money is gone -- and too often gets away with it in the sense that the fraudster is never prosecuted -- and insurance, reimbursement schemes, or in extremis the taxpayer repays it or part of it (particularly if this is a massive thing affecting individual depositors). Fraudulent transactions in stock markets are rather different because the stock market *is* a transaction store, and there if detected early enough such transactions can be rolled back as you describe.
In the fraud you mention, the reason the central bank got involved was surely because they were acting as a clearinghouse in that instance, but they certainly do not in general. (Most ECB transactions are with central banks in member states: its recently-gained ability to recapitalize banks directly in extremis was extremely contentious.)
-- N., knew way too much about this stuff once and it was far too complicated to be believed, far more complicated than necessary. Now I work on dtrace which is ever so much simpler: all its complexity has a reason to exist, while banking complexity is mostly NIH and historical contingency :(
The easy way out Posted Nov 7, 2012 22:52 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
at the risk of continuing the offtopic discussion.
Most countries don't have a 'central bank' in the way that some people in this thread are talking about.
In the US, there is one entity that is allowed to create money, but all the banks do their own thing and interact with each other without involving this central entity, except in unusual situations. There is a Government entity that does audits of Banks to see if they are being run in what are considered 'sane' ways by the current policies (and a different Government entity that does audits of Credit Unions)
Backups and records that the other entities keep can do a lot to track down fraudulent transactions, but that is a matter of enlightend self interest (if an entity can't prove what happened, they are liable)
As for bitcoins maintaining a history of transactions forever, that seems to me like a very bad thing.
Imagine that a bitcoin that you get paid was used at some point in the past by a terrorist or druglord. The "asset forfeiture" laws say that governments (not just in the US) can grab any assets that they had. Now you can loose the bitcoin because it can be proved that it went through their hands X years and Y transactions ago.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:57 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> If you think your governments are so corrupt that they cannot be trusted to reliably maintain a stable money supply, then gold (or some other hard-to-control store of exchange value) is preferable to fiat money.
Well, since these institutions have caused the democide of a quarter billion human beings starved or murdered by people acting under the delusion of "governments", excluding wars, only in the 20th century...
... I am a bit wary of trusting them to "maintain a stable money supply".
It's understandable, right?
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:36 UTC (Tue) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link] The "numbers on some computer" mentioned above have nothing to do with the debate about fiat versus commodity money. Even if you have a gold-backed currency, the vast majority of the money going around will still just be "numbers on some computer" unless you also eliminate fractional reserve banking. (It'd be interesting to see the "google ron paul!" crowd take this up as a rallying cry. Down with checking accounts!)It does seem odd that you can be so certain you understand how money ought to work without even being familiar with the concept of money supply.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 17:03 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Quite. If you want a truly stable money supply you have to eliminate not just checking/current accounts, but savings accounts too (M2), and also money market funds (M3), and go on to ban *everything* potentially substitutable for money. I'm not sure you'd have an economy left after you did that. And if you don't do that, keeping the monetary base fixed has no effect on the economy as a whole other than to annoy everyone.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 17:57 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Here's a mental experiment for you. Imagine that the FRS instead of just putting money into database somewhere instead printed money certificates and then buried them in disused coal mines. Would that be any different from gold?
"Tangible" currency is an incredibly stupid idea, peddled be cretinous quacks of economics. The greatest achievement in economy (sadly ignored now) is that money in itself is a _tool_ that can be controlled.
The current Great Recession has shown time and time again that "hard money" approach just doesn't work. And trying to use it to make predictions fails miserably.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:11 UTC (Tue) by FranTaylor (guest, #80190) [Link]
WHAT A JOKE!
"turn to gold"
Yeah FOR THE KING'S RANSOM!!!!
For the COMMON EVERYDAY PERSON, gold is TOO FRAGILE.
The amount of gold necessary to purchase a meal or a pair of shoes is TINY TINY TINY
Do you REALLY ASSERT that ancient merchants pulled out their triple-beam balances when someone purchased some fresh fruit at the market?
The REAL currency is SPICES and FURS. MORE wars have been fought over SPICES and FURS than gold.
The easy way out Posted Nov 7, 2012 18:14 UTC (Wed) by mmeehan (subscriber, #72524) [Link]
fortune zippy
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 18:20 UTC (Tue) by tnoo (subscriber, #20427) [Link]
Well, not really. Gold that was mined is worth at least the costs of the mining operation. Also, it has technical and estetical value. The question rather is: why is gold mined? Most of this mined gold is put into underground tresors for protection, as if it wasn't safer inititially, spread out over huge volumes of rock.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 19:54 UTC (Tue) by fsateler (subscriber, #65497) [Link] Gold that was mined is worth at least the costs of the mining operation.Not true. Gold is worth what the gold market says it is worth. The costs of the mining operation only determine if the miner will make a profit or not. Worth and cost of production are very different things.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:48 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
If I build a 20km deep mine, expending a couple of trillions of dollars, would granite from this mine be valuable? I kinda doubt it.
Putting effort into doing useless stuff doesn't produce worth, per se.
The easy way out Posted Nov 7, 2012 11:54 UTC (Wed) by bosyber (subscriber, #84963) [Link]
Only if you manage to market and sell it it as having value, I'd say.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 18:51 UTC (Tue) by petrakis (subscriber, #39672) [Link]
Except that you can't print gold. Try reading "The Case for Gold: A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission". I agree that is yet another token that can be used, just like fractional reserve currency, it's how you use it that matters. Had the federal reserve actually had the mandate to maintain the strength of the currency and held accountable we wouldn't live in the boom/bust economic bubble we're accustomed to today.
The biggest difference between the two is I can trade in my coupons for something *everyone agrees has value* and simultaneously deflate the currency. Trading your dollars for gold is literally a "no confidence" vote in your government, the ultimate check/balance; you can *opt out*. Were we to rework the coupon so that it was only callable by in very discrete terms (preventing a denial of currency attack) it would be perfectly suitable form of currency. You could choose to trade the pointer, or the actual metal. The U.S used Spanish Specie for quite some time until the government declared a monopoly on coinage.
Bimetallism never worked, and never will because you have a magical entity stating "X grams of silver can be exchanged for Y grams of gold". It just causes the metals to move to a market where the ratio is beneficial to the previously subordinate metal. As for the "price of gold", that would abate as soon as it became the "reserve currency" again, these things only had value *in direct comparison to worthless fiat currency*.
Once money has value again, this thing called "risk" actually starts to matter as the health of your institutions really matters, if it goes under, that money is gone. In today's world there's no moral hazard, as the banks know money isn't real and make as much as they can on the time/value of money (interest) before they crash and burn. Previously Banks could *call each other out* on the solvency of their notes, you bet the institutions were much stronger back when metals were dominant. Now, the federal reserve is designed to bail out banks, keeps a ratio of 9:1, where the "1" is considered "high powered money" which came from where exactly?
Finding out that Lehman brothers has only 2-3% on "reserve" is only outrageous to the layman who doesn't understand that the Federal government only requires *11%* on reserve for a bank to continue lending.
I'll take metals any day of the week over this scam.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:54 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
> Except that you can't print gold. Try reading "The Case for Gold: A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission". I agree that is yet another token that can be used, just like fractional reserve currency, it's how you use it that matters. Had the federal reserve actually had the mandate to maintain the strength of the currency and held accountable we wouldn't live in the boom/bust economic bubble we're accustomed to today.
Dude, learn some history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Un... Gold standard not only doesn't prevent recessions, but it robs government of instruments to fix them.
Want more proof? Read about the economy of Argentina. It did exactly what you preach - pegged its currency to dollar (i.e. supporting strength).
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:26 UTC (Tue) by petrakis (subscriber, #39672) [Link]
Actually, Fiat currency was in full force by then thanks to National Banking Act, the Federal reserve act just made it official, the great depression was the train wreck of which modern momentary policy is formed; "what not to do with fiat currency". I've been studying currency for years so I'm used to "common wisdom drive-bys". That's OK, if it makes you feel any better, your opinion is part of the "common wisdom" majority.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:35 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
> Actually, Fiat currency was in full force by then thanks to National Banking Act
[citation needed]
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:40 UTC (Tue) by petrakis (subscriber, #39672) [Link]
http://mises.org/books/caseforgold.pdf, p83
"The National Banking Acts destroyed the previously decentralized and fairly successful state banking system, and substituted a new,
e.g. the national banking act laid the foundation for the great depression.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:45 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Citation provided! Excellent!
Now, in my experience, you must wait for Cyberax to insult you (he could call you "childish"), mock your arguments, change the subject, and tell you "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE, WHY DON'T YOU JUST LEEEEEEAAAAAAAVEEEEEEEEEEEE".
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:48 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>The National Banking Acts destroyed the previously decentralized and fairly successful state banking system
Easily refuted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Un...
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:07 UTC (Tue) by petrakis (subscriber, #39672) [Link]
I didn't say depressions weren't possible under a metallic currency system. In fact, if you actually took the time to read the document I originally cited you'll find a dissection of many of these depressions and the following conclusion. The frequency and depth of these "depressions" were much lower under a metallic currency then that of a fiat currency. Depressions are "normal", like storms, they come and go, what makes them "economy killers" is the massive use of leverage which is only possible under the arbitrary fractional reserve system e.g. the great depression and the 2008 banking collapse.
The fallacy is that government can actually shield us from a depression actually occurring to begin with. Our currency is based as much on confidence these days as it is on GDP, probably more so.
In closing, I'm not here to win a flame war, I frankly don't care. My goal is to get just *one person* to think twice about business as usual wrt fiat currency and seek the truth for themselves.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:41 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
So there were depressions before the FRS. That's the fact, it's unarguable.
The pre-FRS banking system was on a verge of a catastrophic collapse, so that's why the NBA had been passed. Saying that NBA destroyed a "fairly successful" banking system is kinda sad.
>Depressions are "normal", like storms, they come and go, what makes them "economy killers" is the massive use of leverage which is only possible under the arbitrary fractional reserve system e.g. the great depression and the 2008 banking collapse.
The only two things that made it big:
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:25 UTC (Tue) by fsateler (subscriber, #65497) [Link] (historically money were backed with gold).Not true, please do some research. True, several countries had for a time currencies convertible to gold but that is not the historical norm, as several commodities were used. Moreover, even when the currency was physically made of gold or other commodity, it was not always convertible to the base commodity. Here are some facts for you:
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 18:49 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] And today it is often the case that the metal of the coin is worth more than the coin's value. ;-)
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:00 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Profesor Von Brand? Es usted? Yo fui su asistente de cátedra en la USM en Guayaquil :-)
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:28 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Look, the problem you're tackling is much larger and more complex than "money is just an intangible, are you crazy or something?" and I don't want to make this into a political conversation more than it already is.
What I can tell you is that I can't possibly "blame government". I can't blame something that literally doesn't exist to begin with. Government, like God, is just a belief that some entity bestows magical moral superpowers to certain people who allegedly represents the entity. What exists are *people doing things*, some under the influence of certain -- in my view, malevolent -- beliefs.
All I can do is stop believing in that belief. Sure, these people will still threaten me if I don't obey them, but it's much better, more liberating, and more factually correct to see them for what they are: dangerous people acting under the influence of malevolent beliefs.
I invite you to try and do the same.
Denial Posted Nov 6, 2012 16:20 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] You invite me to live in denial of human society and its main organizations, such as the ways of governing its communities? Thanks, but I actually prefer to live in a country where there is a government; nix explained it beautifully above. Even pillars of anarchy like Bakunin did not advocate the elimination of all organizations, but rather wanted to make all organizations voluntary (so that any party could rescind their membership at any time). I can sympathize with that view; not so much with believing that government is a collection of evil people.And I don't want to limit my thoughts to just "people doing things", specially if it means "evil people doing malevolent things". For that matter I would prefer to believe, with Feynman, that there are only jiggling atoms; at least it is an amusing view and can lead to interesting conclusions.
Denial Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:06 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> Even pillars of anarchy like Bakunin did not advocate the elimination of all organizations
I didn't do that. You have misread me. No wonder you say things like:
> You invite me to live in denial of human society and its main organizations, such as the ways of governing its communities?
I never said such a thing, and this is loaded with condescension.
------------------------------------
You have made your intentions pretty clear. You don't use the written word to communicate with people and exchange ideas with them. You use it to try and shame / condescend / discredit ideas you can't conceive of (perhaps because you fear them, but you are unaware of the source of the fear). Since I've been reading this thread, this isn't the first comment where you've acted in this dishonest and manipulative way, and I'm sure it won't be the last (people who behave like you are repeat offenders par excellence).
Not that I would, but talking to a wall would be more productive -- at least the wall doesn't respond with snark. Accordingly, it would be a waste of time for me to try and engage you in a conversation about the topic.
Enjoy your belief system, safely protected by your reflexive snark. Good bye.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:15 UTC (Tue) by FranTaylor (guest, #80190) [Link]
"government doesn't exist"
You might as well say that "computers don't exist"
A government is a collection of people.
A computer is a collection of electronic parts.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:41 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> A government is a collection of people.
Nah, I'm not persuaded that this is a valid definition of government. At best, it is incomplete, like saying "a human is a mammal". There's lots of mammals that aren't humans, just as there's lots of groups who aren't governments.
Now, had you said "Government is a group of people who believe they are entitled to maintain a monopoly of aggression in a certain geographical area", I would agree -- you would be correct.
And then I would tell you that this belief ("who believe they are entitled to maintain a monopoly of aggression") is the delusional part. It's actually a two-parter belief -- those who believe themselves to be part of "government" believe they are entitled to use violence against people who disobey them, and everyone else (the vast majority) believe the same thing (thereby legitimizing the actions of this sociopathic group you speak of).
Contrast that with most other groups of people: Bridge clubs (another type of group of people), for example, don't get together and partake in the delusion that they will invent rules for everyone else in their geographic region, and then violently punish those who disobey them. People doing business as "government" do.
That is the delusion.
Now, as you might be aware of, beliefs -- what distinguishes government from other groups -- don't exist in reality. While you can point to an assembled computer and say "this is a computer" and I can see it, you can't point to the belief, or anything in observable reality that embodies the belief, and say "that is government", really. You can show me buildings, you can show me people in costumes, you can show me guns and tanks. You can show me the *effects* of belief in government. But government itself? I'll believe you when you show me God first, instead of pointing me to a church and saying "there's God".
You may or may not disagree with me. I welcome corrections, so long as they are not manipulations or insults, like certain other individuals in this thread have attempted. After all, insulting or manipulating people only shows that you're scared of what you're reading.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:50 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
Please, can we move discussion of political systems, the right or wrongness of government, and other similar topics to a more appropriate forum?
This thread is (or should be) about patents and RMS's thoughts thereon ...
thanks,
jake
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:10 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Now this sounds like a more reasonable response.
I agree.
Everyone who is interested in having a conversation about political systems and whatnot, is cordially invited to http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism . Have a great day.
The easy way out Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:50 UTC (Tue) by FranTaylor (guest, #80190) [Link]
> After all, insulting or manipulating people only shows that you're scared of what you're reading.
ONLY?
"Nah, I'm not persuaded that this is a valid definition. At best, it is incomplete"
Hey lets talk about MANIPULATIVE WRITING:
"and then violently punish those who disobey them. People doing business as "government" do."
So when the government writes me out a parking ticket, they will violently punish me if I don't pay it?
Hey GUESS WHAT??? There is ALWAYS going to be a guy with the biggest stick and he is ALWAYS going to be in charge. The question is, does the guy with the biggest stick have absolute power or not? Government is the only way to distribute power AWAY from the guy with the biggest stick.
"so long as they are not manipulations or insults"
You've insulted ME by using HYPERBOLE in your response!
The easy way out Posted Nov 7, 2012 12:25 UTC (Wed) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
This is probably the most insightful thing I've ever read that has random capitalized text.
Now if only certain people with incredibly naive political philosophies would read it and decide to go back to reddit.
The easy way out Posted Nov 8, 2012 9:30 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
That is true for money - because money that can freely be created at (near) zero cost by anyone, clearly cannot work as currency.
But that's really a special case. If everyone freely copies dollars, the economy collapses, but if everyone freely copies Firefox-executables, it doesn't have quite the same effect.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 11:01 UTC (Tue) by jpfrancois (subscriber, #65948) [Link]
Oh, sh*t, I have been redirected again to libertarian weekly news.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:31 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Haha. Now you have a glimpse of how I feel when I turn on the TV or flick through the newspaper and Statist News 24/7 is always on.
But seriously, mockery, in LWN? C'mon, how about, you know, responding to the argument? Or are you just trying to sabotage a conversation that you weren't even part of? You know, it's optional to participate, right?
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 17:07 UTC (Tue) by jpfrancois (subscriber, #65948) [Link]
I have to admit this article article is somehow related to politics, but I come here to read about software. Unfortunately, lately, even in subject unrelated to political decision, some libertarian makes yet another analogy so he is able to educate the lwn reader, and the discussion goes off topic.
But since you believe (oh no, you don't believe, belief if for all other dumb people) since you have found the root of all evil, I guess in your opinion you are always on topic.
And half (completely made-up subjective number) of the usually interesting lwn comment thread have there software to politics ratio going down. Political discussion can be interesting, but not for me, that is what I am complaining about.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:08 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> (oh no, you don't believe, belief if for all other dumb people)
Oh, it's the standard "roll eyes" response. I sense some rustled jimmies here...
If you don't want to be in the conversation, just don't be in it. How hard is it to close the browser tab, that you feel the compulsion to manipulate others into not talking about things you fear?
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:43 UTC (Tue) by jonquark (subscriber, #45554) [Link]
The reason so many of us are asking you to stop the off-topic discussion about your (non-mainstream) political views rather than close the browser window is that we are trying to shift through the comments for discussion of RMSs' comments about patents.
Please, please stop.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:15 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I find it hard to be sympathetic to this. The comments about RMS and patents are at the top and at the bottom of the comment thread. You don't need to sift very much to find them.
As for my participation here, if someone else addresses my comments, I will respond regardless. You should expect that a topic about political action will inevitably have political comments. The very topic of patents is entirely a political one.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 9:44 UTC (Wed) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] And you should be aware that as a direct result of your actions, LWN is missing out on subscribers; by keeping the off-topic politics on LWN, rather than asking the people interested in a discussion to join you elsewhere, you have helped reduce the value of LWN to me below the cost of a subscription. I have no problem with your political views informing your views on the patent system; indeed, I expect that, and I respect people who include an indication of their political leanings with their suggested solution to the software patents problem because it ensures that I read your solution in the right context (an authoritarian solution to the problem has a very different context to an anarchist solution, ). Where, however, you go off the original topic into political preaching (whatever political persuasion you are - anarchist, corporate statist, hiver, democrat, libertarian, socialist, anything), you create a large comment thread where the majority of it is not on the sorts of topics I wish to learn about when reading LWN; you thus reduce the value of this site, making it less likely that I will give money to LWN in future. If you trigger that reaction in enough people, you destroy the site's funding base, and LWN will close. The same applies whenever a comment thread stops discussing things of direct relevance to Free Software; politics is just the particular variation that you've been involved in. That may, of course, be your intention; if not, I'd ask you to think hard about whether this is the right venue for the discussion you're having, and to suggest that people join you at other venues to continue off-topic discussions.
[OT/META] subscriptions Posted Nov 7, 2012 10:25 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
Well, actually, subscribers at LWN have killfiles... think about that!
(and don't leave, long OT threads still are kind of rare!)
[OT/META] subscriptions Posted Nov 7, 2012 11:27 UTC (Wed) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] The trouble is that I want a killfile based on content, not on who's commenting - if Corbet and company have an algorithm that can accurately judge whether a particular comment thread is interesting to me or not, then they've got something genuinely worthy of a software patent (given the state of the art in predictive technology today). I don't want to miss out when someone's saying something topical and interesting, even if most of their output is off-topic spouting; as the expense of filtering through these big comment threads is high, the value of an LWN subscription is reduced.
[OT/META] subscriptions Posted Nov 7, 2012 12:06 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] The comment system automatically collapses comment branches started by someone in your killfile. So a large part of the comments to this story appear pruned to me now, and I don't even get notifications. Certain comment authors are a very good predictor of off-topicness; others are a probable cause of offensive behavior or trollish posts. Yet others are a mixed bag (including myself who have been trolled into participating in this discussion), but filtering the above is usually enough to remove the worst off-topic content.Actually this long off-topic thread has served to feed my killfile with at least two more usernames, so right now I see only 28 comments, all on-topic. Get trolled once, do not get trolled twice.
[OT/META] subscriptions Posted Nov 7, 2012 14:31 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Aside: Gnus has had adaptive killfiles for well over a decade. But of course nobody has yet written an nnlwn backend for Gnus. (A task worth doing! nnrss won't suffice, alas.)
(Since Gnus is an Emacs-specific program, and Emacs was originally written by RMS and was the first program ever to be GPLed, this gets a bit less off topic. Not that RMS uses Gnus. No, no, he is one of the three people on the planet to still use rmail, and IIRC still uses a web-by-email robot. Whenever I think I hate change in my workflow to a pathological degree, I just think of RMS and am happy again. If RMS can function with *that* degree of workflow-conservatism, mine is clearly not too bad.)
[OT/META] subscriptions Posted Nov 7, 2012 16:06 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] When I saw a parenthesis in an aside to an off-topic variant on an [OT/META] comment in a very off-topic thread, I had to add a digression with variations: yes, RMS is the only people I know who uses his prolific identi.ca stream (it is not as if he was to use Twitter any time soon) to point to his political blog (and archive at the same time) that in turn redirects to various leftist sources, sometimes adding URGENT petitions along the way. His system is not perfect though; there is a delay of days between blog and stream, and sometimes things are repeated. But the devotion shown is admirable, and the content is usually good, if a bit predictable.[Ironically these last two super-off-topic comments take the thread closer to on-topic; I guess we have reached the limits of topicland and went back, it must be a round world.]
[OT/META] subscriptions Posted Nov 7, 2012 16:03 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] if Corbet and company have an algorithm that can accurately judge whether a particular comment thread is interesting to me or not, then they've got something genuinely worthy of a software patent I imagine that a Bayesian classifier as seen in things like Spambayes would do the trick, one again showing that something appearing patentable to one observer is most likely to be familiar and even mundane to another.
[OT/META] subscriptions Posted Nov 7, 2012 20:09 UTC (Wed) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] A Bayesian classifier is not enough - to meet the stated goal, the classifier has to identify cases where due to circumstances outside its knowledge (e.g. me reading LWN while sitting up with a sick child), my interests are broader than normal, and identify cases where my tolerance for off-topic is reduced (e.g. because said sick child has resulted in sleep deprivation). An algorithm that could detect my mood based purely on my reading patterns, and tweak a Bayesian classifier accordingly would be quite impressive.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:54 UTC (Tue) by FranTaylor (guest, #80190) [Link]
So you want to talk about politics, but you don't want to talk about politics?
patents ARE politics. They change the power structure. You CANNOT discuss patents in some "technical vacuum" without regard to their political impact, because political impact is what patents are all about!
|
|||||||||||||