| |||||||||||||
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 5:12 UTC (Tue) by jtc (subscriber, #6246)In reply to: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) by Rudd-O Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)
"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?
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||