| |||||||||||||
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 12:34 UTC (Tue) by mhw (guest, #13931)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) 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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||