User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

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 3:46 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (guest, #61155)
In reply to: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) by dlang
Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)

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.


(Log in to post comments)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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?


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds