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 21:39 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 mhw
Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)

> 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.


(Log in to post comments)

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 (guest, #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.


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