In response to this post on Slashdot regarding the Russian ideal to mandate everything:
Possibly similar to what I see in the United States. Schools force kids to read great books against their will, rather than ending up with well educated kids, just a lot of kids that really hate to read and will likely not pick up another book once they are out of school.
What is going to matter is implementation. With the reading example, it is intended that kids end up reading really good books, but it comes down to the teacher that often has the biggest influence on what a student ends up with, and how they appreciate it.
Standardization and organization for efficient use of resources to develop a base infrastructure, I believe, is one of the few legitimate purposes of government. Allow for free market competition, but standardize public education and government offices to use an open standards and basic system tools so everyone can play nice. This will expand opportunity for the private sector / free enterprise to build upon these tools. Both the public and the private sector can have influence on the future development and auditing of the tools so that bugs get fixed and if necessary, forks are made.
The problem you identify already exists with Windows. The difference with Linux is that open standards make it much less of a hack job to implement interoperability. Building tools on Windows has you at the mercy of the closed tools you use. If an API is buggy or needs to be changed in some way, you are not allowed to. A free base system gives people options and proprietary software developers on their toes.
If Russia is going to fork Fedora and say "screw it" to the GPL and close source it because they feel like it and make one system everyone will be taught, and stop developing it once it is "good enough", then it will be a disaster. I get the impression that is not their plan; honor the GPL, get help from Red Hat as necessary to train their own developers, become an equal partner with respect to the community and provide upstream contributions, keep the source open and available to the public. This will provide new opportunity in many ways for all people, not just Russia.
I understand where you are coming from, which what encouraged me to respond, but the Russians have never been so insidious or oppressive of its people as Microsoft has been to its user base, unless you think gallop polls are the heart of democracy and liberty... then who knows. A national OS based on Linux is like collecting taxes to build roads, not telling people where they have to drive. Private sector can have their tour buss and taxi cabs, but let that be far different than gated highways mandating police escort.
My feeling with regard to user apathy is to look at the above situation and think "who cares if I get where I need to go?", not to mention all the other great advantages of not having to do any work or remember how to get places.
It isn't the standardization that is the problem, so much as the centralized control of such standardization that creates problems. I am certain the Russian government is going to do a better job of oversight with regard to enabling the Russian people to get the most out of their computing experience than Microsoft.
I look forward to when the United States will consider catching up with the times, but I don't expect much from a country that still regards Ricardian Economics as God's Will... but that's another issue. :)
As far as any perceived irony of Russia and China embracing Linux:
Even worse case scenario, Russia and China want total control over their country, and where they may not be able to have control, the most important thing is to ensure that others DON'T have it. Software freedom will ensure that Microsoft isn't a dictator, and in "oppressive" countries like Russia or China, I am sure their leaders are the first and best to recognize a regime hell bent on global domination and control. Have it their way, they would take credit for giving Microsoft the idea in the first place.
Americans have been spewing their Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy rhetoric so long without any thought to the meaning, they wouldn't know a dictatorship if it kicked them in the face, stole their money and replaced it with "notes" depicting people that used to know what those terms meant.
Too subtle?
Woot to Russia. I look forward to seeing where this goes in many respects.
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
A Revealing Perspective
LakeishaQueen writes:
Wow, a lot of emotion here, and also very insightful.
But if that is not what you meant, it actually is difficult to understand what you could have meant. Did you mean that there has never been a black person that has abused a child or engaged in deviant sexual practices, or do you mean that the African American community as a whole isn't an organization for the systematic sexual abuse of children? If you meant the first, that is absolutely wrong. It can not be said about ANY group of people, subject class or otherwise. Child molesters are gay, straight, single, married, black, white, brown, yellow, red, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, male, female, tall, short, old, young, smart, dumb, attractive, ugly, everything. The same is true for victims. We all want to protect our kids, and while it would be very convenient to look at someone and just know, but you can't! But if you want to look at the numbers, and if you talk with victims, child molesters are most always parents, then relatives / siblings, then neighbors. Child molesters outside of this group are really quite rare, but it still happens.
At the same time, systematic molestation has not only never been the habit of those groups. But most of them have been accused of systematic molestation through out history. Did you ever see the movie borat? There are still places in the world where it is taught that Jews systematically round up children, have bizarre sex with them, then kill and eat their victims, and make dradles out of their bones. Some people might think that is funny, but can you imagine a society of people that actually believe that? Part of the reason opium became illegal was because it was said that Chinese would use it to lure innocent white school girls into their dens where they would be gang banged until they committed themselves to a life of satanic worship. I am sure you have heard some of the stereotypes about black men / families. These horror stories all seem to have a very similar theme; the most gruesome possible tale devised to encourage hate against the group. I have actually met people that thought being 'black' was contagous, that if you touched a black person, or hung out with black people, it would make you black, literally changing your skin color. It had even been taught for a long time in the mormon church that people with black skin had been cursed that way by god because their souls has sided with Lucifer in the celestial war.
So what surprise is it that the same old bullshit stories that have been used against every minority in history are being used again against homosexuals. The stories are as true as they have always been. You act as if blacks are the only group of people to ever be discriminated against. The civil rights movement was about people that wanted to be seen by the law as people, and not their culture, skin color, gender, national origin, or veteran status. Why not take the opportunity to actually read the Civil Rights Act.
Is exploring the many possibilities that two people can stimulate each other physically and emotionally deviant? Is any sexual gratification without the intent of conception right at that moment deviant? What if a man and a woman are having sex because they are trying to have a baby, but they enjoy it, is that deviant too?
Last I checked, many straight women love their ass hole played with, and many straight women do dot. Some like anal penetration or dual penetration, and others are terrified or disgusted by it. Same applies to lesbians. Some straight men want to fuck a woman in her ass. Others have tried it and don't like it, others have never tried because they are afraid to ask, or are not interested at all. Some straight men like their ass hole played with, some like it penetrated, during sex, during foreplay, whatever. Some men enjoyed being fucked with a strap on, but only by a woman. Every conceivable combination is liked and disliked to varying degrees by all PEOPLE.
I will agree that most guys like to experiment with putting their penis in things. Sometimes just to see what it is like, or what might happen. Woman do the same thing with their vaginas, rubbing things on it, or sticking things in there.
All this has nothing to do with being gay or straight, again, it is the practice of human beings, because we are curious animals that do all kinds of weird things. Deviant means to be different, and as we have discovered about sexuality, deviant today would be NOT to experiment with our bodies, alone, with other people, or just one other person we love and trust very much. Deviance would be shame, and isolating yourself from your own body.
So again, there is no difference between being gay or straight in those respects. It is true that men do not have a vagina, and women do not have a penises. The only thing that makes gay people different is that they want to share, love, experiment, or enjoy someone that is physically like themselves, and depending on how you choose to define it, are more attracted to that prospect or gender then they are to the other.
Or do you mean that kids that don't stay with those biological parents are going to be screwed up? In that case we should outlaw adoption. But you did say "a mommy and daddy", so does that mean we can still give children to parents that already have biological kids of their own? I guess that might be a possibility, and even legal, but what harm comes to kids that are adopted by adults that are sterile? Would you have a problem with letting gay adults that have biological children of their own, or only those that still live with the other parent? What if the spouse is a widow and remarried, should it be ok for someone with kids, but remarried to someone else, be allowed to adopt?
Should we make it illegal for non-married people or single people to adopt? If a good mother is widowed when her child is young, should we take the kid away unless she remarries, or should the kid be taken away no matter what?
It is wonderful when a child can grow up with many wonderful happy healthy people in their life. We all need heroes and role models to help us guide our way to what we want from life, and to build strong social structures that help sustain the human species. For some people that is very easy, and for some very hard. Some kids are planned, others are not. Plenty of planned kids have difficult lives, and many unplanned kids grow up to be wealthy and successful.
But, what situations do we understand are unhealthy and do harm children? If we must not allow kids to grow up without a mommy and daddy, I see that as very sweeping. I don't think it would be possible, but I also really don't see it as necessary.
Let's just be careful in setting government policy that we are clear as to our intents and purposes, rationalize policy with sound facts, and be careful what stories we share about other people, particularly sweeping generalizations about a person of a particular ethnic background, gender, hair color, sexuality, religion other than to promote communication and dissolve unnecessary, unproductive, or simply untrue stereotypes. As for the true ones, lets try to be practical and keep such generalizations in perspective.
Thank you for taking the time to write, you gave me a lot to think about, and I will rethink my perspective and over generalization that black, poor, and uneducated people voted yes on prop 8 because they are in part the same group. There is obviously more to the issue than that, and I look forward to sharing your perspective with others.
Take care,
Keith
Reply to your comment on: The Dr. Phil Show - Same Sex Marriage: Right or Wrong?
...
Reply to your comment on: The Dr. Phil Show - Same Sex Marriage: Right or Wrong?Please DO NOT COMPARE BLACK PEOPLE TO HOMOSEXUALS! We do not have deviant sex. We dont molest teen boys. We dont mimic real sex by using an anus as a vagina. And we dont form bizarre "marriage" partnerships where we screw up childrens minds becuase they cant grow up with a mommy and a daddy! FUCK YOU!
SAME SEX MARRIAGE: RIGHT OR WRONG?
EXCLUSIVE: AFTER THE TAPING
Dr. Phil hosts a debate on same sex marriage.
After the show taped, the debate kept going and the cameras kept going. Watch as an audience member causes an outburst as she gets involved ...
Wow, a lot of emotion here, and also very insightful.
Please DO NOT COMPARE BLACK PEOPLE TO HOMOSEXUALS!When I compare gay marriage to the civil rights movement, I am not talking about "black people". Also, when I talk about civil rights, I am not talking about any one person, protest, or legislation. When I say civil rights, I mean the enlightenment philosophy of the past 120+ years that has begun to acknowledge people as human beings. The failure of democracy is the lack of credit given to minor sensibility in favor of a "majority rule". Most people are ignorant about most things, simply because there are so many things in the world to learn about. I know I am a victim of this myself. I would be the last person to ask about car safety standards, how to put a man on the moon. I do have an opinion on a methodology for resolving such problems, but that is not the way democracy works. But an EXAMPLE of the oppression of PEOPLE in this country was the case resolved regarding Loving v. Virginia. The Racial Integrity Act said nothing about black people, just that whites could only marry other whites, and "others" could marry whoever they want, just not whites. So that isn't 'black people', it just includes 'black people'.
We do not have deviant sex. We dont molest teen boys.*sigh* This makes me really sad. Haven't you noticed a pattern yet AT ALL? Haters don't discriminate. Haters just hate because that is what they do. And while I appreciate the compliment and confession that neither you nor I are child molesters, I get the feeling that was not the "we" you were talking about.
But if that is not what you meant, it actually is difficult to understand what you could have meant. Did you mean that there has never been a black person that has abused a child or engaged in deviant sexual practices, or do you mean that the African American community as a whole isn't an organization for the systematic sexual abuse of children? If you meant the first, that is absolutely wrong. It can not be said about ANY group of people, subject class or otherwise. Child molesters are gay, straight, single, married, black, white, brown, yellow, red, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, male, female, tall, short, old, young, smart, dumb, attractive, ugly, everything. The same is true for victims. We all want to protect our kids, and while it would be very convenient to look at someone and just know, but you can't! But if you want to look at the numbers, and if you talk with victims, child molesters are most always parents, then relatives / siblings, then neighbors. Child molesters outside of this group are really quite rare, but it still happens.
At the same time, systematic molestation has not only never been the habit of those groups. But most of them have been accused of systematic molestation through out history. Did you ever see the movie borat? There are still places in the world where it is taught that Jews systematically round up children, have bizarre sex with them, then kill and eat their victims, and make dradles out of their bones. Some people might think that is funny, but can you imagine a society of people that actually believe that? Part of the reason opium became illegal was because it was said that Chinese would use it to lure innocent white school girls into their dens where they would be gang banged until they committed themselves to a life of satanic worship. I am sure you have heard some of the stereotypes about black men / families. These horror stories all seem to have a very similar theme; the most gruesome possible tale devised to encourage hate against the group. I have actually met people that thought being 'black' was contagous, that if you touched a black person, or hung out with black people, it would make you black, literally changing your skin color. It had even been taught for a long time in the mormon church that people with black skin had been cursed that way by god because their souls has sided with Lucifer in the celestial war.
So what surprise is it that the same old bullshit stories that have been used against every minority in history are being used again against homosexuals. The stories are as true as they have always been. You act as if blacks are the only group of people to ever be discriminated against. The civil rights movement was about people that wanted to be seen by the law as people, and not their culture, skin color, gender, national origin, or veteran status. Why not take the opportunity to actually read the Civil Rights Act.
We don't mimic real sex by using an anus as a vagina.So would you be ok with homosexuality if there was just laws against anal sex? Wait, I think the law already addressed this. Are you saying men and women don't have anal sex, or just that when man and women have anal sex it isn't deviant? Or when men and women have anal sex it isn't to mimic a vagina? Does a hand mimic a vagina? When women masturbate, do they think about their hand being a penis? Is oral sex gay?
Is exploring the many possibilities that two people can stimulate each other physically and emotionally deviant? Is any sexual gratification without the intent of conception right at that moment deviant? What if a man and a woman are having sex because they are trying to have a baby, but they enjoy it, is that deviant too?
Last I checked, many straight women love their ass hole played with, and many straight women do dot. Some like anal penetration or dual penetration, and others are terrified or disgusted by it. Same applies to lesbians. Some straight men want to fuck a woman in her ass. Others have tried it and don't like it, others have never tried because they are afraid to ask, or are not interested at all. Some straight men like their ass hole played with, some like it penetrated, during sex, during foreplay, whatever. Some men enjoyed being fucked with a strap on, but only by a woman. Every conceivable combination is liked and disliked to varying degrees by all PEOPLE.
I will agree that most guys like to experiment with putting their penis in things. Sometimes just to see what it is like, or what might happen. Woman do the same thing with their vaginas, rubbing things on it, or sticking things in there.
All this has nothing to do with being gay or straight, again, it is the practice of human beings, because we are curious animals that do all kinds of weird things. Deviant means to be different, and as we have discovered about sexuality, deviant today would be NOT to experiment with our bodies, alone, with other people, or just one other person we love and trust very much. Deviance would be shame, and isolating yourself from your own body.
So again, there is no difference between being gay or straight in those respects. It is true that men do not have a vagina, and women do not have a penises. The only thing that makes gay people different is that they want to share, love, experiment, or enjoy someone that is physically like themselves, and depending on how you choose to define it, are more attracted to that prospect or gender then they are to the other.
And we don't form bizarre "marriage" partnerships where we screw up children's minds because they cant grow up with a mommy and a daddy!So here is that 'we' word again. Are you talking about you and me? Are you saying that if a man and a woman get married that it can't be bizarre because bizarre only means gay, or do you mean that only black people when it is a man and a woman it can not be bizarre? As for the rest of the statement, I am puzzled. "Can't grow up with a mommy and daddy" --causes--> "screw[ed] up children". So are you saying that if there may have been a chance that the kid might have had a mommy and daddy then the kid won't be screwed up? I don't even understand what you are even trying to say here, just by virtue of reality. Well technically, if a baby was conceived at all, then there is a mommy and daddy, and that kid MIGHT have stayed with that 'couple', so until medical science changes, I don't think that is going to change.
Or do you mean that kids that don't stay with those biological parents are going to be screwed up? In that case we should outlaw adoption. But you did say "a mommy and daddy", so does that mean we can still give children to parents that already have biological kids of their own? I guess that might be a possibility, and even legal, but what harm comes to kids that are adopted by adults that are sterile? Would you have a problem with letting gay adults that have biological children of their own, or only those that still live with the other parent? What if the spouse is a widow and remarried, should it be ok for someone with kids, but remarried to someone else, be allowed to adopt?
Should we make it illegal for non-married people or single people to adopt? If a good mother is widowed when her child is young, should we take the kid away unless she remarries, or should the kid be taken away no matter what?
It is wonderful when a child can grow up with many wonderful happy healthy people in their life. We all need heroes and role models to help us guide our way to what we want from life, and to build strong social structures that help sustain the human species. For some people that is very easy, and for some very hard. Some kids are planned, others are not. Plenty of planned kids have difficult lives, and many unplanned kids grow up to be wealthy and successful.
But, what situations do we understand are unhealthy and do harm children? If we must not allow kids to grow up without a mommy and daddy, I see that as very sweeping. I don't think it would be possible, but I also really don't see it as necessary.
FUCK YOU!Well, you certainly seem to have some very strong feelings about the situation, and if this really is about doing the best we can to help children, and encourage people to have happy and healthy lives, respect the past, the present, and our culture, then not only are you likely doing the best you can as individual to meet that end, but the world is going to be a better place with people like you that will stand up and speak their mind.
Let's just be careful in setting government policy that we are clear as to our intents and purposes, rationalize policy with sound facts, and be careful what stories we share about other people, particularly sweeping generalizations about a person of a particular ethnic background, gender, hair color, sexuality, religion other than to promote communication and dissolve unnecessary, unproductive, or simply untrue stereotypes. As for the true ones, lets try to be practical and keep such generalizations in perspective.
Thank you for taking the time to write, you gave me a lot to think about, and I will rethink my perspective and over generalization that black, poor, and uneducated people voted yes on prop 8 because they are in part the same group. There is obviously more to the issue than that, and I look forward to sharing your perspective with others.
Take care,
Keith
Monday, December 01, 2008
What Free Culture means to me
I agree you don't need to pay to be a part of your own culture. There are many free alternatives, but as much as I enjoy embracing free culture, it does feel like a fight in some ways. Embracing free culture hasn't been easy. I do not know a lot of people personally that embrace free culture, so often times it feels like culture is a relationship I have by myself with the computer / Internet.
Something I have tried to do in the last few months is working away from non-free, or what I might call luxury, culture. I have not purchased a CD since the whole Napster thing, but this more recent transition I have been working towards only listening to CC licensed music. The result wasn't what I expected. I find there is a lot more variety, not to mention expression in the work. It started as an anti big media thing, but now I see it as a great way to introduce great new music to friends that have likely not heard it before. The best part is being able to easily contact artists, and when I leave reviews, I frequently get messages back. Those experiences have made it feel much more like a culture than just stuff.
I guess what I have enjoyed has only strengthened my idealism. And to clarify, I don't want everything to be 'free' in a monetary sense, just free in a way that the business model would allow me to do what I want with it as something I paid for. I would ideally like it if an artist would be flattered for me to make copies of their music and give them to my friends to enjoy. I want to listen to a wide variety of music the way it is free in a library or on the radio, but in a way that harnesses digital technology, and pay money to go to concerts where the band is making a good cut of the ticket price, the kind of thing where the supply isn't artificially deflated to ensure optimal revenue at the expense of calling fans pirates. I know this model would not work for all artists, but imho, the artists that would loose in this situation are the ones that completely lack talent. I also think such a model would make record companies obsolete (as if they are not already) or stores that box little units of information and put a sticker on them. It wasn't a bad way to do things, it just seems out dated. Record companies haven't been around for a long time, but music certainly has. I really believe exposure directly relates to opportunity. The issue is that it just isn't the same opportunity of the past.
Also, I think there is an under appreciation / mis representation of what is "other peoples work". All creativity builds on the past and on nature. Nobody today creates anything without the assistance of many other people. People that whittle figurines out of drift wood unlikely smelted the metal for the knife, and who ever did smelt it didn't do so from scratch. I think you know where that can go forever. ALL THINGS build upon and express other things around you. Who gets credit for what is a matter of advertising. People should certainly get paid for their labor and creative expressions of our world, but it is everyone else that as a whole that help provide that world worth expressing. Further, art that is not an expression of our culture, world, or life typically have no worth. Good art, stories, music are those that resonate with people because part of the art is already inside that person that sees it, hears it, or appreciates it in any way.
I just think that to SOME extent, that in the way creators and consumers are all part of the same culture that there bee some shared rights. I further believe Creative Commons, and the voluntary nature of it (maybe even especially its voluntary nature) it a step in the right direction.
People with money have spent money in Washington to help uphold the rights of artists through the digital age. By itself, I think most of it has been good. My issue, with regard to Washington, is that big media has gotten more of an opportunity to share their opinion and 'educated' people about their rights than, say. the historical purpose of public libraries, classical literature, free access to public domain in a fair way, and using the power of the Internet to extend the purpose of the public library in the way it was intended but was physically and technologically limited. I do not believe that public libraries and free radio are simply 'tolerated' because they could never have much influence, and because the control by the reader / public is 'limited' by nature.
I believe a full Library of Alexandria, Library of Congress, and everything else the Internet could strive to offer to the eyes and ears of every human being would make for a GREAT world, not one where "people would no longer be motivated to innovate" as the entertainment industry has lead many people, including law makers, to believe. We have the power; we need to make it a reality.
THAT is the free I fight for.
Afterthought:
An over simplification is that fair use is an affirmative defense, not a right. There is a big difference between embracing something and tolerating something. There is a certain irony to 'fair use' considering what natural rights existed before. To paraphrase Lessig, much of what is regulated use and 'fair use' today was not very long ago completely unregulated.>br>
That is how "fair use does not [nor ever intended to] address free culture".
Example of how I see fair use in culture today is similar to regulations at an airport if things got a lot worse. Do away with the list of things you can't do or bring on a plane, and replace it with a very specific list of hypothetically acceptable things. Now, if you actually want to bring something onto the plane that may match something on the list, you need to explain where you got it, why you need it with you, and sign a waiver exempting the item from being covered by insurance in case it gets lost (kudos to anyone that understands the insurance part).
Excuse me, but just how can you call that "Rights".
Oh, and just in case it needs to be said, I did not mean to say that Free Culture does not address Fair Use, just that it is mono-directional understanding.
Something I have tried to do in the last few months is working away from non-free, or what I might call luxury, culture. I have not purchased a CD since the whole Napster thing, but this more recent transition I have been working towards only listening to CC licensed music. The result wasn't what I expected. I find there is a lot more variety, not to mention expression in the work. It started as an anti big media thing, but now I see it as a great way to introduce great new music to friends that have likely not heard it before. The best part is being able to easily contact artists, and when I leave reviews, I frequently get messages back. Those experiences have made it feel much more like a culture than just stuff.
I guess what I have enjoyed has only strengthened my idealism. And to clarify, I don't want everything to be 'free' in a monetary sense, just free in a way that the business model would allow me to do what I want with it as something I paid for. I would ideally like it if an artist would be flattered for me to make copies of their music and give them to my friends to enjoy. I want to listen to a wide variety of music the way it is free in a library or on the radio, but in a way that harnesses digital technology, and pay money to go to concerts where the band is making a good cut of the ticket price, the kind of thing where the supply isn't artificially deflated to ensure optimal revenue at the expense of calling fans pirates. I know this model would not work for all artists, but imho, the artists that would loose in this situation are the ones that completely lack talent. I also think such a model would make record companies obsolete (as if they are not already) or stores that box little units of information and put a sticker on them. It wasn't a bad way to do things, it just seems out dated. Record companies haven't been around for a long time, but music certainly has. I really believe exposure directly relates to opportunity. The issue is that it just isn't the same opportunity of the past.
Also, I think there is an under appreciation / mis representation of what is "other peoples work". All creativity builds on the past and on nature. Nobody today creates anything without the assistance of many other people. People that whittle figurines out of drift wood unlikely smelted the metal for the knife, and who ever did smelt it didn't do so from scratch. I think you know where that can go forever. ALL THINGS build upon and express other things around you. Who gets credit for what is a matter of advertising. People should certainly get paid for their labor and creative expressions of our world, but it is everyone else that as a whole that help provide that world worth expressing. Further, art that is not an expression of our culture, world, or life typically have no worth. Good art, stories, music are those that resonate with people because part of the art is already inside that person that sees it, hears it, or appreciates it in any way.
I just think that to SOME extent, that in the way creators and consumers are all part of the same culture that there bee some shared rights. I further believe Creative Commons, and the voluntary nature of it (maybe even especially its voluntary nature) it a step in the right direction.
People with money have spent money in Washington to help uphold the rights of artists through the digital age. By itself, I think most of it has been good. My issue, with regard to Washington, is that big media has gotten more of an opportunity to share their opinion and 'educated' people about their rights than, say. the historical purpose of public libraries, classical literature, free access to public domain in a fair way, and using the power of the Internet to extend the purpose of the public library in the way it was intended but was physically and technologically limited. I do not believe that public libraries and free radio are simply 'tolerated' because they could never have much influence, and because the control by the reader / public is 'limited' by nature.
I believe a full Library of Alexandria, Library of Congress, and everything else the Internet could strive to offer to the eyes and ears of every human being would make for a GREAT world, not one where "people would no longer be motivated to innovate" as the entertainment industry has lead many people, including law makers, to believe. We have the power; we need to make it a reality.
THAT is the free I fight for.
Afterthought:
An over simplification is that fair use is an affirmative defense, not a right. There is a big difference between embracing something and tolerating something. There is a certain irony to 'fair use' considering what natural rights existed before. To paraphrase Lessig, much of what is regulated use and 'fair use' today was not very long ago completely unregulated.>br>
That is how "fair use does not [nor ever intended to] address free culture".
Example of how I see fair use in culture today is similar to regulations at an airport if things got a lot worse. Do away with the list of things you can't do or bring on a plane, and replace it with a very specific list of hypothetically acceptable things. Now, if you actually want to bring something onto the plane that may match something on the list, you need to explain where you got it, why you need it with you, and sign a waiver exempting the item from being covered by insurance in case it gets lost (kudos to anyone that understands the insurance part).
Excuse me, but just how can you call that "Rights".
Oh, and just in case it needs to be said, I did not mean to say that Free Culture does not address Fair Use, just that it is mono-directional understanding.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Governmental role in Free market - part #1
I got this message from someone bringing up the old "too much" / "too little" regulation argument. Seemed like a good topic to rant about today and my perception of what is going on in this situation.
Free Market, according to Smith is without monopolies naturally. a monopoly requires total control over a supply line... which is usually impossible, impossible without government intervention, intentional or otherwise.
What the government should do is manage certain acceptable standards; limits that encourage competition, or standards that say what people don't have to compete with. Preferably, I would like to see standards bodies that rate companies and products to inform people about quality and such.
I think education is the key. the problem with trying to control things behind the lines rather than letting consumers make informed decisions, consumers get more apathetic as they trust the government to take care of everything for them, and voluntarily get dumber.
One example: I like the V-chip. FCC says what kind of rating a show / station gets based on the content. Consumers can choose to use the v-chip or not, and automatically filter what they want to be able to watch, or let their kids watch. HOWEVER, any kind of filter on what can and can not be put onto certain types of mediums is wrong, imo. Further, allow stations to put whatever they want, and not get ratings, or use an open system that allow organizations to develop their own rating systems. Then consumers can pick their own standards body, and pick which rating systems they like and block content as truly as they wish, with as much assistance to make informed decisions as possible.
Let the free market take care of the rest. Free Market Theory says the best stations, the best chips, the best standards body, and the best shows will come out on top as consumers are free to make those decisions. Even let tv makers decide the chips they want, and what is on or off by default. The best will win out with freedom.
Free Market Theory also says that, by contrast, the equilibrium for which that would reach naturally CAN'T be figured out by a bunch of politicians arguing about it. The market will figure it out better and faster than anyone. Especially when technology continuously changes.
I personally think the government can and is a central location for people to complain about the world. customer feedback is more important than anything. According to Mesis (The Theory of Money and Credit), government can merely be a player in the market (ok, a bit more, but beyond the scope of this rant). If the government has all the best knowledge of what people want, they can use or sell the ideas that will produce the best products that will dominate in the market that other very smart people will have to compete.
What I see is people calling bad regulation "too much regulation, leave it alone" or for the same thing "it is too little regulation / too many loop holes". There isn't "too much" or "too little" regulation. Further, I can't remember who said this, but I agree "There is no such thing as a loop hole. It either is the law, or it is not the law". Loop holes are either people disagreeing with the law, or natural the natural result of trying to control something that can't be controlled resulting in "unintended consequences". One such example: High taxes + world market = take business elsewhere. How those businesses go elsewhere isn't the issue, be it their money, their headquarters, their labor, their call centers, whatever. Government can't break natural laws: If the government does not provide a competitive advantage to encourage international corporations to come to the United States, they won't.
I feel we cripple businesses, tweaking and poking and making up reasons to change how much money we won't take away from them without any real thought to the big picture, social policy, or much thinking period. I think rather than poking at individual products or even industries, we can have guidelines and standards bodies that inform customers about businesses.
Speaking metaphorically is difficult, so let me use a real example of some "bad regulations and loop holes. In California, there was recently a proposition for people to vote on, proposition 2. This was a law that was intended to curtail animal abuse, particularly by requiring a minimum amount of space for chickens and nursing / pregnant pigs. Good idea, bad law as written. This law only affected California farmers. It non nothing to regulate consumers or importers. The pro argument was that California wasn't going to tolerate mistreatment of these animals. The con was the increased costs for space and unfair competition. What I think would have been better to help everybody would be either 1) require labeling to inform consumers about whether certain farms meet a certain standard OR for those that like a more aggressive solution, require that stores must only sell eggs that meet those regulations, and possibly add the same requirement for anyone in California to sell eggs. This makes the playing field even, and means that everybody is supporting fair treatment of animals, not just California farmers.
Only labeling eggs and informing consumers that this products meets certain standards I think falls under the "less regulation" catagory, While the flat prohibition is "more regulation". Prop 2 is just bad regulation that doesn't really address the problem in a way that I feel has any relationship with what consumers want, or have any business really voting on. Prop 2 is just tweaking, and not something that I think moves us towards being a more enlightened society about the treatment of animals.
Free market works... but how would anyone know living in the United States when we really have nothing like it here. I am not saying all the regulations are bad, I just don't think the types of policies we put in place encourage free market. Best example? look at the recent "rescue / bail out" plan. Even aside from the heart of the bill and its intention, look at all the tweaks that make up 90%+ of the bills text and you can see it could only be the result of guessing and buying votes. The wooden arrows, for example, after some investigating totally made sense... but only in a place where our taxes are so screwed up could a problem like the one addressed by that section of the bill need passing. Further, it is only a patch, it doesn't address the heart of this giant mess we call a tax code that can not be understood by anybody in its entirety. Many argue that not everyone needs to understand it... but is that really justification for it to be so convoluted?
A quick note, I support the Fair Tax. May there be problems with it? Quite possibly! I say it is a great start, and that it addresses the issue from the right direction. Now it is just a matter of details. It just needs to be the RIGHT details. The only place where any tweaking that might be industry where what definition of "consumption" is will need some definition, like gambling (which has already been addressed).
Also, China is a sovereign nation. When our irresponsibility makes them rich, that doesn't mean they are cheating or taking advantage of us. If we don't want what they have to offer, stop buying it from them and go elsewhere. That is what market is all about. Now while this may sound a bit harsh, nobody forced us to become so dependent on foreign oil. We did that all on our own. Now, if we can't live without buying a certain amount, while that makes them lots of money, that doesn't mean it is all their fault.
So as I started with, this isn't about cheating the system through loop holes, over regulation or deregulation, it is about BAD regulation written by people that would like to control their industry, and congressmen too gullible or compromising, or down right stupid to help their proposals become law instead of doing their job.
And the reason that happens is a much bigger issue that I am not going to go into. I will say, however, we need to take some responsibility for electing these idiots. And as I have mentioned before, in any system with which you are not informed, you are a slave. It is also that ignorance that makes traditional democracy such a failure, because individuals are so easily scared and manipulated. Look at prop 8, drug war, IP war, war on terrorism. In this way, they are all the same.
fgrod writes:With regard to stemming corruption and cheating, it reminds me of the old Latin saying "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?" or better known as "Who watches the watchers?"
Democracy and the free market system only works when you have a protective body in place to stem corruption and cheating. Wall Street and China continue to break the rules and plunder the system with gov't doing nothing about it.
Free Market, according to Smith is without monopolies naturally. a monopoly requires total control over a supply line... which is usually impossible, impossible without government intervention, intentional or otherwise.
What the government should do is manage certain acceptable standards; limits that encourage competition, or standards that say what people don't have to compete with. Preferably, I would like to see standards bodies that rate companies and products to inform people about quality and such.
I think education is the key. the problem with trying to control things behind the lines rather than letting consumers make informed decisions, consumers get more apathetic as they trust the government to take care of everything for them, and voluntarily get dumber.
One example: I like the V-chip. FCC says what kind of rating a show / station gets based on the content. Consumers can choose to use the v-chip or not, and automatically filter what they want to be able to watch, or let their kids watch. HOWEVER, any kind of filter on what can and can not be put onto certain types of mediums is wrong, imo. Further, allow stations to put whatever they want, and not get ratings, or use an open system that allow organizations to develop their own rating systems. Then consumers can pick their own standards body, and pick which rating systems they like and block content as truly as they wish, with as much assistance to make informed decisions as possible.
Let the free market take care of the rest. Free Market Theory says the best stations, the best chips, the best standards body, and the best shows will come out on top as consumers are free to make those decisions. Even let tv makers decide the chips they want, and what is on or off by default. The best will win out with freedom.
Free Market Theory also says that, by contrast, the equilibrium for which that would reach naturally CAN'T be figured out by a bunch of politicians arguing about it. The market will figure it out better and faster than anyone. Especially when technology continuously changes.
I personally think the government can and is a central location for people to complain about the world. customer feedback is more important than anything. According to Mesis (The Theory of Money and Credit), government can merely be a player in the market (ok, a bit more, but beyond the scope of this rant). If the government has all the best knowledge of what people want, they can use or sell the ideas that will produce the best products that will dominate in the market that other very smart people will have to compete.
What I see is people calling bad regulation "too much regulation, leave it alone" or for the same thing "it is too little regulation / too many loop holes". There isn't "too much" or "too little" regulation. Further, I can't remember who said this, but I agree "There is no such thing as a loop hole. It either is the law, or it is not the law". Loop holes are either people disagreeing with the law, or natural the natural result of trying to control something that can't be controlled resulting in "unintended consequences". One such example: High taxes + world market = take business elsewhere. How those businesses go elsewhere isn't the issue, be it their money, their headquarters, their labor, their call centers, whatever. Government can't break natural laws: If the government does not provide a competitive advantage to encourage international corporations to come to the United States, they won't.
I feel we cripple businesses, tweaking and poking and making up reasons to change how much money we won't take away from them without any real thought to the big picture, social policy, or much thinking period. I think rather than poking at individual products or even industries, we can have guidelines and standards bodies that inform customers about businesses.
Speaking metaphorically is difficult, so let me use a real example of some "bad regulations and loop holes. In California, there was recently a proposition for people to vote on, proposition 2. This was a law that was intended to curtail animal abuse, particularly by requiring a minimum amount of space for chickens and nursing / pregnant pigs. Good idea, bad law as written. This law only affected California farmers. It non nothing to regulate consumers or importers. The pro argument was that California wasn't going to tolerate mistreatment of these animals. The con was the increased costs for space and unfair competition. What I think would have been better to help everybody would be either 1) require labeling to inform consumers about whether certain farms meet a certain standard OR for those that like a more aggressive solution, require that stores must only sell eggs that meet those regulations, and possibly add the same requirement for anyone in California to sell eggs. This makes the playing field even, and means that everybody is supporting fair treatment of animals, not just California farmers.
Only labeling eggs and informing consumers that this products meets certain standards I think falls under the "less regulation" catagory, While the flat prohibition is "more regulation". Prop 2 is just bad regulation that doesn't really address the problem in a way that I feel has any relationship with what consumers want, or have any business really voting on. Prop 2 is just tweaking, and not something that I think moves us towards being a more enlightened society about the treatment of animals.
Free market works... but how would anyone know living in the United States when we really have nothing like it here. I am not saying all the regulations are bad, I just don't think the types of policies we put in place encourage free market. Best example? look at the recent "rescue / bail out" plan. Even aside from the heart of the bill and its intention, look at all the tweaks that make up 90%+ of the bills text and you can see it could only be the result of guessing and buying votes. The wooden arrows, for example, after some investigating totally made sense... but only in a place where our taxes are so screwed up could a problem like the one addressed by that section of the bill need passing. Further, it is only a patch, it doesn't address the heart of this giant mess we call a tax code that can not be understood by anybody in its entirety. Many argue that not everyone needs to understand it... but is that really justification for it to be so convoluted?
A quick note, I support the Fair Tax. May there be problems with it? Quite possibly! I say it is a great start, and that it addresses the issue from the right direction. Now it is just a matter of details. It just needs to be the RIGHT details. The only place where any tweaking that might be industry where what definition of "consumption" is will need some definition, like gambling (which has already been addressed).
Also, China is a sovereign nation. When our irresponsibility makes them rich, that doesn't mean they are cheating or taking advantage of us. If we don't want what they have to offer, stop buying it from them and go elsewhere. That is what market is all about. Now while this may sound a bit harsh, nobody forced us to become so dependent on foreign oil. We did that all on our own. Now, if we can't live without buying a certain amount, while that makes them lots of money, that doesn't mean it is all their fault.
So as I started with, this isn't about cheating the system through loop holes, over regulation or deregulation, it is about BAD regulation written by people that would like to control their industry, and congressmen too gullible or compromising, or down right stupid to help their proposals become law instead of doing their job.
And the reason that happens is a much bigger issue that I am not going to go into. I will say, however, we need to take some responsibility for electing these idiots. And as I have mentioned before, in any system with which you are not informed, you are a slave. It is also that ignorance that makes traditional democracy such a failure, because individuals are so easily scared and manipulated. Look at prop 8, drug war, IP war, war on terrorism. In this way, they are all the same.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
California voters rule "God Hates Fags"
So I got to talk to a friend last night that gave me some comfort in the bureaucracy of the issue. Key points:
Scenario #1
1. Governor Schwarzenegger said regarding prop 22 that he supported equal rights, but that as governor he had to support the will of the people BUT that he would leave it to the courts to decide.
2. If that means he is going to stand by the decision of the California supreme court, he can let the issue sit for 30 days, after which not being signed would automatically be vetoed.
3. The state senate is not in session. The senate could over turn his veto with a 66% majority... if they were in session.
4. Prop 8 dies
Scenario #2
1. Governor Schwarzenegger "respects the will of the [majority of] the [voting] people", signs the bill, leaving it to the Supreme court to possibly decide.
2. Five constitutional amendments have been proposed, which would require a 75% majority of the people, AFTER it gets the approval of some high majority of the senate and house each (one 66%, the other 75%. This has all but been completely been burned, never going to happen... so we can hope.
3. The supreme court has refused to hear any issue on gay marriage because they believe the issue has already been resolved. Gay marriage ban is CLEARLY unconstitutional under the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
4. Now with 30+ states with gay marriage bans, and particularly California banning gay marriage, The supreme court will have to hear the issue and make their final ruling.
5. And in case it needs to be said: there were some strong compilations with people that voted yes on 8. Sadly if black, but also the poorer the person, and the less educated you were, the more likely the person was to vote yes on 8. Asian and Hispanic were tied, white people voted no, as well as educated and middle to upper class voted no. So for an extra point, where do most supreme court justices typically fall in that demographic?
Separate issue:
prop 8 still has to be interpreted, so despite all the lies spewed by the churches to successfully sway the poor and uneducated, there is a little lie that got through from the no on 8 side. Married gay couples will not loose their marriage licenses, otherwise it is de facto segregation. The licenses were lawfully obtained at a time when it was legal. there is nothing in prop 8 that makes this retroactive, not to mention the courts get to interpret the law... a court that has already decided on the issue. The language may be "very clear", but the implications are still completly open to interpretation.
Further, until the bill is signed into law, it is still legal. Therefore anyone planning to get married may consider moving their plans up to ASAP.
Scenario #3
Civil Unions are brought up to date to be equal to 'marriage', and marriage is abolished as being a clear violation of separation of church and state, as well as equal protection, effectivly making prop 8 irrelevant. This could happen either in California, but there is a decent chance this is what would happen in the supreme court.
I'd like to see this issue resolved sooner... you know, like today like I expected. But as history has shown, the harder you try to oppress people for a longer period of time, the blow back when they are finally unwilling to put up with it has larger and larger implications as time goes by.
It is more than simply not over, one can say that this has really just begun.
To anyone else that cared about the California propositions, this is how things split according to LA Times:
Scenario #1
1. Governor Schwarzenegger said regarding prop 22 that he supported equal rights, but that as governor he had to support the will of the people BUT that he would leave it to the courts to decide.
2. If that means he is going to stand by the decision of the California supreme court, he can let the issue sit for 30 days, after which not being signed would automatically be vetoed.
3. The state senate is not in session. The senate could over turn his veto with a 66% majority... if they were in session.
4. Prop 8 dies
Scenario #2
1. Governor Schwarzenegger "respects the will of the [majority of] the [voting] people", signs the bill, leaving it to the Supreme court to possibly decide.
2. Five constitutional amendments have been proposed, which would require a 75% majority of the people, AFTER it gets the approval of some high majority of the senate and house each (one 66%, the other 75%. This has all but been completely been burned, never going to happen... so we can hope.
3. The supreme court has refused to hear any issue on gay marriage because they believe the issue has already been resolved. Gay marriage ban is CLEARLY unconstitutional under the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
4. Now with 30+ states with gay marriage bans, and particularly California banning gay marriage, The supreme court will have to hear the issue and make their final ruling.
5. And in case it needs to be said: there were some strong compilations with people that voted yes on 8. Sadly if black, but also the poorer the person, and the less educated you were, the more likely the person was to vote yes on 8. Asian and Hispanic were tied, white people voted no, as well as educated and middle to upper class voted no. So for an extra point, where do most supreme court justices typically fall in that demographic?
Separate issue:
prop 8 still has to be interpreted, so despite all the lies spewed by the churches to successfully sway the poor and uneducated, there is a little lie that got through from the no on 8 side. Married gay couples will not loose their marriage licenses, otherwise it is de facto segregation. The licenses were lawfully obtained at a time when it was legal. there is nothing in prop 8 that makes this retroactive, not to mention the courts get to interpret the law... a court that has already decided on the issue. The language may be "very clear", but the implications are still completly open to interpretation.
Further, until the bill is signed into law, it is still legal. Therefore anyone planning to get married may consider moving their plans up to ASAP.
Scenario #3
Civil Unions are brought up to date to be equal to 'marriage', and marriage is abolished as being a clear violation of separation of church and state, as well as equal protection, effectivly making prop 8 irrelevant. This could happen either in California, but there is a decent chance this is what would happen in the supreme court.
I'd like to see this issue resolved sooner... you know, like today like I expected. But as history has shown, the harder you try to oppress people for a longer period of time, the blow back when they are finally unwilling to put up with it has larger and larger implications as time goes by.
It is more than simply not over, one can say that this has really just begun.
To anyone else that cared about the California propositions, this is how things split according to LA Times:
Propositions Precincts reporting: ~95.0%
- 1A: High-speed rail Yes 52.2% No 47.8%
- 2: Farm animals Yes 63.2% No 36.8%
- 3: Children’s hospitals Yes 54.7% No 45.3%
- 4: Abortion notification Yes 47.6% No 52.4%
- 5: Drug offenses Yes 40.2% No 59.8%
- 6: Criminal justice Yes 30.5% No 69.5%
- 7: Renewable energy Yes 35.1% No 64.9%
- 8: Gay marriage ban Yes 52.0% No 48.0%
- 9: Victims’ rights Yes 53.2% No 46.8%
- 10: Alternative fuels Yes 40.1% No 59.9%
- 11: Redistricting Yes 50.5% No 49.5%
- 12: Loans for veterans Yes 63.4% No 36.6%
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Happy Election Day!!
I am enjoying election day. The only upsetting thing is the people I know with VERY strong opinions on a number of issues, and to be fair share my opinion on most of the propositions, but are not voting. I fear too many people that might share my opinions will not vote, while the minority (like yes on 8 people) will vote in record numbers.
Anyway, there was a great discussion, and a lot of people brought up some interesting questions I enjoyed covering. Anyway, here they are.
---
Are we over regulating business or not enough?
People talk about free market like as if it is an anything goes. If that was true, why was "Wealth of Nations" and "The Theory of Money and Credit" such massive works?
Free market theory theory of economics, IMHO, isn't about what the government shouldn't do, it is about what it CAN'T do given the nature of an economy. The government can be a normal competitor, and one with BIG money, but it can't make bad businesses successful. Money doesn't create wealth, no matter how much you give away. We can redistribute wealth, and that costs money. Doing useful work is the only thing that improves the 'wealth of a nation'.
Sure, people are greedy, but people are driven by greed to do really great things. Greed can always lead to corruption, but what? Somehow our politicians are above that? What country have you been living in? At least greedy businessmen have something to loose. I think the most important thing we can do set high standards and educate people. And the balance? Employees are greedy, and nothing is more greedy than a consumer.
I don't get this whole "how much regulation is enough?". No amount of the wrong regulation is going to work. We need to look at what types of regulations can and can not work. Price fixing DOES NOT WORK. Taxes need to be product and revenue neutral. Regulations need to be equal, but the government needs to know its place. Mises says that one of the few roles of government that it can play that are different than any other large consumer is the handling of broken contracts. In particular, when someone provides goods, services, or money today to get goods, services, or money in the future, and one of those parties fails to meet their obligation, then the government can intervene to see that the failing party is treated fairly in the liquidation of it's assets as appropriate. That is why this bailout thing is such a nightmare! Businesses that have proven not worthy of survival, for many different reasons, need to die. The government needs to ensure that those businesses are liquidated in a fair manner. Instead, they are being propped up? Why?!?
Now I know that isn't all that is happening. Anyone can buy these loans, and if the government wants to get into that business, then they can be an equal player, but buying any loan under its fair market value makes little sense.
The place where there can be a problem is when government tried to drive the market in a direction it doesn't want to go. I think a great example of this is the drug war. We spend tons of money, for a number of different reason to artificially reduce the supply of certain drugs deemed unsafe. What happens? price goes up. That isn't regulation, that is just manipulation. Regulation would be oversight into ensuring drugs were made cleanly and that customers knew what they were getting. Government could give oversight to certification programs that have various standards, just like the FDA, BBB, HUD, and such. If someone is brewing drugs in their bathtub, they should be shut down for the fire hazard. If a place has quality equipment that is well maintained, doctors, clean needles, safe rooms, and counseling services, not only should they get an A+ like the health department does for restaurants, but nobody is going to buy from the drug dealer on the street corner. And I thought this was all about keeping people safe. It has worked in European countries that have adopted this, and I think Canada has a similar program, and that was exactly the result. Also, a good number of people cleaned up, not to mention drug crime virtually disappeared. How can we keep saying that the type of regulation we have today is working when the number one cause of accidental death in this country is from overdose prescription drugs?
Free market says the best players win that give the customer what they want with quality and at a low price. Government has the power to encourage the best business, and that is the type of regulation we need. We can also use a lot of it. But the current ideology in regulation is fundamentally and it has been proven for a very long time that it CAN'T work, and it is those types of regulations that need to be eliminated.
What I see by both sides is blaming bad regulations as PROOF of too little regulation by liberals, and too much regulation by conservatives. There are tons of books on this stuff, not just by Mises and Smith, but too often it really looks like Congress is just guessing at what would work. Why not back off, study the market, and then see where they can find the competitive advantage. Personally, I think if the government likes what a company is doing, they should buy the product, not mess with how much money they aren't going to take away from them.
This is in part why I think Fair Tax makes sense. It was the result of a large, quality study. The government needs taxes, not to mention the government supports this great country where the market exists. I like the way the Ferangi in Star Trek see the market, as a large river that must carefully be navigated. Regulating taxes is like building a damn. A consumption tax puts the damn as far down stream as possible, and in just one place where everyone knows. What we have right now is water polution. When it comes to supply and demand, income taxes just discourage income, which manifests itself in some very bizzare ways. Same with payroll taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes, and other things. We have this crazy mess of nets in this "river", and rightfully so businesses have to traverse it; a businesses ability to navigate the river directly coorilates to competitive advantage. And when somebody wins, they call it a loop hole.
Pull out the unnecessary nets. The market place is difficult enough to figure out without all these artifical barriers. Tax consumption in a fair way as Fair Tax proposes (Personally, I think the prebate would eliminate a need for welfare, but maybe that's just me), and in any place where the market fails, jump in there and compete, and stop just handing out monopolies to the highest bidder that meets some kind of short sighted goal. The market is rough, and every time the government tries to do something unnatural, trying to tame something that can't be tamed, it just keeps resulting in a cascading effect of "unintended consequences".
---
Did the GOP change McCain?
McCain hasn't changed at all. I think knowing him, Palin was the perfect pick. The issue was that McCain was the perfect pick to put up against Hillary. The PROBLEM is that McCain didn't change his strategy. An over simplification of the issue was that Hillary would have come off as an unrealistic leftist, while McCain made off as the conservative / left moderate. The problem (for him) is honestly Obama's change thing. He wants to revolutionize socialism (what some have called democratic socialism). McCain's plan of attack didn't anticipate this at all, and not knowing how to deal with it, he has defaulted to sticking with a failed game plan OR he is being consistent. Either way, we are now forced to decided between a democrat, and a socialist.
And only one is seen as a traitor to their party.
Republicans have not stood on a conservative platform in over 20 years, and conservatives that loved their party are jumping ship. Republicans on their conservative platform saw the advantage of pandering to the religious right. The problem is that they ended up selling out and letting their constituents take over so far as to sell out on their conservative beliefs.
I consider myself a conservative, and do republicans, but my democrat friends say I am an extreme libertarian. I had hope and belief that Republicans had conservatism as the fore front of their policy, but the constant compromising and this neo-conservative nightmare has become "do whatever sounds nice for the people that support us".
Some people like this. Obviously, otherwise why would the Republicans have adopted it? They just under estimated the number of people that are conservative because it is the best thing for the country, not their self serving interests. There are people that love Palin, and there are Republicans that see McCain's move to the left as a positive, encouraging bipartisanship.
And I think it would have been enough for a win against Hillary. It was just the wrong strategy against Obama when it comes to getting the majority of electorates. I do not fault McCain for sticking to what he believes in, if you can at least believe for a moment that he did that. I think the fault lies more with the GOP. I know many people would say this is crazy, but I think the reason Ron Paul was not supported by the GOP is because he is hated by the media / entertainment industry. The GOP be that it couldn't beat the media at that game. Ron Paul ran on a platform of change. dramatic change back to logic and traditional conservatism that believes in a rational science of politics. I think with the back of the GOP, and unfortunately the religious right that would never have voted for Obama, HIS conservative platform of change, getting the Republican party to what it stood for, and had MAJOR victories throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's would have brought hope to people that we can get back to what worked, within an enlightened vision, versus this radically untested democratic socialist platform of Obama's. The media would have been forced to back off and cover the election in the way it could to get ratings. McCain's coverage is proof that the media doesn't go light on any candidate it doesn't support, and McCain got hit harder than has been seen in a long time. McCain's actual weaknesses didn't help either.
I really think Paul could have stood up to the heat, and I really wish there could have been a real debate between Obama and Paul rather than that monkey dance we were made to endure. IMHO, the reason McCain could not hit any of Obama's weaknesses was because on his important faults, McCain is virtually the same person. I seriously wish some of those weaknesses could have been addressed by a real, experienced, and lovable conservative.
To anyone that follows business stuff, the GOP was to the entertainment industry what Rubbermaid was to Walmart; a disposable asset that could be manipulated in their favor. And to (certain) music lovers, the only chance they had was what happened between ICP and Disney. ICP may not have done as well, as they could have.. but they are doing a whole lot better than Rubbermaid.
The GOP didn't know when to quit, so their voters did instead.
---
Why Palin was a good pick for McCain
1) She was/is the highest rated governor in the Country.
2) Alaska joined the Union for its oil reserves, and Palin strongly believes that this country needs energy independence (despite any reasons / understanding or how closely she may have had business with oil companies).
3) She is not a Washington insider / new face
4) She is a role model for women that take the same position as her on women's issues, not to mention she is a very positive example of a person that takes that kind of position
And as I mentioned earlier, all together, I think the pair / plan would have beat Hillary. It is just senseless against Obama. The GOP picked the perfect weapon, for the wrong type of target.
McCain sold the "I am not Bush" plan. Palin is the "I am not Hillary" plan. In addition to being the complete opposite of Hillary with respect to the issues mentioned above, Palin is a more likable person (remember polls saying in 2000 that Bush was the candidate voters would most like to sit with and have a beer? I meant something), and 5) she is really hot.
Hillary never would have had a chance.
---
When did Obama break?
When do you think it happened?
I think it happened in the last few weeks before the primary. Hillary's hate. McCain's hate. I think Obama saw this as something that was only going to help him, but really sad that he could not have had a real fight debating technical issues.
He is great at the "Hope" "Change" speeches that get all the idiots drooling over him, but he also really has the ability to get down to specific details and argue their merits and set out a clear vision such as his "A Call to Renewal" podcast from 2002.
I said it to myself around the primary that Obama was a great gift, and the best we could really wish for to lead this country... but we don't deserve him, and our petty BS is going to break a really great man. I know this is just what some really hate hearing, but he reminds me of John Coffey from The Green Mile; he was this miracle given to us that by our greed and hate we would destroy for our own selfish, petty reasons.
Now is he broken? Maybe. Could he just need some rest and recover soon after today?
I have Hope.
On a separate note, I hated him a LOT up till recently for supporting the bail out, and further for supporting the PRO-IP Act. But going to give him a chance, and hope it plays out well, like Lessig or Patry being given the position of Internet Czar. Preferably Patry cause I know there is already a position of Internet Advisor Obama has made for Lessig in his cabinet.
---
United States Naval Academy is nothing to scoff at
While I am not a McCain fan AT ALL, and while it is sad that neither Palin or McCain have ANY higher education, and both Biden and Obama have great educational achievements, it is worth keeping in mind that McCain did graduate at the bottom of his class from the United States Naval Academy, which for any of you who are not military buffs, is about the most prestigious, not to mention most difficult, training facility in the world. It would be little different than criticizing an athlete for getting nearly last place in the Olympics. Yeah, it is nearly last, but it is the MF'n Olympics. Or bottom of your class from MIT, Harvard, or Stanford
I don't think it is really something that can be used to criticize his experience. The disgusting mess of this war? Now that is certainly something well worth using against him... I just think it is a separate issue from his academic achievements.
Anyway, there was a great discussion, and a lot of people brought up some interesting questions I enjoyed covering. Anyway, here they are.
---
Are we over regulating business or not enough?
People talk about free market like as if it is an anything goes. If that was true, why was "Wealth of Nations" and "The Theory of Money and Credit" such massive works?
Free market theory theory of economics, IMHO, isn't about what the government shouldn't do, it is about what it CAN'T do given the nature of an economy. The government can be a normal competitor, and one with BIG money, but it can't make bad businesses successful. Money doesn't create wealth, no matter how much you give away. We can redistribute wealth, and that costs money. Doing useful work is the only thing that improves the 'wealth of a nation'.
Sure, people are greedy, but people are driven by greed to do really great things. Greed can always lead to corruption, but what? Somehow our politicians are above that? What country have you been living in? At least greedy businessmen have something to loose. I think the most important thing we can do set high standards and educate people. And the balance? Employees are greedy, and nothing is more greedy than a consumer.
I don't get this whole "how much regulation is enough?". No amount of the wrong regulation is going to work. We need to look at what types of regulations can and can not work. Price fixing DOES NOT WORK. Taxes need to be product and revenue neutral. Regulations need to be equal, but the government needs to know its place. Mises says that one of the few roles of government that it can play that are different than any other large consumer is the handling of broken contracts. In particular, when someone provides goods, services, or money today to get goods, services, or money in the future, and one of those parties fails to meet their obligation, then the government can intervene to see that the failing party is treated fairly in the liquidation of it's assets as appropriate. That is why this bailout thing is such a nightmare! Businesses that have proven not worthy of survival, for many different reasons, need to die. The government needs to ensure that those businesses are liquidated in a fair manner. Instead, they are being propped up? Why?!?
Now I know that isn't all that is happening. Anyone can buy these loans, and if the government wants to get into that business, then they can be an equal player, but buying any loan under its fair market value makes little sense.
The place where there can be a problem is when government tried to drive the market in a direction it doesn't want to go. I think a great example of this is the drug war. We spend tons of money, for a number of different reason to artificially reduce the supply of certain drugs deemed unsafe. What happens? price goes up. That isn't regulation, that is just manipulation. Regulation would be oversight into ensuring drugs were made cleanly and that customers knew what they were getting. Government could give oversight to certification programs that have various standards, just like the FDA, BBB, HUD, and such. If someone is brewing drugs in their bathtub, they should be shut down for the fire hazard. If a place has quality equipment that is well maintained, doctors, clean needles, safe rooms, and counseling services, not only should they get an A+ like the health department does for restaurants, but nobody is going to buy from the drug dealer on the street corner. And I thought this was all about keeping people safe. It has worked in European countries that have adopted this, and I think Canada has a similar program, and that was exactly the result. Also, a good number of people cleaned up, not to mention drug crime virtually disappeared. How can we keep saying that the type of regulation we have today is working when the number one cause of accidental death in this country is from overdose prescription drugs?
Free market says the best players win that give the customer what they want with quality and at a low price. Government has the power to encourage the best business, and that is the type of regulation we need. We can also use a lot of it. But the current ideology in regulation is fundamentally and it has been proven for a very long time that it CAN'T work, and it is those types of regulations that need to be eliminated.
What I see by both sides is blaming bad regulations as PROOF of too little regulation by liberals, and too much regulation by conservatives. There are tons of books on this stuff, not just by Mises and Smith, but too often it really looks like Congress is just guessing at what would work. Why not back off, study the market, and then see where they can find the competitive advantage. Personally, I think if the government likes what a company is doing, they should buy the product, not mess with how much money they aren't going to take away from them.
This is in part why I think Fair Tax makes sense. It was the result of a large, quality study. The government needs taxes, not to mention the government supports this great country where the market exists. I like the way the Ferangi in Star Trek see the market, as a large river that must carefully be navigated. Regulating taxes is like building a damn. A consumption tax puts the damn as far down stream as possible, and in just one place where everyone knows. What we have right now is water polution. When it comes to supply and demand, income taxes just discourage income, which manifests itself in some very bizzare ways. Same with payroll taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes, and other things. We have this crazy mess of nets in this "river", and rightfully so businesses have to traverse it; a businesses ability to navigate the river directly coorilates to competitive advantage. And when somebody wins, they call it a loop hole.
Pull out the unnecessary nets. The market place is difficult enough to figure out without all these artifical barriers. Tax consumption in a fair way as Fair Tax proposes (Personally, I think the prebate would eliminate a need for welfare, but maybe that's just me), and in any place where the market fails, jump in there and compete, and stop just handing out monopolies to the highest bidder that meets some kind of short sighted goal. The market is rough, and every time the government tries to do something unnatural, trying to tame something that can't be tamed, it just keeps resulting in a cascading effect of "unintended consequences".
---
Did the GOP change McCain?
McCain hasn't changed at all. I think knowing him, Palin was the perfect pick. The issue was that McCain was the perfect pick to put up against Hillary. The PROBLEM is that McCain didn't change his strategy. An over simplification of the issue was that Hillary would have come off as an unrealistic leftist, while McCain made off as the conservative / left moderate. The problem (for him) is honestly Obama's change thing. He wants to revolutionize socialism (what some have called democratic socialism). McCain's plan of attack didn't anticipate this at all, and not knowing how to deal with it, he has defaulted to sticking with a failed game plan OR he is being consistent. Either way, we are now forced to decided between a democrat, and a socialist.
And only one is seen as a traitor to their party.
Republicans have not stood on a conservative platform in over 20 years, and conservatives that loved their party are jumping ship. Republicans on their conservative platform saw the advantage of pandering to the religious right. The problem is that they ended up selling out and letting their constituents take over so far as to sell out on their conservative beliefs.
I consider myself a conservative, and do republicans, but my democrat friends say I am an extreme libertarian. I had hope and belief that Republicans had conservatism as the fore front of their policy, but the constant compromising and this neo-conservative nightmare has become "do whatever sounds nice for the people that support us".
Some people like this. Obviously, otherwise why would the Republicans have adopted it? They just under estimated the number of people that are conservative because it is the best thing for the country, not their self serving interests. There are people that love Palin, and there are Republicans that see McCain's move to the left as a positive, encouraging bipartisanship.
And I think it would have been enough for a win against Hillary. It was just the wrong strategy against Obama when it comes to getting the majority of electorates. I do not fault McCain for sticking to what he believes in, if you can at least believe for a moment that he did that. I think the fault lies more with the GOP. I know many people would say this is crazy, but I think the reason Ron Paul was not supported by the GOP is because he is hated by the media / entertainment industry. The GOP be that it couldn't beat the media at that game. Ron Paul ran on a platform of change. dramatic change back to logic and traditional conservatism that believes in a rational science of politics. I think with the back of the GOP, and unfortunately the religious right that would never have voted for Obama, HIS conservative platform of change, getting the Republican party to what it stood for, and had MAJOR victories throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's would have brought hope to people that we can get back to what worked, within an enlightened vision, versus this radically untested democratic socialist platform of Obama's. The media would have been forced to back off and cover the election in the way it could to get ratings. McCain's coverage is proof that the media doesn't go light on any candidate it doesn't support, and McCain got hit harder than has been seen in a long time. McCain's actual weaknesses didn't help either.
I really think Paul could have stood up to the heat, and I really wish there could have been a real debate between Obama and Paul rather than that monkey dance we were made to endure. IMHO, the reason McCain could not hit any of Obama's weaknesses was because on his important faults, McCain is virtually the same person. I seriously wish some of those weaknesses could have been addressed by a real, experienced, and lovable conservative.
To anyone that follows business stuff, the GOP was to the entertainment industry what Rubbermaid was to Walmart; a disposable asset that could be manipulated in their favor. And to (certain) music lovers, the only chance they had was what happened between ICP and Disney. ICP may not have done as well, as they could have.. but they are doing a whole lot better than Rubbermaid.
The GOP didn't know when to quit, so their voters did instead.
---
Why Palin was a good pick for McCain
1) She was/is the highest rated governor in the Country.
2) Alaska joined the Union for its oil reserves, and Palin strongly believes that this country needs energy independence (despite any reasons / understanding or how closely she may have had business with oil companies).
3) She is not a Washington insider / new face
4) She is a role model for women that take the same position as her on women's issues, not to mention she is a very positive example of a person that takes that kind of position
And as I mentioned earlier, all together, I think the pair / plan would have beat Hillary. It is just senseless against Obama. The GOP picked the perfect weapon, for the wrong type of target.
McCain sold the "I am not Bush" plan. Palin is the "I am not Hillary" plan. In addition to being the complete opposite of Hillary with respect to the issues mentioned above, Palin is a more likable person (remember polls saying in 2000 that Bush was the candidate voters would most like to sit with and have a beer? I meant something), and 5) she is really hot.
Hillary never would have had a chance.
---
When did Obama break?
When do you think it happened?
I think it happened in the last few weeks before the primary. Hillary's hate. McCain's hate. I think Obama saw this as something that was only going to help him, but really sad that he could not have had a real fight debating technical issues.
He is great at the "Hope" "Change" speeches that get all the idiots drooling over him, but he also really has the ability to get down to specific details and argue their merits and set out a clear vision such as his "A Call to Renewal" podcast from 2002.
I said it to myself around the primary that Obama was a great gift, and the best we could really wish for to lead this country... but we don't deserve him, and our petty BS is going to break a really great man. I know this is just what some really hate hearing, but he reminds me of John Coffey from The Green Mile; he was this miracle given to us that by our greed and hate we would destroy for our own selfish, petty reasons.
Now is he broken? Maybe. Could he just need some rest and recover soon after today?
I have Hope.
On a separate note, I hated him a LOT up till recently for supporting the bail out, and further for supporting the PRO-IP Act. But going to give him a chance, and hope it plays out well, like Lessig or Patry being given the position of Internet Czar. Preferably Patry cause I know there is already a position of Internet Advisor Obama has made for Lessig in his cabinet.
---
United States Naval Academy is nothing to scoff at
While I am not a McCain fan AT ALL, and while it is sad that neither Palin or McCain have ANY higher education, and both Biden and Obama have great educational achievements, it is worth keeping in mind that McCain did graduate at the bottom of his class from the United States Naval Academy, which for any of you who are not military buffs, is about the most prestigious, not to mention most difficult, training facility in the world. It would be little different than criticizing an athlete for getting nearly last place in the Olympics. Yeah, it is nearly last, but it is the MF'n Olympics. Or bottom of your class from MIT, Harvard, or Stanford
I don't think it is really something that can be used to criticize his experience. The disgusting mess of this war? Now that is certainly something well worth using against him... I just think it is a separate issue from his academic achievements.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Is this what people really think today about equality?
Bjornredtail writes in response to this video against prop 8:
Lessig didn't comment on what I think is the strongest argument in favor of prop 8: Individual Freedom.My response:
I think that having state recognition of homosexual marriage will be used to force people and their organizations to recognize gay marriage, regardless of their personal beliefs.
This is far more worrisome than the limited inequality that would exist if prop 8 passed. The state recognizes civil unions, and the state would not block a gay couple from being married without state recognition.
Can you explain how civil rights forced white people to like black people, or [forced] anybody to believe that blacks were equal just because they were given equal protection under the law? The only argument I have heard on this issue is that being gay is a choice, and being black is not. [So one is treated] like a disease [and the other like an illness]. You speak like these were things we were forced to do. I disagree, maybe they were the RIGHT thing to do. Or is civil rights just a defense against the uppity? What do you really believe?Note: Comments on youtube are limited to 500 words, which requires me to pick words sometimes too carefully in ways that are too quickly to the point at the expense of clarity. With more room on my blog, I have restored the comment in full with the parts that I think needed more clarity. I have done this before, but this time I just thought I would take a chance to point it out.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Response to McClintock's opinion on the California Propositions
@Josh and Tom
I do not see how you can call yourself a Libertarian or a conservative and support prop 4 or 8. I am a registered libertarian because I believe the constitution outlined a framework for the limitations in the purpose government is meant to serve. There are certain things people CAN do and there are things that people CAN NOT do. The only role I see necessary for the government is infrastructure and contract enforcement / dissolution, with very broad interpretation. Roads, power lines, Internet are infrastructure issues. Issues from murder to civil rights are a matter of social contract. Good policy is the only thing that can legitimize a government. When a government goes beyond its role of infrastructure and contract enforcement, it becomes illegitimate. This was a fundamental flaw identified with democracies by the Greeks is that Governments that serve the majority rather social contract of the society for the individual, you end up with a class-ism separating people into groups for which the government serves, and others to which are only slaves.
Marriage is a social contract. It may have many varieties with regard to religion, race, eye color, and hair style, but natural law allows two people to coexist in what ever way they desire. God's law, if you would have it: Anything that can happen on a deserted island. Two people can coexist and either work together, or not. These are the fundamental laws put into place by the natural order of the universe. That can not be regulated legitimately any more than making heavy things smaller controls gravity.
Now, a legitimate government can recognize that individuals may wish to coexist in a way that is mutually beneficial. This is a natural social contract. The government can, as part of its role it serves in assisting with social contracts, reduce the obligations on parts of the individuals to contribute to the government because in the way that the government is there to assist people, those people are already assisting people with each other. To make matters simple, the government will only recognize one such commitment between any two people at a time (not including dependents, but that is a different type of social contract). This amounts to reduction in taxes, joint filing, hospital visits, and other such things that make them a unit in the eyes of the law, and recognizing the reduction of work necessary by the government because these two people are partly doing the governments job with respect two those individuals, for each other.
Between person + person = contract and the recognition of that contract by the government, what legitimate role could the government have in judging who the members of that contract after we have recognized then as citizens.
Under this interpretation of the role of government and legitimate social policy, person + dog = marriage is legitimately illegal because the dog is not a citizen, and therefore can not enter a legal contract in any way that is enforceable by the government (don't read too much into it, it was only meant to be taken at face value and the context). person + child = marriage is not legitimate because the government does not recognize children as adults. Government recognizes its citizens, and children are still wards of the parents. In a society, with regard to social policy alone, there is a social contract that says "I will be a part of this society, but I don't want you to have sex with my kids". This social contract is enforceable by law going back to natural law / deserted island. People need to know the differences between being part of the society, and being alone in nature.
So as Wanda Sykes puts it, if you are against same-sex marriage, don't marry a member of the same sex. You don't want to enter into a certain contract with somebody, you don't have to; another part of the governments role.
Now, more of the way that this role of government is recognized is in the first amendment, with regard to religion. The contract of Marriage exist in all religions I know of. It is an important part of peoples faiths. The religious implications are irrelevant with regard to the role the government plays.
Government should not regulate religion, religious ceremonies, or other things that have no legitimacy having a relationship to the law. However, there is no reason why the government should not be allowed to call its relationship to this social contract that coexists with the persons faith, also marriage. If the government can not legitimately coexist with the word marriage for the implications it can have with regard to a persons faith, then either the relationship needs to be abolished, or the name needs to change for people to recognize and respect its differences.
Marriage for all, or we need to only have civil unions.
Now prop 4 is a little more complicated. I mentioned earlier the legitimacy the government has to step in with regard to relationship with minors, but this is something different. The elements and legitimacy of the government with regard to social contract contrasted with natural / God's law. Natural law says, as in what will happen in nature, is that a woman becomes fertile. With regard to the moral standards of our society, it is very young, but nature only knows a female as either prepubescent, and fertile. We can mess with it in all kinds of ways. We could force medication on people, we can chain chastity belts on them, we can even traumatize them with terrible stories of whores and witchcraft, but none of that changes the natural order of things.
Further, there is way more to reproduction and fertility than man + woman = baby, or eggs + sperm = baby, or penis + vagina = baby. Look at infant mortality rates around the world, and see it is more complicated then that. Women that want to become mothers that have lived so far very rewarding lives that want to expand on their experiences by adding motherhood to that experience are warned of the dangers of possible complications involved in breeding. It is common to expect possible mis carriages in early term. Part of this comes from nature knowing and regulating this. The natural law causes some people to not become mothers, causes people to die during childbirth, causes miscarriages / spontaneous abortion. A big part of that is a womans body can know if it is right to have a baby. In nature, animals frequently kill their young if they know that the children would not survive, and that if the mother takes care of herself, she is going to have better opportunities to actually have a healthy litter or whatnot in the future. Obviously, this is most common amongst mammals.
This is a complicated and emotional issue. While this may have sounded like an argument to support abortion, that was not the purpose. The places where the government can get involved with regard to abortion were outlined in Roe v. Wade, which was NOT a 'free for all' on abortion. It clearly outlined circumstances and situations where the government at different levels could get involved. To any supporter of pro-choice or pro-life as each life to be referred, I hope you know and understand exactly what Roe v. Wade actually decided, because I will agree that it addressed the core "issue" in a very unique way, unlike much of any other supreme court decision before or after.
So to social contracts and natural law, it makes it is illegitimate for the government to not recognize the right to privacy rights of minors IN THIS UNIQUE CASE. Driving, smoking, drinking, voting, owning property, and many other things that are rights, privileges, and benefits of civilized society. In this way, the government has an obligation to uphold the requests of the parent with regard to those issues as the child is still a legal defendant. Over simplifying, in every other case, the government is protecting the people from the government such that benefits do not become hindrances, even if they continue to be liabilities.
For lack of a better term, the government does not enable women to become pregnant in the way that all the other things of a great society can offer. Further, the courts have recognized the wisdom of Edward Abbey and this legal relationship between citizen and government:
"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State."
God / Nature has already given a woman the right to choose, in many ways. As the government has decided its role in enforcing the social contract of expectations of the part of society for a fertile woman, we leave to the woman what would otherwise be left to nature. There is no legitimate reason for an issue so closely related in the natural contract between a woman and nature for something like the government to come in and apply its ideas about age and maturity on an issue with which the government had no role to play.
Other than that, most everything else there is to say on the matter has been said. Parents should have the right to form open and honest relationships with their children as their defendants as they see fit. There is little justification for government to impose mandates on parenting other than the strict guidelines with regard to overt abuse and neglect. Teachers can be compelled to teach certain subjects and for certain core material be covered because parents are trusting their kids with that teacher. The government is expected to regulated, especially when it comes to a government (public) school. To give the government the power to force parents to talk about anything with their kids can be understandable, but it is completely illegitimate with regard to the role of government.
As for the other issues:
prop 1: infrastructure. Will this proposal over all make a positive contribution to the infrastructure of California? Yes.
I have some issues with the way that those contracts are given out, but that is a completely different issue that is not going to be resolved by revising this bill in any way.
2: Social policy? Well, that is why we vote. Is this the minimum standard we as a society want to set for providing these types, whether they be used domestically or for import. I think it is a good bill, but it is not complete. If we want this to be our social policy, it needs to be more than a restriction on California farmers. Prop 2 should be a consumer protection not a farm animal protection; farm animals are not citizens. The restriction should be on what is legal to produce and sell in this state. Then California is setting a good example in its policy, and providing for protections for consumers that wanted that policy. Seems easy enough. So vote yes if you think this is good and can be improved, or reject it for either disagreeing with the idea, or because we should not make bad laws that need to be fixed later. I side with only passing good laws.
3. Government might have a legitimate role in medicine, but it has utterly failed in every attempt. The progress made has been by individuals, doctors, and organizations that have been forced to battle the government. Yuck, what a mess. Government needs to get out, figure itself out before trying to just do MORE. Out of the context of what government has done for health care, this proposal makes no sense in our present economic situation.
5. Something the government has gotten overly involved in and screwed up horribly. The number one cause of accidental death in this country is prescription drugs followed by non prescription drugs. The drug war wasn't just a failure, but it should have reinforced this idea of the role of government and splitting up people into classes it very damaging to society. Our only solution to drug problems in the past (at least drugs the government can't give out patents for and such) is use it as an excuse to circumvent civil rights laws, and lock up undesirables. The issue has become more complicated, and we have learned that prohibition does not work. This will be a delicate issue, and while I could be in support of a sledge hammer to the issue, I recognize the desire by people for this to be a progressive matter, and that aside from the problems with the law, there are some real issues with drugs that need to be addressed. Prop 5 is a very well designed step towards a society that supports and protects social policy.
6. I think about the same is true for prop 6 as prop 5, but I am less familiar with the details and implications of the proposals, but feel that right or wrong, it is a legitimate role of government to address this issue, and that the people I would be most concerned about this bill being affected are in support of it.
7. Infrastructure? NO! This is a private business matter. There are TONS of problems with power companies in the state due to well intentioned BAD policy. This might possibly have a place in some state that had a handle on the issue, but it is particularly awful to try to throw on top of the heaping pile of [junk] that has become utilities management in this state. This is the most corrupt industry in this state, rivaled maybe only by telecommunications.
9. The way McClintock is putting it, such a law is already in place. If there is a problem, it is being addressed from the wrong angle. I am for victims rights, but there is a limit to everything before it just becomes [bad].
10. I completely agree with McClintock's argument.
11. Same
12. Same
The government is not your god. What a sick implication that you would petition the government to address issues completely outside of its role or purpose. Take some responsibility for your own lives, and use sound judgment before giving up your rights to make the government to do your bidding, cause some how historically, that never quite seems to work out. The government is power hungry and happy to take anything you give it. Think of Stephen King's "Needful Things". Be careful what you wish for.
UPDATE: Glad I blogged this, cause my reply wasn't posted. maybe it was too long, but I had a lot to say. Rather than starting a new post, I want to share the thoughts I had in the few hours after this posting.
With regard to the principles I argued for that make a legitimate government, I started thinking more about something humorous about this election. We are stuck picking between a democrat, and a socialist. With regard to some of the comments made on the Mark Levin Show (Afternoons PSD Sirius Patriot 144) about Obama's anti-founding fathers, anti us constitution comments from 2001 on Chicago Public Radio, I started reflecting on "Trying something different". If failure is a reflection of the plan then it is not terribly difficult to argue the plan didn't work. Our founding fathers told us what would work, and how this country would ultimately fail. They were right. So if we are going to praise them for what they did so well, maybe we should give them a little more credit for this countries failure.
Barack Obama has Hope for Change. republicans (little 'r' just for you Mike Church) have the worst fears of his Marxist regime, as they put it. I have been arguing for awhile that arguing with others that the constution is GREAT, bug that we gave up on it long ago. We live in a Media run, strongly religious right, communist nation. So maybe the republicans are right, and maybe the reason this isn't getting any huge attention because this is exactly what people want, and kinda don'd want to use the forbidden 'C' word to describe their beliefs because it has been such a taboo subject since the McCarthy Era and the Rosenburg trial. Or maybe they just havn't actually read the Communist Manifesto and understand the vision Marx had.
So what if Obama wants to try this new social experiment of what I have refered to as "democratic socialism". Obviously some people disadreed with Ron Paul on his reasons why people should not vote for him; "If you think that government has to take care of us, from cradle to grave, and if you think our government should police the world, [then I am not your cannidate]" he says.
With all the problems in this country right now, I think people are desperately looking for something different, in a major way, possible just in protest of how bad things have gotten screwed up so bad. The country wants to take another look at communism, but with more of a classless approach, a compassion for the american dream that works on giving a helping hand to everyone that wants to try. People are saying screw progress, we want help today.
I don't think this is the best solution for the country... but I do recognize that despite the fact that I think what is flanned is totally wrong in so many ways, I am exactly in the margin to get the most help... if you ignore the possibility of the whole system collapsing in on itself such that nobody can get any help.
Maybe this is the last I can hope for instead of feeling so cynical. I am told to worry about the economy, so I look into it (reading up on some of the great minds on the issue, such as Smith and Mesis) and see the people that are meant to ei leading this nation doing what appears to be down right guessing! All I can think is WTF, a HS Economics clas could show you why what you are doing is totally messed up. Taxes, people complain about taxes. So a real study is put forth to find the best system for all that would not change the present level of income. Pure reform. Real research was done my some of the best minds and finally produce a masterpiece. Finally some rational legislation based on logical reason and historical fact. The Fair Tax. What happenr? It gets ignored! All democrats can say is "Sales Tax is regressive". Read the damn bill! Yeah, it is pretty freaking long, but NOTHING compared to the montrosity of the present system.
It is crazy and frustrating. I am more sympathetic of the people happy that Obama has won than the people claiming the end of the world that McCain lost. I think a lot was totally fucked up by the Clintons, and Bush is being blamed for not fixing it. I CAN NOT accept all the blame being thrown at Bush in the face of a democraticly controlled congress. But fuck democratically controlled, there are 435 members of congress with all their stupid little commities trying to get everything right. Yeah, Bush wasn't a great leader, but this isn't Boy Scouts, you are United States Congressmen. With such a push over of a president, why wasn't this the time for Congress to shine?
Hmm...
Well Here's to HOPE. I am glad people like Obama... but other than that, I don't think I have anything positive to say. Maybe later... on a different subject.
I do not see how you can call yourself a Libertarian or a conservative and support prop 4 or 8. I am a registered libertarian because I believe the constitution outlined a framework for the limitations in the purpose government is meant to serve. There are certain things people CAN do and there are things that people CAN NOT do. The only role I see necessary for the government is infrastructure and contract enforcement / dissolution, with very broad interpretation. Roads, power lines, Internet are infrastructure issues. Issues from murder to civil rights are a matter of social contract. Good policy is the only thing that can legitimize a government. When a government goes beyond its role of infrastructure and contract enforcement, it becomes illegitimate. This was a fundamental flaw identified with democracies by the Greeks is that Governments that serve the majority rather social contract of the society for the individual, you end up with a class-ism separating people into groups for which the government serves, and others to which are only slaves.
Marriage is a social contract. It may have many varieties with regard to religion, race, eye color, and hair style, but natural law allows two people to coexist in what ever way they desire. God's law, if you would have it: Anything that can happen on a deserted island. Two people can coexist and either work together, or not. These are the fundamental laws put into place by the natural order of the universe. That can not be regulated legitimately any more than making heavy things smaller controls gravity.
Now, a legitimate government can recognize that individuals may wish to coexist in a way that is mutually beneficial. This is a natural social contract. The government can, as part of its role it serves in assisting with social contracts, reduce the obligations on parts of the individuals to contribute to the government because in the way that the government is there to assist people, those people are already assisting people with each other. To make matters simple, the government will only recognize one such commitment between any two people at a time (not including dependents, but that is a different type of social contract). This amounts to reduction in taxes, joint filing, hospital visits, and other such things that make them a unit in the eyes of the law, and recognizing the reduction of work necessary by the government because these two people are partly doing the governments job with respect two those individuals, for each other.
Between person + person = contract and the recognition of that contract by the government, what legitimate role could the government have in judging who the members of that contract after we have recognized then as citizens.
Under this interpretation of the role of government and legitimate social policy, person + dog = marriage is legitimately illegal because the dog is not a citizen, and therefore can not enter a legal contract in any way that is enforceable by the government (don't read too much into it, it was only meant to be taken at face value and the context). person + child = marriage is not legitimate because the government does not recognize children as adults. Government recognizes its citizens, and children are still wards of the parents. In a society, with regard to social policy alone, there is a social contract that says "I will be a part of this society, but I don't want you to have sex with my kids". This social contract is enforceable by law going back to natural law / deserted island. People need to know the differences between being part of the society, and being alone in nature.
So as Wanda Sykes puts it, if you are against same-sex marriage, don't marry a member of the same sex. You don't want to enter into a certain contract with somebody, you don't have to; another part of the governments role.
Now, more of the way that this role of government is recognized is in the first amendment, with regard to religion. The contract of Marriage exist in all religions I know of. It is an important part of peoples faiths. The religious implications are irrelevant with regard to the role the government plays.
Government should not regulate religion, religious ceremonies, or other things that have no legitimacy having a relationship to the law. However, there is no reason why the government should not be allowed to call its relationship to this social contract that coexists with the persons faith, also marriage. If the government can not legitimately coexist with the word marriage for the implications it can have with regard to a persons faith, then either the relationship needs to be abolished, or the name needs to change for people to recognize and respect its differences.
Marriage for all, or we need to only have civil unions.
Now prop 4 is a little more complicated. I mentioned earlier the legitimacy the government has to step in with regard to relationship with minors, but this is something different. The elements and legitimacy of the government with regard to social contract contrasted with natural / God's law. Natural law says, as in what will happen in nature, is that a woman becomes fertile. With regard to the moral standards of our society, it is very young, but nature only knows a female as either prepubescent, and fertile. We can mess with it in all kinds of ways. We could force medication on people, we can chain chastity belts on them, we can even traumatize them with terrible stories of whores and witchcraft, but none of that changes the natural order of things.
Further, there is way more to reproduction and fertility than man + woman = baby, or eggs + sperm = baby, or penis + vagina = baby. Look at infant mortality rates around the world, and see it is more complicated then that. Women that want to become mothers that have lived so far very rewarding lives that want to expand on their experiences by adding motherhood to that experience are warned of the dangers of possible complications involved in breeding. It is common to expect possible mis carriages in early term. Part of this comes from nature knowing and regulating this. The natural law causes some people to not become mothers, causes people to die during childbirth, causes miscarriages / spontaneous abortion. A big part of that is a womans body can know if it is right to have a baby. In nature, animals frequently kill their young if they know that the children would not survive, and that if the mother takes care of herself, she is going to have better opportunities to actually have a healthy litter or whatnot in the future. Obviously, this is most common amongst mammals.
This is a complicated and emotional issue. While this may have sounded like an argument to support abortion, that was not the purpose. The places where the government can get involved with regard to abortion were outlined in Roe v. Wade, which was NOT a 'free for all' on abortion. It clearly outlined circumstances and situations where the government at different levels could get involved. To any supporter of pro-choice or pro-life as each life to be referred, I hope you know and understand exactly what Roe v. Wade actually decided, because I will agree that it addressed the core "issue" in a very unique way, unlike much of any other supreme court decision before or after.
So to social contracts and natural law, it makes it is illegitimate for the government to not recognize the right to privacy rights of minors IN THIS UNIQUE CASE. Driving, smoking, drinking, voting, owning property, and many other things that are rights, privileges, and benefits of civilized society. In this way, the government has an obligation to uphold the requests of the parent with regard to those issues as the child is still a legal defendant. Over simplifying, in every other case, the government is protecting the people from the government such that benefits do not become hindrances, even if they continue to be liabilities.
For lack of a better term, the government does not enable women to become pregnant in the way that all the other things of a great society can offer. Further, the courts have recognized the wisdom of Edward Abbey and this legal relationship between citizen and government:
"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State."
God / Nature has already given a woman the right to choose, in many ways. As the government has decided its role in enforcing the social contract of expectations of the part of society for a fertile woman, we leave to the woman what would otherwise be left to nature. There is no legitimate reason for an issue so closely related in the natural contract between a woman and nature for something like the government to come in and apply its ideas about age and maturity on an issue with which the government had no role to play.
Other than that, most everything else there is to say on the matter has been said. Parents should have the right to form open and honest relationships with their children as their defendants as they see fit. There is little justification for government to impose mandates on parenting other than the strict guidelines with regard to overt abuse and neglect. Teachers can be compelled to teach certain subjects and for certain core material be covered because parents are trusting their kids with that teacher. The government is expected to regulated, especially when it comes to a government (public) school. To give the government the power to force parents to talk about anything with their kids can be understandable, but it is completely illegitimate with regard to the role of government.
As for the other issues:
prop 1: infrastructure. Will this proposal over all make a positive contribution to the infrastructure of California? Yes.
I have some issues with the way that those contracts are given out, but that is a completely different issue that is not going to be resolved by revising this bill in any way.
2: Social policy? Well, that is why we vote. Is this the minimum standard we as a society want to set for providing these types, whether they be used domestically or for import. I think it is a good bill, but it is not complete. If we want this to be our social policy, it needs to be more than a restriction on California farmers. Prop 2 should be a consumer protection not a farm animal protection; farm animals are not citizens. The restriction should be on what is legal to produce and sell in this state. Then California is setting a good example in its policy, and providing for protections for consumers that wanted that policy. Seems easy enough. So vote yes if you think this is good and can be improved, or reject it for either disagreeing with the idea, or because we should not make bad laws that need to be fixed later. I side with only passing good laws.
3. Government might have a legitimate role in medicine, but it has utterly failed in every attempt. The progress made has been by individuals, doctors, and organizations that have been forced to battle the government. Yuck, what a mess. Government needs to get out, figure itself out before trying to just do MORE. Out of the context of what government has done for health care, this proposal makes no sense in our present economic situation.
5. Something the government has gotten overly involved in and screwed up horribly. The number one cause of accidental death in this country is prescription drugs followed by non prescription drugs. The drug war wasn't just a failure, but it should have reinforced this idea of the role of government and splitting up people into classes it very damaging to society. Our only solution to drug problems in the past (at least drugs the government can't give out patents for and such) is use it as an excuse to circumvent civil rights laws, and lock up undesirables. The issue has become more complicated, and we have learned that prohibition does not work. This will be a delicate issue, and while I could be in support of a sledge hammer to the issue, I recognize the desire by people for this to be a progressive matter, and that aside from the problems with the law, there are some real issues with drugs that need to be addressed. Prop 5 is a very well designed step towards a society that supports and protects social policy.
6. I think about the same is true for prop 6 as prop 5, but I am less familiar with the details and implications of the proposals, but feel that right or wrong, it is a legitimate role of government to address this issue, and that the people I would be most concerned about this bill being affected are in support of it.
7. Infrastructure? NO! This is a private business matter. There are TONS of problems with power companies in the state due to well intentioned BAD policy. This might possibly have a place in some state that had a handle on the issue, but it is particularly awful to try to throw on top of the heaping pile of [junk] that has become utilities management in this state. This is the most corrupt industry in this state, rivaled maybe only by telecommunications.
9. The way McClintock is putting it, such a law is already in place. If there is a problem, it is being addressed from the wrong angle. I am for victims rights, but there is a limit to everything before it just becomes [bad].
10. I completely agree with McClintock's argument.
11. Same
12. Same
The government is not your god. What a sick implication that you would petition the government to address issues completely outside of its role or purpose. Take some responsibility for your own lives, and use sound judgment before giving up your rights to make the government to do your bidding, cause some how historically, that never quite seems to work out. The government is power hungry and happy to take anything you give it. Think of Stephen King's "Needful Things". Be careful what you wish for.
UPDATE: Glad I blogged this, cause my reply wasn't posted. maybe it was too long, but I had a lot to say. Rather than starting a new post, I want to share the thoughts I had in the few hours after this posting.
With regard to the principles I argued for that make a legitimate government, I started thinking more about something humorous about this election. We are stuck picking between a democrat, and a socialist. With regard to some of the comments made on the Mark Levin Show (Afternoons PSD Sirius Patriot 144) about Obama's anti-founding fathers, anti us constitution comments from 2001 on Chicago Public Radio, I started reflecting on "Trying something different". If failure is a reflection of the plan then it is not terribly difficult to argue the plan didn't work. Our founding fathers told us what would work, and how this country would ultimately fail. They were right. So if we are going to praise them for what they did so well, maybe we should give them a little more credit for this countries failure.
Barack Obama has Hope for Change. republicans (little 'r' just for you Mike Church) have the worst fears of his Marxist regime, as they put it. I have been arguing for awhile that arguing with others that the constution is GREAT, bug that we gave up on it long ago. We live in a Media run, strongly religious right, communist nation. So maybe the republicans are right, and maybe the reason this isn't getting any huge attention because this is exactly what people want, and kinda don'd want to use the forbidden 'C' word to describe their beliefs because it has been such a taboo subject since the McCarthy Era and the Rosenburg trial. Or maybe they just havn't actually read the Communist Manifesto and understand the vision Marx had.
So what if Obama wants to try this new social experiment of what I have refered to as "democratic socialism". Obviously some people disadreed with Ron Paul on his reasons why people should not vote for him; "If you think that government has to take care of us, from cradle to grave, and if you think our government should police the world, [then I am not your cannidate]" he says.
With all the problems in this country right now, I think people are desperately looking for something different, in a major way, possible just in protest of how bad things have gotten screwed up so bad. The country wants to take another look at communism, but with more of a classless approach, a compassion for the american dream that works on giving a helping hand to everyone that wants to try. People are saying screw progress, we want help today.
I don't think this is the best solution for the country... but I do recognize that despite the fact that I think what is flanned is totally wrong in so many ways, I am exactly in the margin to get the most help... if you ignore the possibility of the whole system collapsing in on itself such that nobody can get any help.
Maybe this is the last I can hope for instead of feeling so cynical. I am told to worry about the economy, so I look into it (reading up on some of the great minds on the issue, such as Smith and Mesis) and see the people that are meant to ei leading this nation doing what appears to be down right guessing! All I can think is WTF, a HS Economics clas could show you why what you are doing is totally messed up. Taxes, people complain about taxes. So a real study is put forth to find the best system for all that would not change the present level of income. Pure reform. Real research was done my some of the best minds and finally produce a masterpiece. Finally some rational legislation based on logical reason and historical fact. The Fair Tax. What happenr? It gets ignored! All democrats can say is "Sales Tax is regressive". Read the damn bill! Yeah, it is pretty freaking long, but NOTHING compared to the montrosity of the present system.
It is crazy and frustrating. I am more sympathetic of the people happy that Obama has won than the people claiming the end of the world that McCain lost. I think a lot was totally fucked up by the Clintons, and Bush is being blamed for not fixing it. I CAN NOT accept all the blame being thrown at Bush in the face of a democraticly controlled congress. But fuck democratically controlled, there are 435 members of congress with all their stupid little commities trying to get everything right. Yeah, Bush wasn't a great leader, but this isn't Boy Scouts, you are United States Congressmen. With such a push over of a president, why wasn't this the time for Congress to shine?
Hmm...
Well Here's to HOPE. I am glad people like Obama... but other than that, I don't think I have anything positive to say. Maybe later... on a different subject.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Which came first, Copyright or Creativity?
So there was an article on Slashdot today that got me very excited.
There is a big discussion going on, as usual with these issues, with a full range of opinions on this.
In this discussion the question came up of which came first, creativity or copyright with the argument presented:
This was a comment by Tharos.
It was the "Pretty Simple" I could not ignore. This was my response, disagreeing that organizations like the RIAA are something only of the present that came about AFTER the Internet:
Interesting perspective on history. But if many people think this is the way that it happened, no wonder we are in the mess we are in today, IMHO.
Survival has always been about advantage. Even in interspecies interaction, the winner most always the one that knows something the other does not. Where food is, where predators are not, deceptions in numbers, camouflage, and other things. Ultimately, nature and human history have shown that knowledge is power. Further, in competition, it is about having more power, even if by simply ensuring less knowledge by potential adversaries.
It may not have been called copyright in the century leading up to the Statute of Anne, but the control over the flow of information, and special armies to protect such information from falling into the "wrong hands" has been around as long as there has been written language. In some places, there were even were secret spoken languages meant only for the elite that were forbidden to be learned by commoners by threat of death. Even Caesar used encryption algorithms to pass secret messages to troops (Still known today as the Caesar shift). Scribes were required to take oaths not to reveal the secrets shared with them, and master texts were bound by shackle to the most trusted members, not in ways necessarily to keep the book from harm, but to keep the text away from unauthorized eyes.
All this is copy protection because every time we see an image or read a text, or see a sound, our brains make a copy... albeit some better than others.
So in many ways, copyright, the protection and control over knowledge came first, and with the birth of creativity and free thinking immediately came with it along side was methods of copy protection.
Wit the invention of the printing press in 1439, copyright was thrown into chaos. The distribution of knowledge was able to fight copyright in new ways never before conceived. Governments quickly responded with copyright police that hunted down book publishers, rounding them up for public hangings and beheading for their crimes to serve as an example of how they would deal with pirates; stealing work from scribes and writers. It was a problem the elite argued would destroy knowledge, creativity, and progress as there would be no longer any motivation for thinkers to think, scientists to study, or writers to write.
Well, they were right in part. The scribes guild vanished over a period of time. Knowledge as it was known, held in secret by a powerful few, had been destroyed.
But... someone and for some reason people did keep writing books, and all the tales of the end of the world of creativity never quite came about. Some argue it was actually the other way around, that a revolution took place and a generation of thinkers were born, but whose to say what really happened, right?
But then came a new battle. The scribes were gone, and book publishing had taken over. People had been enlightened, and there was a new thirst for knowledge, this time in masses, and printed books had been legalized. This time, the control was in the hands of the book publishers. But as the elite scribes had known, power isn't just control, but exclusive power. Book publishers wanted exclusive rights to publish books. The printers guild aka Stationer's Company, were granted exclusive right to print the books, so long as royalties were paid to the Queen. Books were 'bought' by the queen, and she would give the texts to book publishers that would get exclusive printing rights indefinitely. No royalties were ever paid to writers, and writers were banned from self publishing or seeking an independent press. Queen Mary I of Great Britain was the first MPAA / RIAA of its kind. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
By 1709, Shakespeare had been dead nearly 100 years. The independent publishers fought even harder for a more free copyright law, as opposed to the indefinitely perpetual copyright law in place. Shakespeare is a part of our culture and can not be owned by anyone. Stories are a part of who we are, not to be owned by individuals. Knowledge should be spread by any means necessary, and we are here to meet that demand.
A settlement was reached in the British courts in 1709 with the Statute of Anne, looking to balance the rights of people who would write stories contributing to culture, science, and "useful arts", and the rights of the people whom were members of that culture, both as readers, thinkers, and writers that draw upon that culture. Copyright would hence forth be limited to a period of fourteen years for new works, with requirements that copies be placed in all the libraries of Britain, and free for Stationer's Company to reproduce.
The founding fathers of the United States Constitution recognized this important protection and balance between culture, progress, and control, and thus included in the powers granted to congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"... Which with the powerful lobbyists of today have taken from "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", but that is skipping ahead...
Quickly, Fox, Kodak, and Disney take a whole bunch of stuff, without any regard to copyrighted books and movies to patented film types and projectors, moving to California to form Hollywood because it was far enough from Washington DC to avoid the law, not to mention inventors seeking patent royalties for their inventions. skipping ahead, Disney becomes super power, tries to expand copyright but fails until people are distracted by WWII. Threatened by radio, congress grants freedom to radio despite major opposition. Disney / MPAA greatly threatened by Cable Companies saying it is going to "destroy creativity" just like radio as these companies run their pirate cables, just as scribes had claimed in 1400's. Congress grants statutory royalties. VCR comes out. BIG freak out, blah blah blah, more copy right statutes. broadcast flag, blah blah blah, CD, DVD MAJOR FREAK OUT... again, as usual as the dominent power of information / culture distribution was threatened. Internet, same thing so on and so forth.
So what I see? Culture was created and controlled by and elite few and distribution was difficult. Over the past millennium, there is always the attempt for "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." ~George Orwell (or Rage against the Machine for those that don't read books), or as Lawrence Lessig puts it, "1. Creativity and innovation always builds on the past. 2. The past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it. 3. Free Societies enable the future by limiting the past. 4. Ours is less and less a free society."
So I see it as, there is and always will be creativity. It can not be stopped. People with power and money from their success will fight to keep that control, and that power can potentially be limited by government. People will always fight for progress by any means necessary. Our government today is powerless to encourage progress due the many controls of the creators of the past.
The difference, as Sigmund freud put it, we are lucky to live in an age where people only burn our books and not us.
For a more complete version, read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, or watch any of his videos / lectures on youtube or opencinema, and a great film, Steal This Film Part II on the history of copyright, or part one on government coruption by the media, produced by The Pirate Bay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs "Larry Lessig: How Creativity is being strangled by the law"
Obligatory comment left by me on this video:
Jack Valenti called it his own terrorist war, him being on the side of the monopolies. Hmm... the only terrorist I see is the man determined to rewrite the constitution in his favor. They may not be on our soil, but today we have a great American patriot that is not looking for mediation or compromise but has set his mission to destroy this evil the only way he knows how. He has enlisted hundreds of millions in advertising to fuel a undefeatable black market for any piece of culture the demons of our time would try to lock away and strategically hand out like bread to starving children. He has given the world a Horn of Plenty, looting from the pirates that stole our culture and try to comodotize and control it. Our great American Patriot's are Gottfrid Svartholm, Fredrik Neij, and Peter Sunde. Long Live The Pirate Bay!
With this caveat:
When our society returns to progress and we live in a Free culture as promoted by Lessig, Patry, and other men I consider great American heroes (reserving patriot for those of Edward Abbey's definition. GREAT men, just different), there will be no place for the pirate bay. As it is a front line of defense against injustice, a free culture will not need (no offense) such a crude and unorganized site that is merely an index. Sites like Jamendo will dominate. The evidence I present to defend this is this: Look at the inclusions in the index. Look for public domain works. Look for creative Commons work. Try to find work people are trying to give away or share with the world. You won't find any. The great success of The Pirate Bay is fueled only as a counter to greed and corruption. This explains the hundreds of millions of dollars in "off-shore accounts" around the world. Freedom, and a love for cultural sharing where artists recognize the influence culture has had on them, and the opportunities for creativity it provides unilaterally, there is no place on the pirate bay. It is only a forum for patriots to band together against corruption. When the corruption is broken, the Pirate Bay will sail off into the sunset of our history, as it will have no place in the free world.
Let that be a reminder to would be cultural tyrants out there. This is a war YOU started, and the Pirate Bay will help end. The numbers say every Internet user is a soldier, and every dollar TPB makes should stand as a memorial to the intolerance of your ways.
And on a related note, notice the praises for the television stations that now share their content on the web? The business model of the future may not be complete, but you can easily see where it is going. I know there is a day where one studios artwork will disappear from the pirate bay, and all that money they had been getting will go to the studios, and that will be the first studio to start its own bit torrent tracker, or whatever they have to call it. Hopefully that will take place before the last movie achieves rot away on their not so permanent nitrate film.
The Pirate Bay will soar so long as it is profitable. Ye of so little faith that can't find a better business model, and must turn to the government to "fix" it for you, like fixing any other game.
Ooh, and to anyone that read the other news on slashdot, it appears our old friend Ted Stevens will be observing a series of cubes. Ha ha ha!
Please comment if you made it through my whole rant. It is appreciated.
There is a big discussion going on, as usual with these issues, with a full range of opinions on this.
In this discussion the question came up of which came first, creativity or copyright with the argument presented:
1. creativity
2. printing press
3. mass distribution
4. copyright
5. the Internet
6. the RIAA
pretty simplo IMO.
This was a comment by Tharos.
It was the "Pretty Simple" I could not ignore. This was my response, disagreeing that organizations like the RIAA are something only of the present that came about AFTER the Internet:
Interesting perspective on history. But if many people think this is the way that it happened, no wonder we are in the mess we are in today, IMHO.
Survival has always been about advantage. Even in interspecies interaction, the winner most always the one that knows something the other does not. Where food is, where predators are not, deceptions in numbers, camouflage, and other things. Ultimately, nature and human history have shown that knowledge is power. Further, in competition, it is about having more power, even if by simply ensuring less knowledge by potential adversaries.
It may not have been called copyright in the century leading up to the Statute of Anne, but the control over the flow of information, and special armies to protect such information from falling into the "wrong hands" has been around as long as there has been written language. In some places, there were even were secret spoken languages meant only for the elite that were forbidden to be learned by commoners by threat of death. Even Caesar used encryption algorithms to pass secret messages to troops (Still known today as the Caesar shift). Scribes were required to take oaths not to reveal the secrets shared with them, and master texts were bound by shackle to the most trusted members, not in ways necessarily to keep the book from harm, but to keep the text away from unauthorized eyes.
All this is copy protection because every time we see an image or read a text, or see a sound, our brains make a copy... albeit some better than others.
So in many ways, copyright, the protection and control over knowledge came first, and with the birth of creativity and free thinking immediately came with it along side was methods of copy protection.
Wit the invention of the printing press in 1439, copyright was thrown into chaos. The distribution of knowledge was able to fight copyright in new ways never before conceived. Governments quickly responded with copyright police that hunted down book publishers, rounding them up for public hangings and beheading for their crimes to serve as an example of how they would deal with pirates; stealing work from scribes and writers. It was a problem the elite argued would destroy knowledge, creativity, and progress as there would be no longer any motivation for thinkers to think, scientists to study, or writers to write.
Well, they were right in part. The scribes guild vanished over a period of time. Knowledge as it was known, held in secret by a powerful few, had been destroyed.
But... someone and for some reason people did keep writing books, and all the tales of the end of the world of creativity never quite came about. Some argue it was actually the other way around, that a revolution took place and a generation of thinkers were born, but whose to say what really happened, right?
But then came a new battle. The scribes were gone, and book publishing had taken over. People had been enlightened, and there was a new thirst for knowledge, this time in masses, and printed books had been legalized. This time, the control was in the hands of the book publishers. But as the elite scribes had known, power isn't just control, but exclusive power. Book publishers wanted exclusive rights to publish books. The printers guild aka Stationer's Company, were granted exclusive right to print the books, so long as royalties were paid to the Queen. Books were 'bought' by the queen, and she would give the texts to book publishers that would get exclusive printing rights indefinitely. No royalties were ever paid to writers, and writers were banned from self publishing or seeking an independent press. Queen Mary I of Great Britain was the first MPAA / RIAA of its kind. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
By 1709, Shakespeare had been dead nearly 100 years. The independent publishers fought even harder for a more free copyright law, as opposed to the indefinitely perpetual copyright law in place. Shakespeare is a part of our culture and can not be owned by anyone. Stories are a part of who we are, not to be owned by individuals. Knowledge should be spread by any means necessary, and we are here to meet that demand.
A settlement was reached in the British courts in 1709 with the Statute of Anne, looking to balance the rights of people who would write stories contributing to culture, science, and "useful arts", and the rights of the people whom were members of that culture, both as readers, thinkers, and writers that draw upon that culture. Copyright would hence forth be limited to a period of fourteen years for new works, with requirements that copies be placed in all the libraries of Britain, and free for Stationer's Company to reproduce.
The founding fathers of the United States Constitution recognized this important protection and balance between culture, progress, and control, and thus included in the powers granted to congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"... Which with the powerful lobbyists of today have taken from "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" to "
Quickly, Fox, Kodak, and Disney take a whole bunch of stuff, without any regard to copyrighted books and movies to patented film types and projectors, moving to California to form Hollywood because it was far enough from Washington DC to avoid the law, not to mention inventors seeking patent royalties for their inventions. skipping ahead, Disney becomes super power, tries to expand copyright but fails until people are distracted by WWII. Threatened by radio, congress grants freedom to radio despite major opposition. Disney / MPAA greatly threatened by Cable Companies saying it is going to "destroy creativity" just like radio as these companies run their pirate cables, just as scribes had claimed in 1400's. Congress grants statutory royalties. VCR comes out. BIG freak out, blah blah blah, more copy right statutes. broadcast flag, blah blah blah, CD, DVD MAJOR FREAK OUT... again, as usual as the dominent power of information / culture distribution was threatened. Internet, same thing so on and so forth.
So what I see? Culture was created and controlled by and elite few and distribution was difficult. Over the past millennium, there is always the attempt for "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." ~George Orwell (or Rage against the Machine for those that don't read books), or as Lawrence Lessig puts it, "1. Creativity and innovation always builds on the past. 2. The past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it. 3. Free Societies enable the future by limiting the past. 4. Ours is less and less a free society."
So I see it as, there is and always will be creativity. It can not be stopped. People with power and money from their success will fight to keep that control, and that power can potentially be limited by government. People will always fight for progress by any means necessary. Our government today is powerless to encourage progress due the many controls of the creators of the past.
The difference, as Sigmund freud put it, we are lucky to live in an age where people only burn our books and not us.
For a more complete version, read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, or watch any of his videos / lectures on youtube or opencinema, and a great film, Steal This Film Part II on the history of copyright, or part one on government coruption by the media, produced by The Pirate Bay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs "Larry Lessig: How Creativity is being strangled by the law"
Obligatory comment left by me on this video:
I'd also like to mention that from this video, with regard to the revolution by our youth. Our youth rejects the law as a whole because of the major parts of it that are corrupt, even though parts of the law in principle have validity. These congressional monopolies were written into our constitution only in so far as to promote progress. There was a balance. Now that congress has become so one sided, youth rejects balance in revolt against the corrupt monopolies congress has been bullied to give out.
This is the most important issue of our day. Our government is controlled by the media because those that don't get the entertainment industries approval CAN NOT get elected for prohibition to exposure via vital media such as TV and radio. I don't want to call it a fix all, but the passiveness to this control by the media bleeds into many issues that have resulted in entertaining further bad policies by example of what we have had to endure from the media. Lessig, you NAILED IT! You are my hero.
Jack Valenti called it his own terrorist war, him being on the side of the monopolies. Hmm... the only terrorist I see is the man determined to rewrite the constitution in his favor. They may not be on our soil, but today we have a great American patriot that is not looking for mediation or compromise but has set his mission to destroy this evil the only way he knows how. He has enlisted hundreds of millions in advertising to fuel a undefeatable black market for any piece of culture the demons of our time would try to lock away and strategically hand out like bread to starving children. He has given the world a Horn of Plenty, looting from the pirates that stole our culture and try to comodotize and control it. Our great American Patriot's are Gottfrid Svartholm, Fredrik Neij, and Peter Sunde. Long Live The Pirate Bay!
With this caveat:
When our society returns to progress and we live in a Free culture as promoted by Lessig, Patry, and other men I consider great American heroes (reserving patriot for those of Edward Abbey's definition. GREAT men, just different), there will be no place for the pirate bay. As it is a front line of defense against injustice, a free culture will not need (no offense) such a crude and unorganized site that is merely an index. Sites like Jamendo will dominate. The evidence I present to defend this is this: Look at the inclusions in the index. Look for public domain works. Look for creative Commons work. Try to find work people are trying to give away or share with the world. You won't find any. The great success of The Pirate Bay is fueled only as a counter to greed and corruption. This explains the hundreds of millions of dollars in "off-shore accounts" around the world. Freedom, and a love for cultural sharing where artists recognize the influence culture has had on them, and the opportunities for creativity it provides unilaterally, there is no place on the pirate bay. It is only a forum for patriots to band together against corruption. When the corruption is broken, the Pirate Bay will sail off into the sunset of our history, as it will have no place in the free world.
Let that be a reminder to would be cultural tyrants out there. This is a war YOU started, and the Pirate Bay will help end. The numbers say every Internet user is a soldier, and every dollar TPB makes should stand as a memorial to the intolerance of your ways.
And on a related note, notice the praises for the television stations that now share their content on the web? The business model of the future may not be complete, but you can easily see where it is going. I know there is a day where one studios artwork will disappear from the pirate bay, and all that money they had been getting will go to the studios, and that will be the first studio to start its own bit torrent tracker, or whatever they have to call it. Hopefully that will take place before the last movie achieves rot away on their not so permanent nitrate film.
The Pirate Bay will soar so long as it is profitable. Ye of so little faith that can't find a better business model, and must turn to the government to "fix" it for you, like fixing any other game.
Ooh, and to anyone that read the other news on slashdot, it appears our old friend Ted Stevens will be observing a series of cubes. Ha ha ha!
Please comment if you made it through my whole rant. It is appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
