We are going about this all wrong...
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
Whenever speaking of free and voluntary societies I’m often asked, “What would we do about this”, or, “who would take care of that.” I used to rattle off answers to these questions that were supplied by minds sharper than mine without even examining the questions. Then I realized I was focusing on the wrong part of the question. I was simply explaining how a different system would work, and hoping the ones asking the question would be won over with the clever and well thought out answers I had either memorized, or thought of myself. I have been trying to persuade people away from their system using the promise of a new and improved system. I realized I was no different than any other philosophical political peddler, and I would no longer tempt people with “our system.”
The truth is no one knows what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing. Any answer that is given to questions pertaining to the problems that individuals would face in such a society are purely speculation. I cannot tell you what we would do, I can only tell you what I would do. I would honor my contracts; I would defend myself; I would choose to help others in need; I would expect no one to support me; and I would plan accordingly. I want to be very clear here, I do not disagree with the theory that is being presented on how the logistics of society would be handled. There is no doubt that these organizations and such would arise and be needed in a voluntary society. I disagree with the fact that these theories are being pushed as answers before addressing the only real and true problem; collectivist thought. When those who are curious about voluntarism ask the “we” questions, the underlying collectivist philosophy is still there, and this is what needs to be addressed first before any practical questions can or should be answered. Otherwise, you are just trying to get them to abandon their system for your system."
http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 18. (Read 105899 times)
The Bible shows that Jesus was OK with slavery and the old Testament God sent the Jews out ethnic cleansing and taking slaves on a regular basis.
The concept of prisoners of war as presented in the old Hebrew law, although commonly translated as slavery, isn't comparable to modern slavery. First off, the Hebrew law makes it plain that such prisoners of war have rights under God that must be respected. They also must be released after 7 years of faithful servitude, and offered a daughter of their 'master' in marriage. Slavery of the modern context is highly dependent upon distinct class division, by race or otherwise, that prohibited intermarriage. The offering of a daughter to the faithful servant undermined the cultural and racial distinctions between the conquering tribe and those of the losing tribe, which is the point of such marriage arrangements, until there is no discernable differences between one tribe and the other. The Hebrew tribes didn't really have much of a concept of "owning" a slave like one owned a sheep, although this was common enough in nearby cultures such as the Egyptions. Perhaps this was a reflex against the generations of true slavery in Egypt, perhaps just a means of preventing the Hebrews that came after from the temptations of claiming prisoners of war, for the risks of actually having to follow through with making this prisoner your next son-in-law.
Basicly, old Testament slavery was closer to indentured servitude, wherein some people were indentured because they lost a battle.
The Bible shows that Jesus was OK with slavery and the old Testament God sent the Jews out ethnic cleansing and taking slaves on a regular basis.
The concept of prisoners of war as presented in the old Hebrew law, although commonly translated as slavery, isn't comparable to modern slavery. First off, the Hebrew law makes it plain that such prisoners of war have rights under God that must be respected. They also must be released after 7 years of faithful servitude, and offered a daughter of their 'master' in marriage. Slavery of the modern context is highly dependent upon distinct class division, by race or otherwise, that prohibited intermarriage. The offering of a daughter to the faithful servant undermined the cultural and racial distinctions between the conquering tribe and those of the losing tribe, which is the point of such marriage arrangements, until there is no discernable differences between one tribe and the other. The Hebrew tribes didn't really have much of a concept of "owning" a slave like one owned a sheep, although this was common enough in nearby cultures such as the Egyptions. Perhaps this was a reflex against the generations of true slavery in Egypt, perhaps just a means of preventing the Hebrews that came after from the temptations of claiming prisoners of war, for the risks of actually having to follow through with making this prisoner your next son-in-law.
...snip...
Hawker, in case you missed it, this is the blog post which he is referencing (I think): http://indsovu.com/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=5
I gave you this link earlier when you asked me "where do rights come from if not for law?"
...snip...
Hawker, in case you missed it, this is the blog post which he is referencing (I think): http://indsovu.com/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=5
I gave you this link earlier when you asked me "where do rights come from if not for law?"
...snip...
I read it. He makes a leap here "Thus the very nature of the cooperative social mode of objectifying the subjective is founded on two implicit but foundational agreements" and basically gets it wrong. Lots of societies had cooperative social mode and at the same time had slavery.
"...the very definition of social is the respect for the voluntary actions of others in cooperation..." - wishful thinking.
Its a brave attempt but he has made a leap from "is" to "ought" that isn't justified by the facts he started with.
I read a better attempt that does work and can't find the link. Basically we look on good and evil in much the same way as we look on beauty and ugliness. If we simply accept that its all subjective and act on our feelings of what standard of behaviour are good and beautiful to us, our behaviour comes shockingly close to that prescribed by superstition based moralities and in some cases is better. Slavery is wrong at a visceral level for modern people. Its doesn't not feel right nor does it seem nice. The Bible shows that Jesus was OK with slavery and the old Testament God sent the Jews out ethnic cleansing and taking slaves on a regular basis. Following an aesthetic sense of what is right and wrong at least takes us beyond that.
EDIT: Sorry if I mangled that argument. I'll try to remember the link.
EDIT2: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/confessions-of-an-ex-moralist/
But it is at least as accurate to say that no one makes art alone, or science, or anything else. Your programs would be useless without the inventors who applied the sciences of earlier peers to build computers. Do they have a claim on your income as well? How far down the rabbit hole does this lead?
Excellent point. For a great example of this concept, watch this video.
Hawker, in case you missed it, this is the blog post which he is referencing (I think): http://indsovu.com/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=5
I gave you this link earlier when you asked me "where do rights come from if not for law?"
Also, I highly recommending perusing the following site at your leisure: http://questioncopyright.org
edit... One further link, expounding on the "all creative work is derivative" video: http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/all_creative_work_is_derivative
Since you're making bold assertions, morph the non aggression principle into an argument for slavery. I'll wait.
Damn, I wish I had thought of that one!
Society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#In_political_science
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?
As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed.
Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?
As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed.
Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.
"As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of cotton more than it wants slaves to be free, slavery is needed."
I am not in any sense saying that IP is equivalent to or as great an evil as slavery. I am merely pointing out that one of the reasons I find your argument disagreeable is that it equally serves as a justification for slavery. Society used to have laws saying that owning human beings was an acceptable and normal practice. According to you, rights derive from laws. Thus, it was every man's right to own a human slave.
So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.
Everything is capable of morphing into an argument for slavery. That doesn't really matter - slavery is not on the agenda here.
Actually, it is. Perhaps if you had bothered to read the well thought out and written blog post that was presented to yourself, you'd now see the association. The differences between a "positive right" and a slavemaster's priviliages are simply a matter of degree. It is your claim that you have a right to an income at my expense based solely on my possession of a particular set of data that you may have created. Very recently a Democratic candidate for the US Senate was quoted as saying that no one gets rich alone, which is actually true. But it is at least as accurate to say that no one makes art alone, or science, or anything else. Your programs would be useless without the inventors who applied the sciences of earlier peers to build computers. Do they have a claim on your income as well? How far down the rabbit hole does this lead?
Everything is capable of morphing into an argument for slavery. That doesn't really matter - slavery is not on the agenda here.
I "morphed" nothing. I replaced some nouns in your argument and that's it. You claim that IP law allows for the production of creative content, just as slavery proponents would argue that slavery allows for the production of cotton.
Since you're making bold assertions, morph the non aggression principle into an argument for slavery. I'll wait.
Society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#In_political_science
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?
As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed.
Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?
As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed.
Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.
"As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of cotton more than it wants slaves to be free, slavery is needed."
I am not in any sense saying that IP is equivalent to or as great an evil as slavery. I am merely pointing out that one of the reasons I find your argument disagreeable is that it equally serves as a justification for slavery. Society used to have laws saying that owning human beings was an acceptable and normal practice. According to you, rights derive from laws. Thus, it was every man's right to own a human slave.
So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.
Everything is capable of morphing into an argument for slavery. That doesn't really matter - slavery is not on the agenda here.
Society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#In_political_science
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?
As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed.
Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?
As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed.
Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.
"As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of cotton more than it wants slaves to be free, slavery is needed."
I am not in any sense saying that IP is equivalent to or as great an evil as slavery. I am merely pointing out that one of the reasons I find your argument disagreeable is that it equally serves as a justification for slavery. Society used to have laws saying that owning human beings was an acceptable and normal practice. According to you, rights derive from laws. Thus, it was every man's right to own a human slave.
So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.
I'm happy to talk about that and I suspect we will broadly agree, especially if you read the Sambia research. But would you mind starting a thread for it? This is for Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
Hilarious! You're the one who brought up your child molestation fetish.
Yes - as it illustrates why society has a right to intervene to prevent harm. Sometimes a change of scenery is needed to make people see the bigger picture.
So you make the claim that "society" gets to use violence to "prevent harm", yet any discussion on the definition of "society" or the determination of "harm" is off topic. gg
Society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#In_political_science
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?
As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed.
Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.
I'm happy to talk about that and I suspect we will broadly agree, especially if you read the Sambia research. But would you mind starting a thread for it? This is for Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
Hilarious! You're the one who brought up your child molestation fetish.
Yes - as it illustrates why society has a right to intervene to prevent harm. Sometimes a change of scenery is needed to make people see the bigger picture.
So you make the claim that "society" gets to use violence to "prevent harm", yet any discussion on the definition of "society" or the determination of "harm" is off topic. gg
I'm happy to talk about that and I suspect we will broadly agree, especially if you read the Sambia research. But would you mind starting a thread for it? This is for Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
Hilarious! You're the one who brought up your child molestation fetish.
Yes - as it illustrates why society has a right to intervene to prevent harm. Sometimes a change of scenery is needed to make people see the bigger picture.
I'm happy to talk about that and I suspect we will broadly agree, especially if you read the Sambia research. But would you mind starting a thread for it? This is for Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
Hilarious! You're the one who brought up your child molestation fetish.
I've met Iranians who married at 9 and they seem fine. But if that's their society. In our society, people are harmed and if you believe we have the right to intervene where harm is being done, we have a right to intervene to prevent child abuse.
How can sex harm a 9 year old in one society and not another? Surely then the harm comes from those who convince the child that they've been harmed?!
I'm happy to talk about that and I suspect we will broadly agree, especially if you read the Sambia research. But would you mind starting a thread for it? This is for Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!
I've met Iranians who married at 9 and they seem fine. But if that's their society. In our society, people are harmed and if you believe we have the right to intervene where harm is being done, we have a right to intervene to prevent child abuse.
How can sex harm a 9 year old in one society and not another? Surely then the harm comes from those who convince the child that they've been harmed?!
I have my own thoughts on this, but I need to hear yours. So, why is sex harmful?
Mostly likely a latent cultural influence of Anglican moral code. I'm sure he'll see the error of his ways once Sharia law dominates in the UK. After all, The Prophet married an eight year old in his 50's; what right does he have to intervene when the law says that a man of the Koran can take the child daughter of an infidel such as himself?
(I have no doubt that the sarcasm will be entirely missed by Hawker, the cognative dissonance must be terrrible.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Herdt
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2011/10/ahmadinejad_s_assertion_about_gays_in_iran_isn_t_that_crazy_afte.2.html
I'll take your 8 and bid 7 for the Sambia:
Quote
In that society, boys are separated from their families from the ages of 7 to 10 and forced to fellate older adolescent boys and ingest their semen. Ironically, the Sambia haven’t really a concept of “homosexuality,” either. Rather, they believe that only by swallowing prodigious amounts of semen can boys become fierce warriors. Not until they've completed several years of semen-swallowing and then another four or five years of being fellated by boys themselves can Sambia males become fully adult and enter into exclusively heterosexual marriages
Your sarcasm is misplaced. I've met Iranians who married at 9 and they seem fine. But that's their society. In our society, people are harmed and if you believe we have the right to intervene where harm is being done, we have a right to intervene to prevent child abuse.
Your citing the Salem witch trial is mischievous and you know it. The "witnesses" were a few young children whereas in the clerical abuse scandals, the witnesses are in their 30s and 40s and there are lots of them. Their evidence has been listened to and its accepted they were abused.
The issue here is not at what age sex moves from abuse to a damn good time but whether society has a right to intervene in cases where it sees harm being done.
Once upon a time, dozens of little girls said that dozens of adults in the area were bewitching them in their sleep. The town's elders and local judge felt the same way you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
Careful. Next he'll be causing you of defending pedos/rapists and blaming the victims.
Not to mention the obvious bias I hold against Wiccans, Druids and other related Anglosaxon pagen religions.
Once upon a time, dozens of little girls said that dozens of adults in the area were bewitching them in their sleep. The town's elders and local judge felt the same way you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
Careful. Next he'll be causing you of defending pedos/rapists and blaming the victims.
Also, excellent book http://www.amazon.com/Harmful-Minors-Perils-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068
...snip...
That is the issue, because if there is absolutely no harm in it, then why stop it? And if there is harm in it, then probably yes, intervene. Thus the answer depends on you answering what you believe the harm in that situation to be.
And by the way, neither you nor society can answer your question decisively (14? 16? 18? Marriage?) so why are you expecting me to?
But, again, why do you believe sex is harmful?
That is the issue, because if there is absolutely no harm in it, then why stop it? And if there is harm in it, then probably yes, intervene. Thus the answer depends on you answering what you believe the harm in that situation to be.
And by the way, neither you nor society can answer your question decisively (14? 16? 18? Marriage?) so why are you expecting me to?
But, again, why do you believe sex is harmful?
So you accept that society has a right to intervene to prevent harm.
No, I do not. I never even implied such. Note "probably" is not "yes" and note that
Why do you believe sex is harmful?
Answered earlier. If 10s of 1000s of people say that giving head to priests as kids damaged them, I'm inclined to take their word on it.
Once upon a time, dozens of little girls said that dozens of adults in the area were bewitching them in their sleep. The town's elders and local judge felt the same way you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
Jump to: