address causes

In the following I found myself writing, “It is a grave error on my part to post anything here that distracts from, or obfuscates the blog's intent.” To best assure that this very post does not fall into this same dismal category, I'm starting this out with an explanation of said intentions.

My most intent objective here is to reek havoc on the single greatest enemy mankind has. The term that most accurately seems to encapsulate the quintessential essence of this adversary is “FANTASY”. For better delineation, lets call it id-fantasy to distinguish it from day-dreaming and other distractions – i.e. idle-fantasy (although such forms of recreation tend to revolve around id-fantasies). The meme realm (in its entirety) includes id-fantasy as a subset. A simplistic yet hopefully helpful take on the human condition lies with an inspection of our meme set. In the beginning, crude emotion –primarily fear– forges most memes (basic id-fantasy which is perpetuated by the ‘Loving Mommy More than Truth’ type of thing). Nevertheless, actuality and logic do make painstaking inroads and so a polarized continuum arises in the meme pool between id-fantasy and reason. As more ’n more memes gravitate toward raw reality and reason the human condition improves. Unlike the oscillating Yin-Yang that compliment each other, this meme pool shift is unavoidably headed to ever greater levels of veracity. Note: while this could be perceived as a beautiful procession, there is nothing at all whimsical nor mystical about it. We are talking about pure brute cause and effect. Electricity, for instance, has its own irrevocable intricate set of laws by which it is governed (which no sorcerer nor politician has any means at all of violating). The advantages of understanding, observing, and honoring these laws can hardly be overstated nor can they be denied. The enduring stubbornness and tenacity of cause & effect instills a stabilizing ratchet effect to the correction of erroneous memes. In other-words, after sufficient advancement a virtuous meme becomes locked in and the threat of loosing ground or going backwards is minimal (for example, wasting virgins to volcanoes is hopefully part of an unrepeatable past).

Now, after establishing my goal (an effective attack on fantasy), the next question is how does one most forcefully unleash such an assault? Well, maybe it would pay to evaluate some potential targets and then struggle at choosing which one best merits asserted action for destruction. So one considers: 1) what fantasy most effects/dominates human life; as opposed to 2) what is the most monstrous fantasy closest to toppling anyway; verses 3) what fantasy is easiest to battle without deadly repercussions; and finally, 4) the undoing of what key fantasy would result in the greatest downfall of various other bad/ill-founded memes?

Alan wrote, “I believe the core argument in this post is: "Copyright is one of the state's basic mechanisms for seducing weak minds into sanctioning governmental violence to enforce contrived rights who's only hope of possibly being realized lies in the menacing threat of arrogant aggression." Without commenting on the rest of the post (which I mostly agree with), I feel this main point needs rebuttal.”
    While the post in question concerned various (largely laudable) observations concerning the GNU General Public License, Alan did identify the single sentence that best captures my primary core argument. It could consequently be argued that this terribly belated response should follow Alan's comment under my original provocative post. I have, instead elected to create a new main (root level) post for the following reasons:
      1) Alan's comments far exceeds the scope of the main post.
      2) It's my unwary way of dignifying all my brutish ape-like chest pounding that has preceded this event.

Alan, graciously continues, “First, let me point out the extreme irony in this idea. It is no doubt that Mr. Z. Clark is strongly of the libertarian persuasion (as I am), sharing the two most important core beliefs of abhorrence from unnecessary force, and utmost respect for (physical) property rights. Yet, this is an argument over an abhorrence for intellectual property (IP) rights.”
    Thanks, a better lead-in would be hard to come by. A no doubt conclusion (accusation) of my strong libertarian persuasion merits a few shared reflections however. I wonder if said persuasion is evident from this blog's contents or has more to do with personal knowledge of say the fact I ran against D. Gephardt as a Libertarian. In any event, the average libertarian may well cringe at any Z.Clark associations. If I had the stomach to investigate such things, Libertarians would likely still prove to be the least offensive political party in the US. But like the GPL, the mere exercise of either lends credence to a system which is ill founded at base. It's quaint at best to hope Libertarians can improve/salvage what the ‘Founding Fathers’ could not (i.e. the morbid transition from confederacy, to republic, to democracy on to socialism is systemic in nature and is fated to unfold as such despite the bloody patriot's best intentions). A flattering distinction for the GPL is that it hopefully sets a precedence (wittingly or not) of binding the machine against itself.
    To more directly contest the issue however, Alan apparently considers my inability to equate the “physical” horse in my front yard to the “intellectual” unicorn in Danny's imagination as “extreme irony” ... hmmm. All are invited to rephrase the foregoing to more advantageously reflect their perspective. Nevertheless the real crux of the problem I see lies in first 1) inventing then 2) claiming and finally 3) protecting ‘rights’ in the first place.

Greetings Frederick Mann,

I would first very much like to thank you for the generosity of your response. The following is extracted from your reply with numbering ("#") added to your five questions; after which comes my answers.