religion

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home2/yojoaorg/public_html/yenom/drupal/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.

Lovely Lies - Damn Lies - and I.P.

Title-animation

Confusing the intangible with the tangible

Commenting on my post of December 12 ,2007 — What's wrong with the GNU GPL?

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.

The ‘Prophetless’ Hackers

Prophetless

a Geek Tragedy

Hackers? — Yea, plus the various extraordinary phenomena spawned from the same spirit. For example: The GNU approach – Linus's Law (bazaar model) – the wiki wonder – and all the gifted persons moving this new future forward. These pioneers and their strategies have achieved record breaking results with heretofore inconceivable despatch. Some real (programming type) hackers may resent being grouped with wiki workers. If so, the tragedy is only exacerbated to the extent any uneasiness is taken to heart. I know, you're thinking, “Tragedy? What tragedy?” Well I'm glad you asked.

Regarding open versus proprietary software the technical verdict is in and the war is won. At this juncture, the proprietary camp has as much chance of prevailing over free hackers as LPs had over CDs – tubes over transistors – BBSs over the Internet – and so on. A crucial difference exist however between the open/proprietary conflict and the other comparisons. The later are all examples of hard specific technical differences, while the free vs proprietary thing delves more into social realities and philosophy. OK, it's time for a new ‘ism&squo; – how about “bazaarism”? (like that's got a chance of sticking) The first notable issue is that unlike capitalism, Marxism or socialism – bazaarism does not have oodles of blather (formal ideology) pushing to popularize it. Instead, bazaarism spontaneously came into existence on its own. Yet bazaarism largely remains unrecognized for what it is – a new social paradigm who's time has come as heralded by the humble hacker.

The Irrepressible Lure of Insanity

Moral Leaders

Fri Mar 17 10:04:41 2006 — Loving Mommy More than Truth

We've previously cited the vital increases of production via the division of labor and cooperative effort.  For a more primordial perspective the word “production” might better be replaced with “subsistence” or even “survival”.  Yet before addressing the dominant bearing money has on these fundamental means of sustaining human existence;  we should first note that (like it or not) both are social (others oriented) phenomenon.  So from conception to the casket ‘others’ are a very real life & death determinant.  The significance of this is greatly amplified when one considers that our ‘survival instinct’ or ‘will to live’ is persuasively rumored to be the most ingrained cardinal commander of our strongest impulsions.  The preceding will hopefully help account for a human propensity found in a quote I encountered just yesterday - namely:
    When I was seven years old, I was once reprimanded by my mother for an act of collective brutality in which I had been involved at school.  A group of seven-year-olds had been teasing and tormenting a six-year-old.  “It is always so,” my mother said.  “You do things together which not one of you would think of doing alone.”  ...  Wherever one looks in the world of human organization, collective responsibility brings a lowering of moral standards.  The military establishment is an extreme case, an organization which seems to have been expressly designed to make it possible for people to do things together which nobody in his right mind would do alone.
                -- Freeman Dyson, Weapons and Hope

Note that Dyson is suggesting that the same basic principle operant in a spontaneous episode involving a few seven-year-olds also applies to thousands of men in their prime totally immersed into a tightly controlled, highly regimented, patently propagandic environment.  Well to that I'd just have to say -- pretty perceptive!  Then there is that phrase of his.....

____________________________


Syndicate content