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

Lovely Lies - Damn Lies - and I.P.


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.

“blinding yourself to clear context” comment

Orwell vs. Slop

How did I cause such confusion??

Commenting on my previous post “Levels of Wealth” Part 1, Alan said in part:
... You: An example in honor of Alan's IP sentiments follows: Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in his press release ...
    I would prefer you not so honor me. I find this drivel repulsive as do you. I hope you did not seriously relate this crap to any of my IP arguments. ...

    Excuse me. My above quoted lead-in was not intended to honor anyone per se (as another's sentiment could be honored while the person himself is not). I was merely interested in dissecting an example of authoritarian political blather. The type of rhetoric emitted by the dear Australian Attorney-General is hardly anything special and equally precious statements could have been readily gleaned in just about any page of any newspaper. I just focused in on an IP related instance because that theme had merited your defense. There was no interest in implying that you two were particularly in agreement. That being said however, I was taken back by your vehement reaction against Ruddock. He was providing no defense of IP at all, but was merely dutifully reporting a change to the statutes in a pathetic yet wholly typical newspeak manner.

Alan continued:
... I do find your arguments against Ruddock's statements to be rather poor logic. While the context of the included quotes ... are clearly in reference to the changes in Australian law, you misinterpret them to reference technological capabilities and ignore the certainty that they refer only to reduction in legal prohibitions. That is a strawman argument which is way beneath your capability for logical argument.
    What I believe I did (and as clearly as I could) was merely to demonstrate how they announce changes in the statutes by choosing vocabulary that is literally consistent only with technological issues ruled by the laws of physics. I even went through the exercise of rewording his statement to read accurate and semantically correct. So it is intriguing to imagine that anyone could honestly believe that I literally misinterpreted Ruddock. To argue that I misrepresented him might be a more legitimate attack.

Eric's “Levels of Wealth” Part 1

* From Eric Harris-Braum's openMoney.inf WEB site*                        — Why I was confused although Alan was not.


Commenting on my previous post, The thought provoking Eric Harris-Braum, Alan worte, “In response to Harris-Braun's page, I would like to say I agree. Specifically, this is an EXCELLENT perspective on money and wealth, with an honesty and clarity and depth that is rare.
Your first impression says, ‘You [i.e. Eric] open with an introduction on the Tradeable - Measurable - Acknowledgeable paradigm. I needed to reread and wrangle with it a bit to get this new perspective into focus.’ I sure hope you provide elaboration on this. I found the paradigm very easy to understand.

    Elaboration on a personal inability?  Another's insight into this would perhaps be more valid than my own.  Anyway, in Eric's “Levels of Wealth” the circle of Acknowledgeable wealth is more sizable than the merely Measurable, while actually Tradeable wealth (the stuff of mega-billions of GNP) is the smallest of all.  This concept is especially appealing for its propensity to put the realm of traditional money into perspective.  Now then, the “Levels of Wealth” oval graphic moreover implies (to me) that Tradeable is a subset of Measurable which in turn is a subset of Acknowledgeable.  At the very least, this is a comfortable assumption due to the terribly counter intuitive notion of saying that Tradeable wealth is NOT (i.e. excluded from the set of) Measurable and in turn insisting that the Measurable isn't Acknowledgeable.  This would, for me, constitute an overly extreme distancing of these words from their common casual meanings.  Nevertheless Eric, could potentially be advocating exactly this when he writes, “Acknowledgeable Wealth: Friendship, beauty, freedom, civility, culture, happiness, integrity, reputation--these are all forms of acknowledgeable wealth. They are neither tradable nor objectively measurable because their impact is only felt subjectively.”(emphasis added)  Then when Eric teaches that Acknowledgeable wealth are “relationships between systems”, I find myself fumbling with the notion of “beauty” and “freedom” (from the previous sentenece) as relationships between systems.  An excellent recognition of the “interdependent” nature of wealth levels, is followed with a whole section on “Wealth Acknowledgment” which focuses on Tradeable wealth issues.  So I guess this “Acknowledgment” is very much distinguished from (if not the antitheisis of) the former term “Acknowledgeable”.  Perhaps it is unfortunate that the things I've just cited overly interfere with my ability to grasp new perspectives.  However an agreeable benefit of the doubt posture where we all ‘know’ more or less what we're talking about is increasingly objectionable for this student to adopt.  My way of developing his theme would be to start with Acknowledgeable wealth and then examine Measurable and Tradeable as clearly identified natural subsets.


Syndicate content