witch burning

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.

“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.

Damned if we do — Double Damned if we don't ...

zClark

Ultra tolerance for individuals – Zero tolerance for unilateral coercion!
* Searching for the common ground between brothers in arms *

Greetings Fellow Advocates of Jean-François Noubel's The Transitioner:

I have gone through this site's entire “Who is Who” list and read everyone's introduction. Allow me to comment on two observations. First is the surprisingly encouraging caliber of the individuals supporting Mr. Noubel's undertaking. Second is the expected general sense of encouragement & positivism. Unfortunately, too many entries -despite an upbeat intro and promise of more to follow- have not been updated for over two years. Consequently, I beg your understanding if this commentary fails to substantiate the festive optimism traditionally sung by would be visionaries/futurist.

First, I'm in enthusiastic accord with the basic concepts promoted here. In fact, I'm frequently inclined to take a winning concept much further that those who seek virtue in compromise & middle of the road postures. For example, if we concede that burning select women to death for inconformity (i.e. witchcraft) is a bit excessive, then a laudable legislator might gain glory for advocating a more humane demise (per a propitious poison for instance). My closed minded objective however, would aim for nothing less than total tolerance (i.e. malicious targeting of no one). Admittedly, such full fledged commitments could be construed as radical – which is also an apt way to characterize the grand social architects like Hillary & Hitler. So how does one turbo blast an agenda to dimensions opposite of the spectrum occupied but all those goodly idealist committed to compelling everyone else into their superior world views? Well, it's not all that difficult – we just need to take freedom seriously. I like to view it as the not-doing (a Carlos Castaneda concept) of Social Engineering. This simply translates to an absolute unadulterated respect for individual volition — a fundamental inviolable prerequisite for a truly rational society. As meritorious this train of thought is, further consideration need be deferred to my blog, or Lysander Spooner's No Treason. The pertinent point here is merely to underscore the fact that most empowerment proposals offered as an elective freewill option to individuals will not only be personally well received, but may even be advocated more vigorously by me than its originator.

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