On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 11:07 -0500, Michael Tiemann wrote: > On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 10:50 -0500, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 01:52 +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote: > > > >>>>> "LX" == Lyvim Xaphir <knightmerc@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > LX> If you are advocating stealing intellectual property for the > > > LX> general welfare, then that's clearly criminal. Truthfully I don't > > > LX> think you are or would advocate such a thing, but there are those > > > LX> here who are. > > > > > > I am one of them. I advocate getting rid of intellectual property > > > entirely. I do not see what is criminal about a free market. > > > > > > > > > /Benny > > > > You don't understand what a free market is. A free market, as in > > capitalism, is based on private property ownership. > > I think it is you who do not understand what a free market is. A free > market is one in which two parties can agree to trade without seeking > the explicit permission of the government to do so. The less > permission/regulation exerted by the government, the freer the market. To a point. I generally am in agreement with libertarian models, however there is a sweet spot of government presence in the market; in other words there has to be some kind of legal consequence for scams and unethical activity. Obviously free trade cannot take place in an anarchy where you can get shot and then people just take your goods; the existence of it depends on civilized behavior which is not available without some form of government. Otherwise corruption prevents anything meaningful from taking place; aka a soprano state. (that is different from regulations on free trade, which is not what I'm discussing in this case) The unethical activity I've been talking about here is forced licensing, where other licenses bearing other agendas are not tolerated because of ideology. > The move invasive and pervasive the controls exerted by the government, > the less free the market. Property rights are orthogonal to the > freeness of a market. They are highly relevant to certain economic > assumptions, but one can have a free market without property rights. > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market Perhaps, but where's your existing successful model after many thousands of years of human effort, trial and error? You can do anything you want to in theory, it's in practice where the truth is told. Alot of models have already been tried, the cream generally rises to the top, and it has. In any case, a *real* free market would allow both property ownership and non-ownership (which btw it does already currently), and what I'm talking about is the right of the author to either freely give his own work or license it the way he sees fit within current infrastructure, which makes your last statement above a non-sequitur. The author retains the intrinsic rights over his own production. The right to own property is also central to principles the United States was founded on, which currently has the most successful economic model in practice, in history. Nobody's talking about either/or. The main point that I'm making is simply that people have the rights to their own work and that you or anybody else does not have the right to tell them how to license that work. That's the way it's working currently (for the *most* part) in the US, and those values and practices create a solid revenue stream for many people. There are many "economic assumptions", but alot of those can be tossed out the door by observing successful economic strategies, aka the United States, and the practices of the 50 individual states (which are all individual economic experiments on their own to a degree). There is after all a huge trial and error database to draw from, what works what doesn't work. In the largely successful economic "model" of the United States there are provisions for the protection of intellectual property. I believe in minimal government involvement (regulation) as well but that's another discussion. > > M > LX -- °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° A Kernel Of Socialism greatunwashed: module license 'great_unwashed' taints kernel. ich: no version for "unwashed_register_device" found: kernel tainted. Symbol usb_register_driver is being used by a non-GPL module, which will not be allowed in the future Please see the file Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt in the kernel source tree for more details. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
