[Mandrakeot] ESR gives up on Fedora

[Lyvim Xaphir]

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 at yahoo.com> 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.
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°