Reclaiming the Commons 324
NeuroManson writes "What do fresh air, medicine, culture, copyright, and government have in common? Perhaps not exactly what you think. Up until recently, I considered the term "commons" as an archaic term from Victorian or Elizabethan times. However, apparently it still exists both as a concept and a philosophy. Despite its almost ancient connotations, it's an eye opener regarding how concepts centuries old hold true even today, but much like freedom, require eternal vigilance to protect, and covers everything from the air you breath through the GNU, HDTV, and copyright issues. Read on." Bollier's article and the responses are superb intellectual reading. If you don't have time today, bookmark it, come back later.
"Superb intellectual reading"??? (Score:3, Funny)
What they have in common. (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know, but I bet it leads to Kevin Bacon.
Re:Who's buying, you? (Score:2)
I hate these fuckers that sit on their asses all day in an office and think they're something fucking special.
Who? government bureaucrats? people at the department of motor vehicles? The only people I ever see sitting around all day are in government offices or large corporations - both bastions of socialism. And why not? They're safe. Unions, cushy protected jobs, etc. Why work harder? It gets them nothing more.
They think they are hard at work, and actually earning money.
Hmm... I work 12 hour days at my business. Then work four more in my orchard, roofing my house, helping my service organization, etc. Is this a bad thing?
While someone else is working their ass off, stressing, worrying about if they can pay the bills
Who's going to worry more - someone with a guaranteed, protected job, or an entrepreneur who's wondering if all the money he risked, all the money he pays out every month, the wage he gets which is less than minimum wage when factored for his hours, is going to pay the bills and feed his children? And you want to talk about going into debt? You have no clue, small fry.
this fucker can get another $20 million to buy a new mansion
Hmm... you referring to Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson's mansion? Bill "I'll speak for $10 million" Clinton's place? Robert "Where's Waldo" Rubin's pad? John "That's Billion, with a B" Kerrey's humble home?
There's obviously more money in screwing others than there is in honest labor.
God Bless Capitalism!
Yes indeed. Too bad it's not practiced in our major corporations or government.
*scoove*
Silent Theft (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Silent Theft (Score:2)
Check out Garrett Hardin also. (Score:3, Informative)
Hardin discusses what happens when everyone's individual interests are optimized by exploiting a common -- until the common is destroyed. It's a standard pattern of human behavior, IMHO, and is useful in analyzing any situation involving something held in common. I use it for software architecture ideas, for example.
As usual with Hardin, he brings in diverse topics like game theory, economics, politics, etc.
Re:Check out Ivan Illich's "Silence as a Commons" (Score:2)
The title of this essay comes from a story Illich tells of his arrival on a small, quiet island off the Dalmation coast as a your child.
commons - to often only on the fringes (Score:2, Insightful)
A very thought provoking article.
In my economic studies I was very disappointed: economic concepts of commons are only on the frings of economics. You have to dig deeper than intermediate level to simply find some sentences about meritroric goods, public goods - and theses sentences are more often than not "we have no room to discuss these concepts here.
I firmly believe that the state should stay out of our lives and the way businesses do their business. Free market is an excellent concept to find and realize effective structures for distribution as long as goods are in short supply - but goods like ideas, concepts, software are definitely not in short supply by nature.
If we decide to grow the wealth of our nations, we sould not only try to use the concepts which proofed effective on goods in short supply.
To find new concepts, we have to strengthen the discussions about "commons", "die Allmende" (a German word for a very old concept of common goods) and things like this.
Who controls the businesses? (Score:2)
Look, you'd be better off with government controlling business than having business control government.
Sen hollings, and others control government, which is trying to kill open source, and slow innovation to help their business agenda.
You can only have one or the other, Government which regulates business and controls business through democracy.
OR you can have businesses control everything without even being able to vote. Did you vote on the SSSCA, or the DMCA? Hell no.
Re:The reason for copyright and patents (Score:2)
How so? Have you ever tried to hire a musician to perform live at a party? Do you know how easy it is to find such a professional, and what low prices they charge?
What is in short supply isn't the people with ideas. Ideas are a dime a dozen, as they say in Holywood. The truly scarce resource is the capital to bring ideas to the market, and that's why it's never the inventor who owns the patent, the owners are usually the corporations that use their marketing and production resources to get profit from the patents. And this has been mentioned in the article itself, private companies get enourmous profits from research done at universities using taxpayers' money.
No they arent in short supply (Score:2)
The patent and copyright system does not promote science it promotes profit.
Most innovation comes from people in university and college, not businesses, because businesses do not need to innovate to profit.
The reason theres so few programmers, or scientists, its because of intellectual property. You cant learn C because the guy who created C who wrote that book, wont let you access the information for free, so millions of people in the third world who could be programmers arent because they dont have access to the books or the software such as visual C++, Linux may help the third world bridge the gap, and you'll see that innovation.
Theres no need to reward people for doing what they naturally do. Thats like rewarding a dog for chasing a cat, Thats what a dog naturally does. A scientist is naturally going to have ideas, and if you didnt pay them to sell their idea they'd release the information to the world for free because thats what they are, a producer of scientific information, thats what they do.
If you are a musician you are going to make music even if you dont have a record deal, in fact most musicians dont have record deals and make music because they enjoy doing it. Most of the classical music was made before we had record companies, some of the best composers were making music for free.
When you say theres a short supply of talent, you fail to take into account the fact that most of the talent is not being used due to the fact that you need to enter the gate before you can begin to use your talent.
You cant just wake up and decide to be a C programmer, you have to buy the book to teach you C.
Perhaps if people were taught C for free, in schools, they could produce innovative code which could be open source, allowing more people to build on these innovations. IT makes no sense, your theory that by controlling information that you help innovation. Just like it makes no sense for the RIAA to tell me i'll have more access to music if Napster is illegal, its bullshit because they know I cannot afford the information so i cannot have more of it, therefore I cannot be expected to produce better information when I have no one to study and learn from.
Without open source, how do you expect someone to become a good programmer? Well, they'd have to go to college, buy many many books, pay thousands of dollars, spend years working for companies like Microsoft getting access to source code, before they'd have the knowledge to be innovative.
Innovation REQUIRES knowledge, when knowledge is sold, is it a question that innovation and talent is hard to find?
With knowledge being free, talent will be easier to find, and more innovation will occur as a product of sharing knowledge.
Licensing music from songwriters; C books (Score:2)
millions of people in the third world who could be programmers arent because they dont have access to the books or the software
They often don't even have access to a $200 Pentium computer with a display. I agree that somebody should write a GNU FDL'd book about the C++ language, but still, no GNU/Linux system in the world is going to save third worlders from the price of hardware.
Thats like rewarding a dog for chasing a cat, Thats what a dog naturally does.
You reward it with the food it needs to survive. Like a dog, a programmer has to eat. No, I'm not claiming copyright as we know it is a perfect solution, but is there a better one? Has something like the Street Performer Protocol been shown to work?
If you are a musician you are going to make music even if you dont have a record deal
If you don't have connections to the industry, then how are you going to afford to license songs from songwriters? You can't just write your own because there exist a limited number of possible melodies [everything2.com], and sooner or later, big companies will own them all [baen.com].
Most of the classical music was made before we had record companies, some of the best composers were making music for free.
Patronage. Many songwriters were hired by heads of state, and the parliaments put copyright-like restrictions on their works. For instance, the Vatican held exclusive rights to some Mass or something, but a fellow by the name of Mozart was able to copy it perfectly by ear. That's harder to close than an analog hole!
Perhaps if people were taught C for free, in schools
That's why there are programming classes in public high schools and in cheap state-sponsored colleges.
IT makes no sense, your theory that by controlling information that you help innovation.
Those aren't my beliefs, but those are the best ones that the politicians[1] seem to have offered. I believe in free software, and I see a gift culture in the free software community, but I wonder why an analogous gift culture in the pictorial, musical, or audiovisual arena hasn't emerged. Unless... [creativecommons.org]
With knowledge being free
How will anybody eat? In other words, how do we solve the tragedy of the open access?
[1] Those who disagree with the people in power are Terrorists(TM).
Re:Licensing music from songwriters; C books (Score:2)
The GNU and Linux Economy is actually feeding programmers, through the services market. The people pay for service to access the code itself not for the rights to use it. So instead of renting videos, you are buying a cablebox and paying a cable company a flat rate.
If you don't have connections to the industry, then how are you going to afford to license songs from songwriters? You can't just write your own because there exist a limited number of possible melodies [everything2.com], and sooner or later, big companies will own them all [baen.com].
Real musicians write their own songs, Britney spears is not a real musician and you dont need industry songs written by other people. Theres not a limited set of melodies, just a limited set of standard ones which people like, aphex twin and alot of electronic musicians experiment and find new melodies using computers.
That's why there are programming classes in public high schools and in cheap state-sponsored colleges.
teaching what? basic?
Those aren't my beliefs, but those are the best ones that the politicians[1] seem to have offered. I believe in free software, and I see a gift culture in the free software community, but I wonder why an analogous gift culture in the pictorial, musical, or audiovisual arena hasn't emerged. Unless... [creativecommons.org]
Because unlike the music industry which is completely controlled by big companies, the computer industry hasnt been around long enough for them to get a good grasp on it. Microsoft if we give them 10-15 more years they would have a grasp on the industry,open source might even have been outlawed.
How will anybody eat? In other words, how do we solve the tragedy of the open access?
People will eat the same way people working for Mandrake, Transgaming, Redhat, Suse, are all eating, they dont make money off patents, but off of servies.
You pay for the code to be written, and for the service, but you own the code after its written.
Did you even read Bananas? (Score:2)
teaching what? basic?
At least in my home state (Indiana), Purdue University and Indiana Institute of Technology teach more than Visual Basic.
Theres not a limited set of melodies
If you take the number of distinct notes in an octave of a keyboard, and you raise it to the power of the minimum length of a sequence you can sue over, you do not get infinity. Had you read the E2 article I linked to [everything2.com], then you would have understood this
Re:Did you even read Bananas? (Score:2)
What about Indiana institute of technology?
If you take the number of distinct notes in an octave of a keyboard, and you raise it to the power of the minimum length of a sequence you can sue over, you do not get infinity. Had you read the E2 article I linked to [everything2.com], then you would have understood this
Well see that should be illegal, thats like patenting addition and charging everyone who uses it.
Thats fucked up.
Re:Licensing music from songwriters; C books (Score:2)
Patronage.
This idea is surprisingingly common - it is also mostly wrong. Very, very few composers were granted patronage, and those who were were generally those who had a proven talent (so there were employed not for there talent but because of their fame - an early case of conspicuous consumption).
The way composers earned their crust then was usually one or more of 1) teaching, 2) playing, or 3) contract composing (e.g. for La Scala Opera), with inherited wealth and patronage bringing up the rear by a considerable distance.
Many songwriters were hired by heads of state, and the parliaments put copyright-like restrictions on their works.
Nope - they would try to keep the score secret, and this worked. Once the score was copied then it was gone - there was no concept of copyright as there now is (the original copyright dates from 1557, and was a right granted to the Stationers Guild in England which allowed them and only them to print books {this was in turn an attempt to limit discussion of Henry VIII's schism with the Catholic Church}).
For instance, the Vatican held exclusive rights to some Mass or something,
Gregorio Allegri's "Miserere" - copying was prohibited under pain of excommunication.
but a fellow by the name of Mozart was able to copy it perfectly by ear. That's harder to close than an analog hole!
Probably true but... Mozart's transciption has never been seen, it was never played, and the only reference was a letter from Mozart's father (to his Mozart's mother) saying that it had been transcribed. However, Burney (who did publish it the next year), is thought possibly to have used Mozart's trascription for his publication. There are some differences between the Burney Publication and the Vatican version that would have been played when Mozart was there, so there is still some mystery.
Re:The reason for copyright and patents (Score:2)
This "reward" is intended to encourage them to create and continue creating. It wasn't intended to be an end in itself.
I've got to say it ... (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously not. Victoria, Elizabeth, and the commons are all Old Stuff (roughly defined as: anything that happened before my parents were born) and thus to be all lumped in together. [sigh]
Re:I've got to say it ... (Score:2)
C'mon people, there's nothing new in that article. Not one thing that hasn't been debated, expanded upon, or refuted (depending on your political preference) hundreds or thousands of times before.
Read up on Malthus versus von Mises versus Keynes versus Galbraith, oh, hell, throw in some Polanyi, Poznanski, Wade, Jacobsen, and um, most of the rest of your local Political Science 101 syllabus.
The commons an old term, indeed. [sniff]
Re:I've got to say it ... (Score:2)
Victoria reigned from 1837
Elizabeth I reigned from 1558
That's longer between them than the US has actually existed.
The practice of justice and natural law has been in existance long before most countries existed - and will continue long after certain groupings have long gone.
You didn't think the US had a right to continue to exist did you ? The world moves on, and certain concepts have a longer lifespan than some people really feel comfortable with. When corporate greed has had its day, still justice will return.
Do what's right, don't follow laws or prejudice blindly. In the end the winner isn't the one with the biggest pile of cash - it the one with a true heart.
Lawrence Lessig on the subject. (Score:4, Informative)
Or you can read about the Stock Market Drinking Game, [lostbrain.com] but that's offtopic.
tcd004
Commons are relevant to my town, right now (Score:2, Interesting)
Less than 10 minutes from my house are the 'Trap Grounds', a semi-wilderness area running between a canal and a rail track, rich in wildlife, providing welcome fresh air, habitats for the water vole, the water rail, the only lizard colony in Oxford, various bats, as well as providing the only remaining natural flood drainage east of the railway.
The Trap Grounds are currently earmarked for housing development.
But all it will take to halt the development is a few dozen statements from people saying that the land has habitually been used for lawful recreational purposes (dogwalking seems the best bet here) fairly continually since 1970 and the Commons Registration Act 1965 [oss.org.uk] comes into effect, dure to precedent set in the 1999 Sunningdale Case [oss.org.uk], blocking the development permanantly.
TomV
p.s. If you live in Oxford, are concerned about the Trap Grounds, and want to see them preserved as a common, then if you can provide any evidence of leisure use since 1970, please get in touch with Planning Control And Conservation at the City Council.
I love it! (Score:2, Interesting)
What unites these highly disparate commons--from natural resources to public domain to gift economies--is their legal and moral ownership by the American people.
hrmmm.. the american people eh? because i thought that it really belonged "morally and legally" to the whole of the earths populace.
Us silly Americans.
Internet discussion Commons dying also (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh if Slashdot were the only "problem". (Actually Slashdot has brought the great technical advantage of moderation -- something needed when the Internet gates were opened to the plebes in the mid-90's. But that's not to say UseNet couldn't have added a moderation protocol.) Now, everyone has a personal blog (even me, now, sad to say). Even those that allow others' comments, such as mine, don't attract them because of lower viewership/memberhip and because there is less assurance to potential posters that the site will be up the next day.
So essentially, we have a bunch of private little independent monologues going on, plus some dialog on a few big private sites like Slashdot and kuro5hin, but no public dialog in an Internet Commons like UseNet.
(Why do I blog? Because no one is on UseNet, because I don't want a private company copyrighting what I write, and because big sites reasonably don't want to post every last thing I want to post.)
Re:Internet discussion Commons dying also (Score:3, Insightful)
Usenet has a moderation protocol (Score:2)
Re:Internet discussion Commons dying also (Score:2)
I think that Usenet isn't dying entirely. It's just that it doesn't work as well for non-topic-based social interaction as things that have been developed more recently, and so it has largely scaled back to the communities which have attached themselves to it. Groups like rec.humor have gone away in favor of things like livejournal, but livejournal is arguably better for what rec.humor was for in the first place.
I think we're seeing a diversification of communications mechanisms, such that there are ones with different strengths and weaknesses, and different mechanisms are used for different purposes, as appropriate. When all you have are talk, IRC, email, and news, everything looks like one or the other. If you want to discuss the events in your life with a group of people, you use news or email if that's all you have, but you use something more suited once it comes along.
Someday, those better means will be more public, hopefully. Consider: a blog mechanism with an open set of interacting sites. You set up a server, have an account on it, and it will identify you (as user@server) to other servers. You have a local log, and can post comments to other people, these being kept on your server but also copied into the log on the other server (if the owner of that server accepts comments from you).
The air we breathe... (Score:2, Funny)
I imagine that not only would it be difficult to breathe air through a gnu, it would also be rather distasteful. But I could be wrong!
Slashdot readers... (Score:2, Interesting)
If anything, this article has brought out the depths of /. readers.
1.) "Read Tom G. Palmer's response" - I did, and his comments on the subject are as opinionated as Mr. Bollier's, just from a different point of view.
2.) "Who cares?" - When a corporation starts charging you for breathing air, you might pay more attention.
3.) "I got bored..." - Seeing as your founding fathers started from England and English law, I think you will find it applies. Besides, I live in Canada (an independent nation since 1867) and we still refer to English Common Law. BTW, we are a democracy. With elections that work... (Sorry, I had to...)
Just my 2c worth, or 1.2 US...
How capitalism can indeed serve social interests (Score:4, Funny)
CITIZEN #1: Please, Mr. Capitalist, for a profit of $1, will you feed, clothe, and care for this child?
CAPITALIST: Of course! I will do this for a mere profit of one dollar, for private enterprise is happy to take on these public burdens if there is even the slightest profit!
CITIZEN #1: Thank you, Mr. Capitalist. I knew we could come to some sort of an arrangement.
So you see, private enterprise can be trusted to... oh. Wait... here comes another citizen...
CITIZEN #2: Here, Mr. Capitalist, for a profit of $2, will you kill, cook, and serve this child?
CAPITALIST: Hot damn! TWO dollars! Where's the salt?
Uh... oops. Nevermind.
Re:How capitalism can indeed serve social interest (Score:3, Insightful)
Your skit seems to make sense at first glance, but you haven't carried it out to its logical conclusion:
PARENT of CHILD: You monster! What have you done? I'm going to kill you!
CAPITALIST: Uh-oh...
In the long run, murder is not profitable. The social consequences will eventually catch up with you.
Re:How capitalism can indeed serve social interest (Score:2)
What social consequences, exactly? Try carrying your argument into the real world. File it under 'dead peasant insurance', after 'Bhopal' and dipped in the water from that stream in the USA poisoned so bad that fish placed in it dissolved in minutes, their skin fucking falling off.
WHAT social consequences? You're making that part up.
Re:How capitalism can indeed serve social interest (Score:2)
Just like all the social consequences Soviet leadership faced for committing crimes unthinkable to capitalists, like the Polish holocaust [polandsholocaust.com], Ukranian slaughters [artukraine.com], unthinkable nuclear disasters, popular Soviet motivational management techniques [okay.com], and countless other crimes committed by socialists. Gorbachav and his predecessors laughed every time European media fools screamed about "capitalist atrocities" [artukraine.com] - even Europeans know better from their own blood crimes about what evil can be committed.
Of course, the Soviets have no monopoly on such crimes. China's record with population control, Cambodian adventures in building mountains using human body parts, and other socialist 20th century achievements are plenty.
So when rational Americans hear Europeans whine about the evils of capitalism, we're thankful that we have two world wars and Vietnam to remind us that the Europeans don't know crap about how the world really works.
Is there any surprise the only part of Europe that has growing individual liberty and capitalism are former nations terrorized by the Soviets (e.g. Czech Republic, Latvia, Ukraine, etc.)?
*scoove*
"There will be no war in our time" - Tony Blair to George Bush last week regarding recent promises by EU friend Saddam Hussain.
Conservativism... (Score:2)
Producers vs. Parasites (Score:2)
There are lots of parallels to this experience. Limited readings I've done in the evolution of multicellular creatures, for instance, has shown recurring blossoming of producers, only to show a sudden rise in parasites, which obliterate most of the producers, and they then are wiped out with nothing to live off of, and we return to a new cycle (albeit with many less critters alive).
This cycle repeats until a balance is reached - usually occuring when the producers evolve to possess the ability to recognize and kill the parasites. The parasites also need to do their part in becoming less deadly and coexisting better, or they simply accelerate the collapse of the system.
Looking at the status in most of the world today (from US, EU, etc. to Africa and "lesser developed" nations), parasitism is at a peak. 60% taxes, domination of all governmental and economic circles, etc. shows the parasites have broken loose and are readying the world for collapse. In fact, we came close in the 20th century with the rise of exceptional parasites in Germany, Russia, China, etc - sort of Ebola-like forms. Now they've moderated to AIDS like forms - slower to kill but much more effective - such as EU and US government and business. Even major religions like Islam and Christianity have been converted to parasitic forms.
So will the producers recognize and terminate their parasites? Or will we see yet another collapse of civilization and a half-millenium to recovery as we did the last time we had such a rise (from Roman to barbarian parasitism)?
Perhaps the most telling predictor is seeing how many naive producers willingly give themselves up to parasites, like happy hogs walking to slaughter. From reading the posts on
*scoove*
Re:It's a God given right to keep your property (Score:2, Insightful)
Those taxes are there to protect the "rights" of the property owner. Don't use randian jargon to sound intellectual... If you're going to get into this argument it requires that you go back to the whole social contract issue.
By calling taxes "looting" and redistribution of wealth "stealing" you ignore the fact that the government created the environment where the "good capitalist" could flourish and develop his/her large amount of wealth. Had the governments of the world maintained total laissez faire, I wouldn't be surprised if a marxist style revolution of the proliterait had occured. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you accept the government, accept taxes, and try to use the system to your benefit to the best of your ability and thank the powers that be for the system in place which protects your wealth and ability to earn wealth for only a moderate percentage of your PROFITS, or you live in a world where only draconian measures on your part (beating or murdering to protect your property, and stranger even, "intellectual property") are needed.
It cracks me up how randians are so janus-like. They love the copywrites, protection and largess of government, and deplore the taxes which provide just that! And those randians who talk about the poor getting off their butts ignorant... I doubt they've experienced the weight of bein born into crushing poverty.
Machine Gestalt
Re:How capitalism can indeed serve social interest (Score:2)
Glad you mention you don't know (rather than presume otherwise). It's a shame that so many people argue against something while never understanding what they're arguing against isn't what they thought it was.
Objectivism (the philosophy Ayn Rand helped recognize) has no unique claim on kindness, giving, etc. However, Rand wrote many essays about the topic of giving, trying to help people understand that the best kind of giving has two important elements to it:
1. it is an individual choice: If you're in the US and have ever worked for a big company, you've probably had your paycheck looted by the United Way. How did you feel about being rounded up and told by managers "you will give part of your paycheck to the United Way because our company wants to look good to others"? If this is "capitalism" operationally defined, then these capitalists are no different than the socialists in government who steal in the same manner.
Compare that to how you felt when you saw someone truly in need and helped them - like changing a tire for an elderly person, painting a handicapped neighbor's house, etc. (hint: giving your time and labor is much more impressive than tossing careless unneeded dollars). When it is your choice to give, the gift means so much more to the other party. And fundamentally, no other has a right to demand you give your time, money, labor, property, etc. just so they can feel good or improve their public image.
2. there are rewards besides monetary gain: Nearly every critic of capitalism screams about the evils of money. Yet so many true capitalists work on a more fundamental level. I've seen farmers work in perhaps the purist capitalist system - one will help the other repair a tractor. Then the other helps lend a hand bringing the crop in during a time of need. Each man is self-compelled to honor his contract - it is part of his definition and character. Rewards in this system are much greater. From increased reputation in one's community to enhanced knowledge, you'll find that true objectivists look at money as a hygiene factor rather than a motivational (e.g. it's there to pay the basics; there is much more to life per enrichment than accumulating money). It's probably for this reason objectivists don't rule the world, and looting socialists (in government and big business alike) do.
Really, the examples relativists set of "evil capitalists" are not capitalists at all. Enron, Global Crossing, Citigroup, etc. are much better examples of relativists pursuing theft, parasitism, forced redistribution, etc. It is sad, subsequently, that the battle being fought in the United States today is between two socialist camps - one in control of government and the other controlling big business (any surprise that Robert Rubin, a top Democrat advisor, left his government post to chair a Fortune 100 company? It happens everywhere). You have to visit a farm or small merchant to see any evidence of real capitalism.
The only problem you've got with your statement is the pesky word "altruism." As defined by relativists, it is an intellectual virus that serves as a guilt trip, hopefully motivating others to buy into the con game. "Altruism" to them means "working hard but giving the product of your work to me so I can figure out who deserves it, while keeping a bunch for myself." Again, United Way, most governments, large corporations, etc. all fall into this category. Altruism does not mean "care about other people" - this happens in all sorts of people of all sorts of philosophies.
Think about the people you know for a moment. I'm sure we've all experienced exceptional kindness from people of all sorts of backgrounds - priests, merchants, teachers, farmers, etc. At the same time, I'm sure we can find examples of horrible people who've been priests, merchants, teachers, etc. as well. The same goes for social ideology - there are socialists that aren't conspiring robbers and murders, and there are capitalists who are cheats and killers.
So if you want to understand objectivism, just recognize that it is an ethic system that says that it is the individual's decision, not a coercive other party, to give, to create, to love, to produce, to hate, etc., and the individual's role to accept the consequence (good or bad) for those decisions.
*scoove*
Ownership AND Respect (Score:2)
If someone feels ownership toward somthing they generally show care and respect for it. Translate this into issues like broadcast frequencies and public lands and you see the direct correlation.
99.9% of the people feel no sense of ownership toward the radio waves so they don't react when greedy goverment employees do as the please with them.
A majority of people never see all the wonderful national parks WE own. Worse yet, the government places so many regulations on what citizens can do with public land that we form a "Owned By The Government mentality". So when the government cuts deals with private corporations to rape the land, only a handful of activists bother to complain.
And I'm not just talking about Federal property here. Where I live in Newport News Virginia is under attack from greedy bastards on the city council to build a huge shopping mall adjacent to our only public water resiviour. Some residents balked so the project was slowed. Not stopped, but slowed.
Try stealing someone's car or taking their land and you'll see the flipside of this hypothesis.
Re:Ownership AND Respect (Score:2)
I understand your argument. You're right -government-owned is not public-owned. No easy solutions to this one, I'm afraid.
That is exactly why it is called "the tragedy of the commons" because there is no easy solution. The original commons were of course maintained by nobility, who were looking after "their" land. A cure worse than the disease. Other solutions ? ...
Everything for sale (Score:2, Interesting)
My example, taken from an economics class, is that of the grass growing in the town square. (How much more common can that get?) If 1 shepherd lets the flock graze on the land, maybe there will be no problems (other than a herd of sheep invading the town square). If too many shepherds do this, or if it becomes a habit, there won't be much grass left, and the people and the sheep will both have to go without.
The end result of companies buying up that which belongs to us all is that they will exploit it to their maximum profit potential, and then discard it. What you end up with is vast resources that were squandered and used up to benefit a very few, after having been seized from the many. That which used to be free is now owned. That which used to belong to everyone is now fenced off, divided, broken down, distilled, and resold at a profit. The end result of this, however, is a death of sorts. The excesses that allowed other things to spring up and evolve have been destroyed, crushed under the optimizing economics of profit-uber-alles. And so, that which was supposed to enrich everyone (the public at large wouldn't extract minerals from the ground) ends up making everyone poorer (the public at large isn't going to chop down every tree and then let the wood rot).
Just my thoughts. The maintenance of the commons provides a very important balance to the individual / corporate urges to conquer and claim. Balance is good.
If you take nothing else from the essay, read over the poem:
They hang the man and flog the woman
That steal the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose.
--English folk poem, circa 1764
Could we get a rebutal on the drug issue? (Score:2)
One thing that occurs to me is this: the treatments are largely developed with American money, even if some of it is charitable donations. If the manufactured drugs are sold at low cost (especially in foreign countries), very little of that money will come back to the US. If they are sold at high cost, then a lot of that money will be returned to the governement as taxes. Remember, the American government has a vested interest in seeing American companies succeed overseas.
-a
Anyone own a condo, or live in a... (Score:2)
Ever wonder about that mysterious lower back pain, tightness of the sphincter muscle, and chronic hemorrhoidal condition? Those are the symptoms of being repeatedly screwed, even raped, by the government and private industry - private industry supported by government welfare no less. Bend over...there's a lot more coming.
Re:Anyone own a condo, or live in a... (Score:2)
Have you ever considered the possibility that the notion of "taking it up the rear" might just be a common metaphor? A bit cliche? Perhaps. But the idea of getting raped is no less repugnant, and this is exactly what I was attempting to convey.
the eric conspiracy (Score:2)
While the establishment of public mechanisms for control of govenment owned resources is perfectly reasonable, the biotech patent examples show a great fundamental ignorance of patent law and how it applies in such situations, fed by media distortion of the facts. A good debunking of widely held distortions on this topic is presented at the following link:
http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi/papers/patentonn
Ditto the examples where the drug research is viewed as 'given away' without just compensation from pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies develop more than 90% of the medicines that are approved by the FDA. The fact is that NIH's own internal audits of the process clearly show that most cooperative programs with drug companies develop new scientific knowledge that is widely shared, not new proprietary drugs. Even when cases arise that involve identification of a new drug, the vast bulk of these drugs fail to result in commercially usable products due to effectiveness, toxicity, deliverability and other issues.
Re:the eric conspiracy (Score:2)
"most publically funded drug research is given away to the pharmaceutical companies"
That is clearly false, because in fact the pharmacuetical companies (pharms) contribute heavily to this research through the CRADA program. That is NOT 'giving away', rather it is 'sharing the costs'. In addition the NIH study I mentioned drew the conclusion that most of such research was fundamental, not product oriented, and was shared generally throughout the scientific community. Therefore most of the research was not 'given away' in either the financial sense (lack of payment) nor did it end up being owned by the pharms (another aspect of 'giving' in the sense that the recipient of the gift ends up with ownership).
The actual fact is that most of the publically funded scientific research, augmented with payments from the pharms ends up being given away to the scientific community as a whole.
Re:the eric conspiracy (Score:2)
It's not private research. The results are publically available.
Bollier missed something important! (Score:5, Insightful)
This leads to the question, "What values are used to determine success?" A corporate CEO who can look another CEO in the face and say, "My business made more money than yours did last quarter" is considered a success in our society even if the _true_ costs of his success are not reflected in the money he gathered via his business. This type of "success" is only possible when the measurement of success is made _only_ in currency.
The true, core problem is this: We've developed a economic system that only recognizes wealth when it can be measured in currency. The big problem with this is that the worth, or the value, of many things cannot be acurately measured in currency. In other words, wealth and currency are not the same thing. Traditionally, currency has been a symbolic function of wealth but we've seen the reversal of this; now currency is considered the wealth and what cannot be "currency valued" is considered worthless until such time as it can be valued in terms of currency.
When the _costs_ of doing business are measured only in currency, you see a similar warping of the concept of wealth. Who pays the cost of dirty air when car and truck manufacturers make the dirtiest engines they can get away with? Well, there is no cost to making dirty engines which foul the air because there is no currency valuation for dirty vs. clean air; clean air has no value in the market place because it has no currency value. Apply this same scenario to water, food, communications mediums, etc. and you start to see the scale of the damage done simply because certain things of tremendous value are not quickly and easily measured in terms of how many dollars they can fetch in the marketplace.
Another obvious problem with measuring wealth only in currency is that the intangibles which are part of the original wealth are usually stripped away, leaving only the husk of the original thing which is being currency-valued. Concepts are quick to be disgarded -- freedom, creativity, etc. -- simply because they cannot be given a currency value. So not only is the original wealth stripped away by the process of currency-valuation, but much of the fundamental wealth of the original thing -- the associated concepts -- is tossed out like so much distracting, annoying trash. Furthermore, in the process of currency-valuation of the original wealth, the process of marketing applies the concept of "least common denominator" and finally, in effect, renders what once was a item of wealth into the least valuable thing it can possibly be while still having currency value.
The argument used by the politicians and bureaucrats who give away the "commons" areas to business for commercial exploitation is this: the commons has no value until such time as it is being converted into currency (that is, profits for business.) If you don't believe it, go do some quick research and reading and you'll be quickly enlightened as to the supposed rational "reasoning" of our government when it comes to the public trust and anything which may be construed to be a "commons."
So we see the commercialization of _everything_ because that is the only way we as a society have come to measure wealth; in terms of our currency. I can't wait until I'm charged for the priviledge of breathing dirty, diesel-fume-reeking air, eating pesticide-poisoned food, drinking polluted water from the tap, seeing and hearing nothing but crap from commercialized media -- just so some ignorant asshole CEO can say aloud in his country club, "My business made more money than yours did last quarter."
Oh, wait, we're almost there! Any enterprising CEOs out there want to start charging us money for the act of breathing? Well, lucky us -- they just haven't yet figured out how to do that yet.
May the heirs of humanity be so fortunate.
*grumble*
Re:Bollier missed something important! (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not seeing the big picture. The actual problem is that many things cannot be accurately measured. The units used are irrelevant.
Accountants are well aware that there is a value behind non-tangibles like "good will" but this creates an accounting dilemna. They need to compare different concepts of wealth: easy stuff like assets and cash but also much harder stuff such as "good will" and "employee happiness" and "customer satisfaction". What is the unit for "satisfaction"? How do you measure "happiness"? The accountant doesn't know so he picks an arbitrary unit - the dollar - and does his best to evaluate wealth with very limited knowledge.
So my point is that the problem isn't with the units. The real problem lies with the experts who can't give accurate figures to the accountants. If activists devised and enforced a method for putting a "dollar value" on pollution then the companies would know how much the pollution is costing them. Pollution tax on power plants is a positive example of this in the real world.
Try and help the accountants by giving them better evaluations of wealth, instead of giving them bogus data and then blaming them for making mistakes.
Re:Bollier missed something important! (Score:2, Interesting)
an "easy", incremental step would seem to be to charge for externalities, that is, guess a price for dirtying the air and charge companies that price when they dirty the air the guess will probably be slightly closer to the "true value" than $0.
An interesting, but very biased article (Score:3, Insightful)
But this article shows its political biases in a number of ways. Early on, the use of the term "corporate classes" is pretty telling.
The attack upon the drug companies used very misleading data. The article implies that a drug company does little other than take a government funded drug, fill out a little paperwork, and then sell it for way above production costs. There is no attempt at balance in this presentation. In fact, a drug company takes the results of basic research, and invests vasts amounts of money (typically a billion or more per drug) in clinical trials required by a government bureaucracy (FDA). This is risk money expended without knowing if the drug will be successful, and in fact many are not. The drug company then must advertise the drug (which includes providing real information), produce it, and market it. In addition to that, it is liable to unpredictable but huge losses if some unforeseen adverse event occurs in even a tiny number of uses. In other words, the idea of the drug may be in the commons, but the implementation uses vast amounts of private capital, at high risk.
The failure of the paper to clarify this point tells me that the author has a clearly anti-private property bias, and is willing to lie in order to put forward his points. This is unfortunate, because he there are valid viewpoints in some of what he says.
Another issue that is brushed aside is the "taking" of landowner's property by environmental rules. Through the use of quotes, this very serious issue is simply discarded as one requiring no thought and engendering no reasoned dispute. In fact, those of us living in the wilder parts of the US are well aware that our personal property (and to a large extent our financial future) may be arbitrarily taken from us in the name of protection of a species that we may not even be aware of. In other words, there is a clear case that these takings, if necessary to protect the species, should be paid for by the beneficiaries of the commons, but instead are arbitrarily taken from random individuals!
At least when capitalists use the government to take land (such as the railroad's eminent domain takings), they are required to compensate the landowners. But in the view of the author of this paper, apparently the environmental takings are justified with no compensation to the person injured by those takings.
Thus, overall, I would say that this is a well written piece of propaganda attacking private property rights not only in areas where those rights have been overextended by corrupt government (copyright extensions, DMCA) but in areas where they rights are fundamental, owned by individuals, and deeply rooted in history.
It is an attempt to extend the commons to the those things which have traditionally been the very fundaments of private property: your land. Admittedly, this is a small part of the article, but it is an example of the dangerous thinking behind such a polemic.
Re: corporate classes (Score:5, Informative)
In a world where these entities not only act in practice but even use the LANGUAGE of class (hell, the language of feudal aristocracy!) to describe their 'peasants' and the cash value of same, I feel it is wrong not to acknowledge the situation.
We are not talking about suspicions that 'maybe these corporations don't fully embrace the humanity of their lesser employees', or speculations on how they talk behind closed doors (which they must- Enron? WorldCom? There's someone making a lot of judgement calls to hose the 'peasants', in corporation after corporation). We are not even talking about suspicions that corporations will play lotto on the lives of its peasants and ex-peasants, because that is PROVEN and hard fact, again in corporation after corporation. We're talking about the fact that in at least one case the corporation was on record in literally using the words 'dead peasants' to describe this group of people. Not 'dead guys', not 'dead ex-employees' but 'dead peasants'. This, in spite of well reported reluctance to reveal the practice at all, much less the mindset behind it, and it's so widespread that one corporation just came out and said it (in internal reports- I believe specifically it was a memo that came to light requesting a printed-up chart with the dead peasants in a certain column).
Please tell me why 'corporate classes' is not exactly the right way to refer to this situation in which corporations are referring to American citizens as peasants, speculating on their lives for corporate gain, and behaving as if American citizens have no more intrinsic value than livestock, grain, or office supplies (to use a Dilbert reference).
I will settle for that, though there isn't a point you make that I wouldn't dispute. Don't see how spending money on advertising deserves government-granted monopolies, and you have the whole environmental thing backwards- the article is talking about private interests taking property previously held by government, not the other way around! I would say 'fine' to merely nailing down all public lands as protected areas and not bothering to expand this, but all public lands are basically under heavy attack to be privatized and strip-mined^H^H^H^Hdeveloped ;)
That's as may be. You do everyone a disservice by complaining about the term 'corporate classes'. What the hell else would you call it?
Re: corporate classes (Score:2, Interesting)
Nonsense. In America, we don't have classes... in the sense of hereditary social strata. Take a look at the backgrounds of most corporate higher-ups and you will not find people born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Social mobility, which is very strong in America especially, gives lie to the term "classes."
As far as the business of insuring employees - that is an aberration in the corporate system, not a condemnation of the whole system. And in any case, when you are dealing with masses of people and financial issues, you *do*, of necessity, end up using commodity terms to refer to the people (or at least the aspect of them that you are interested in). This doesn't mean that you think of them as cattle or peasants or anything else. It is just a matter of process.
As far as the environmental thing... go back and read it.
Well... never mind. Here is the quote:
This is a direct quote from the article. Note the term "land owners?" This is not about public land. Note also that this phrase gives another example of the fraudulent and polemical tone of the piece. Landowners fighting environmental takings do NOT claim they own the wildlife! What they do claim is that if they are to make large expenditures on behalf of the common good (for environmental reasons) that they should be reimbursed from the commons for their extraordinary contribution. If somebody suddenly can no longer build on his land, which he paid large amounts of money for, he is claiming that this constitutes a taking and that he should be reimbursed. And he is of course correct. The author, however, tries to brush aside this entire argument by mischaracterizing it (a favorite tactic of the left) so that it seems ridiculous. Environmentalists do their best to simply *take* that person's property rights for the common good.
This happens all the time here in Arizona. An example, where the expense is absorbed by a class of people, recently popped up: The Salt River Project reservoir - Roosevelt Lake - which is the major water supply for Phoenix, has been drawn down to very low levels due to a prolonged drought. A rare species of bird has taken up residence in the area normally covered by water. Now the project cannot fill up this area again without absorbing whatever expense is required to relocate the birds, or protect them or whatever... and this includes all the studies and lawsuits necessary to prove they have done the job. This is on land that was UNDERWATER until a couple of years ago. This is what is meant by a taking! The SRP is being forced to pay a cost, due to no fault of its own, to maintain mankind's interest in preserving this species of bird. I would argue that mankind, or at least the federal government, should provide recompense.
Of course SRP is big, so they are hard to feel sorry for. But exactly the same thing happens to the little guy around here. This is why the common way to deal with endangered species by some landowners (this poster not included) is "shoot, scoop and bury."
Note that this has nothing to do with the commons in any traditional legal sense. Private land never was part of the commons.
Excellent comments, mesocyclone (Score:2)
Re: corporate classes (Score:2)
I think you are pointing out something much different: the start of political classes. These are not "corporate classes!"
Oh... and Kennedy didn't get his money from "corporations" either. His father was a criminal (liquor smuggler during prohibition).
The Roosevelts are just about out of the political world.
So your very few cases hardly prove that we have "corporate classes.:
Re:An interesting, but very biased article (Score:2)
And yes, they do try to keep their proprietary drugs from being sold by others who have not invested in them.
Of course, one can try a couple of alternatives:
1) Give them no protection. That would result in no new drugs.
2) Let the government take over from the drug companies. That approach was shown to be rather, shall we say, lacking... in the USSR and other central command economies.
Re:An interesting, but very biased article (Score:2)
But what I was really addressing was the author's terribly incorrect portrayal of drug companies - implying that they were feeding at the public trough by essentially taking publicly funded research and reaping huge profits without significant investment. This was a very poor characterization. The comment on extending the patents, OTOH, was somewhat correct... the drug companies cut a deal with congress.... if they do clinical studies on children, they can keep their patents longer that would otherwise expire.
Overall, though, the piece was poorly disguised anti-corporate left-wing propaganda.
Re:An interesting, but very biased article (Score:2)
Re:I got bored (Score:4, Insightful)
Americans as well.. first mention of commons? (Score:2)
Everybody has idiosyncratic laws, usually based on some sort of history, whether they have a written constitution or not.
What I'd like to know, is when were commons first mentioned in English law? - date please - (do they exist in Scots law? believe there is no concept of 'trespass' in Scots law though maybe somebody can help me with this as well...)
Re:I got bored (Score:2)
The US is not governed by a King and nobles, but it is neither governed by the people. Because modern politics has nothing to do with truth but power it gets so complicated that the people can't get truly involved. Thus opening the system to corruption, propaganda and lies. The politicians have to support - not the people who wote on them - but the upper class that gets them elected. The US government is elected by the market.
Therfor the government has to do what they belive is best for corporate america. This means that public property - like those Californian beaches - can be sacrificed at the expence of a small group of people going mad. The profit is making a small, but powerfull, group of corporations happy. Gaining a true power boost.
Re:I got bored (Score:2)
In a lot of old towns in the North Eastern US, there are still Commons, usually in the form of parks. This was commonly held property, owned by the town's people.
When I lived in Orange, NJ, the Orange Commons has statues of Revolutionary soldiers and a sign stating that George Washington marched his army past the site (or something like that.. been years since I read it)
Re:Read Tom G. Palmer's response (Score:2)
The thing is though, I certainly don't agree that the concept of the 'commons' is the same as communism. One is a concept of resource that is for general consumption, the other is a form of social organisation. They are not the same thing at all.
Anyway, nice troll. One question though, are you or have you ever been a member of the Nazi party BTW? ;-)
Linux != Communism (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, obviously, part of the commons is Linux, and this is a Linux-related news feed. So to the extent that the commons is communism, then always.
Apparently some have a difficult time understanding the difference between libertarianism and communism (hard to believe). To explain using Linux as an example:
A libertarian is one respectful of each individual's liberty and property. He/she engages in projects with each other through the premise of contract. Volunteer to work on an open source project? That's an excellent example of such a contract, exercised by the choice of the individual. Just because the compensation doesn't come in currency doesn't mean there isn't compensation - the compensation is the reward recognized by the individual, whether it be intellectual gain, recognition, pleasure, etc.
A utopianist (communist, socialist, collectivist, democrat, national socialist, and other nice words for what is fundamentally just a human parasite living off of others hard work, talent and energy) is one who declares a ficticious claim to the liberty, property and choice of others. Look at recent patent parasites (such as the JPEG patent matter) - attorneys declaring the work of others to belong to them, and demanding financial tribute before others may continue their own work. Another example is Microsoft demanding computer manufacturers give up some of their property (in the form of currency) for every machine they sell and give it to Microsoft, regardless of whether it has Linux or Windows loaded. Or perhaps it's the RIAA seizing the work of free artists who wish to contribute their music to Shoutcasters and listeners, demanding they be paid a license for work they did not produce in order to "help the people." Yet another example is a coercive employer who demands rights to your Linux work after hours. Create a package for Linux? The employer may demand ownership of it, wrongfully so. All of these are examples of the parasite at work.
The quickest way to recognize a parasite is to listen for key words they use to trick others into giving up their goods (parasites are lazy, remember, and don't like to hold a gun against your head in order to get your stuff. They'd rather you feel guilty and give it up voluntarily).
Listen for words like the people, the collective, society, and other representations of individuals in plural. When you realize that no human being on earth is able to peer into the heads of thousands of others, cognitively knowing all of their intent, will and desire, you'll understand that such plural words subsequently do not make sense absent such psychic ability.
We can only speak for ourselves knowingly, and therefore have rights only to ourselves and our property.
Linux and other open source projects are perhaps some of the most compelling efforts today of the power and correctness of libertarianism.
Re:Linux != Communism (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently some have a difficult time understanding the difference between libertarianism and communism (hard to believe). To explain using Linux as an example:
Apparently some anonymous cowards don't know that things can have things in common (no pun intended) without being at all the same thing. I said to the extent that that was true. Common property ownership is a part of communism, but it's also a part of government, or marriages; this does not mean that they are communistic either.
What about socialism? (Score:2)
A society based on democracy and sharing. Because you choose what you share and what you dont share, this makes it SOCIALISM.
Socialism = a society where everyone shares to create a utopia, and thats what Linux is, because everything in linux is open source.
Theres no government in socialism, and theres no government in linux, you still have the freedom to keep your code closed source it just wont be a part of GNU Linux.
Re:Incorrect definitions build incorrect outlooks (Score:2)
You cannot have a republic with socialism or you end up with something like Chinas version of communism
Linux = Socialism (Score:2)
Linux only works due to the fact that everyone shares everything, its the sharing of the code that creates linux. Its socialism. Accept it.
It also proves socialism (sharing the wealth) can actually work, at least for information.
While it wont work for labor, it DOES work for intellectual property.
So this means we dont really need ownership of ideas to innovate and create products.
Libertarianism? Most of the Linux software, is GNU, GNU is socialist. Libertarian is BSD. Why dont you go use FreeBSD.
ahem... COPYRIGHTS are NOT PROPERTY RIGHTS !!! (Score:2)
The notion that copyrights are free market is bullshit, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Re:Linux != Communism (Score:2, Troll)
It is most amusing to see an anonymous, cowardly libertarian... sorry, I should say Randite, because I've heard the occasional libertarian who wasn't a loony... trying to claim credit for all of Linux and open source.
Gee, if you're claiming credit for an essentially social-anarchist endeavor (in which it is just easy enough, and just beneficial enough, for people to give to the commons without being too concerned about bankrupting themselves), doesn't that make you a human parasite, with your philosophy living off others' hard work, talent, energy, and altruism? :D
What really made Linux happen was this: software licenses that encouraged the giving of software work you were doing anyway, to a commons, where it could possibly benefit others at very little or no additional cost. It's the 'scratch your own itch' idea. People who've tried to start open source projects hoping for other people to do the work haven't gotten anywhere- it's been the cases where people did work that THEY needed, and then took advantage of the fact that, having done the work, it was possible to give it away without being themselves deprived of it.
There is no argument for doing this but that of benefitting society, and the licenses that made it possible (by blocking predation on this commons) tend to emphasise the further benefit of society rather than the opportunity for individuals to come in and enrich themselves selfishly.
The common factor is that people needed to write software themselves to solve various problems- and having done so, had the opportunity to contribute this work to society without being the slightest bit poorer for it practically. They had to give up the hypothetical possibility of being all proprietary in hopes of profit, in favor of the idea of benefiting society by doing something very easy- open sourcing the program that THEY had already written, that THEY were already able to use. In that context, they lost nothing, because they were still able to use the software they'd written. It was a very cheap way to do something that feels good and might help others- if the deal had been that the author had to give up rights to use their own program, things might have turned out very different. Even if the author had to give up say 3K of RAM, or 2% of the lines of actual code (and do them over), things might have been different, but the interesting thing about software is the way it can be used to build a collective wealth without impoverishing contributors in any way.
Doing things in this way benefits society immensely, and I think it is good for the people. :)
By which I mean to say that society is benefitted by the people easily being able to participate in a 'commons' collectively... *sound of randite troll's head exploding* ah! There. Thought that would do it. Carry on ;)
Re:Read Tom G. Palmer's response (Score:2)
Good. But who ever said the concepts were the same? Not the parent post.
Anyway, nice troll.
I think the trolling lies in your misstatement of the original poster's comment. The rebuttal article is quite interesting. Consider reading it.
Re:Read Tom G. Palmer's response (Score:2)
Yes the parent post. I'll help you, he said:
"BTW, since when did Slashdot start openly shilling for Communism?"
Are you saying that doesn't equate the commons with communism? It's pretty blatant.
Re:Read Tom G. Palmer's response (Score:2)
What so they could roll out the welcome mat? ;-)
Well, they do ask you if you've been involved in war crimes, but if you're a Nazi that managed to avoid this; then you'd probably feel quite at home in modern totalitarian america. ;-)
All kidding aside, (America is not totalitarian yet) it's probably just because Nazis haven't threatened to overthrow the American way lately (although WWII was a bit like that, but the Nazis lost.)
"Are you or have you ever been an Islamic extremist." would be a good replacement right now ;-)
Conclusive? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what? The point of the original article is that previously shared and non-profit assets are being privatized and protected. Any rebuttal must show how encroachment isn't happening to be considered conclusive, or even relevant.
According to capitalists sharing is evil because (Score:2)
This is why Microsoft hates linux. This is why the MPAA and RIAA hates napster, because it takes the power from their corperation and gives the power to us, the users, and the musicians.
Re:Conclusive? (Score:2)
Bollier's work is the usual fare: peppered with colorful folkloric filler and colorized historical references, about the same as the average Eric Raymond screed (okay, I can use derisive terms too). It hearkens back to the 'good old days,' as always sugared up with the kind of historically revisionist nostalgia so popular with Ren-Fest denizens and neo-pagans.
It's the kind of stuff that sells well with the disinfranchised 'masses' and the elites which like to herd them around.
Play that hurdy-gurdy music, maaaan!
Re:Read Tom G. Palmer's response (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Read Tom G. Palmer's response (Score:2, Interesting)
If Palmer really shared Bollier's concerns he wouldn't shoot the messenger, he would write a better message. But, Palmer's crocadile tears reveals his true position - corporate psychophant.
Air, Medicine, Food, Water, Knowledge (Score:3, Insightful)
Knowledge is no longer a common due to intellectual propery. Water is sold, Medicine is an extention of Intellectual propery, so its sold, Food is sold, we have surplus's of food sitting in government warehouses like milk and rice, which is enough to feed the whole population of the USA and the whole population of alot of other places, but instead it goes to waste literally because our laws make it so it must be sold.
Knowledge should be free.
Food should be free, not good food, but some food.
Water should be free, no one should be able to own a stream, you should be able to go get water for free.
Air should always be free, if we go to mars you should not pay for air.
The guy at slashdot I argued with said even air should have a price.
Re:Air, Medicine, Food, Water, Knowledge (Score:2)
Now, if you're talking about food and water to sustain life, you're right that anyone should be able to get it. And they can, in our society. But beyond having food, water, and shelter enough to survive, I think that people should be responsible to work and earn the money if they want any luxuries.
Thats not what I mean (Score:2)
Distributing doesnt have to be free, but water and food should be free for anyone who goes to the warehouse or to the water plant to get it.
If you go to the plant where the water is treated, you should be able to walk out with as much water as you want. IF you go to the warehouse where food is just sitting there, you should be able to take what you need.
Now, if you're talking about food and water to sustain life, you're right that anyone should be able to get it. And they can, in our society. But beyond having food, water, and shelter enough to survive, I think that people should be responsible to work and earn the money if they want any luxuries.
Thats bullshit, people are starving everyday, and theres homeless people all over the country and you are telling me people are getting free food and water? Theres places to get free water but its easy to get, you have to beg for it.
You might be able to get free food if you beg for that, why should homeless people have to beg for food and water when theres places which have water just sitting there that the average person cant want into, and warehouses the government has just sitting around with all this surplus food in it that homeless people cant just walk in and get, so they beg you for money to buy food.
Why ?
I'm not talking about luxury, I'm saying everyone should have free air, food, water, and education, and really everyone SHOULD have shelter.
Re:Thats not what I mean (Score:2)
Re:Thats not what I mean (Score:2)
Why? This is a recipe for there being no water: i.e. the resource being overused. The whole point of having prices is to control the use of the resource in the way that best accords with how much it costs to produce it.
Re:Air, Medicine, Food, Water, Knowledge (Score:2)
With something like water or air their is a subtle difference between charging for the substance itself and charging for providing a useful service on it. Distribution of water and ensuring it does not contain harmful pathogens is a service. As is filling up a scuba tank.
Re:Air, Medicine, Food, Water, Knowledge (Score:2)
Re:Air, Medicine, Food, Water, Knowledge (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "intellectual property" as far as the laws of most countries are concerned.
Knowledge should be free.
Knowledge is not the same thing as "entertainment". Your use of terminology is misleading at best.
As far as the use of the word should is concerned, I believe good governments should avoid creating prisoners dilemmas. Allowing free riders to the show creates a prisoners dilemma, because a rational person will prefer to be a free rider than a paying customer, but free riders do not serve the interests of society.
"Knowledge" is not "free", because it takes time and resources to produce "knowledge". That's what copyright is for -- it exists with the explicit intention of avoiding a prisoners dilemma and furthering the interests of society by granting authors control of their works.
Ballence (Score:4, Interesting)
Capitalism and Democracy are a symbiotic pair. You cannot have one without the other. Too much Capitalism (where money controls everything) and you loose your democracy, it becomes totalitarian. Too much Democracy and you loose innovation, and things become an Animal Farm.
Currently we are flirting with totalitarianism, under the disguise of capitalism.
Re:Ballence (Score:2)
Money does not magically control things; it influences people who have power, and that power generally comes from government. Put another way, if politicans did not have so much power, then there would be less reason to bribe them, and less concern over the influence of wealth. "Too much Capitalism" is not the problem Too much authoritarian government is, because that is the real locus of control.
Totalitarian is what we have right now (Score:2)
We arent flirting with it anymore, havent you saw the enron situation? what about sen hollings?
Democracy isnt working anymore due to capitalism itself.
And to say you cannot have democracy without capitalism is stupid, Socialism = Democracy without capitalism, I admit it might not work as long as we still have to do physical labor, but in the future, when we have good robotics socialism will start to look very good.
Re:Read Tom G. Palmer's response (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone can argue convincingly against themselves. Refuting a carefully prepared case based on history, common sense, and true democratic ideas is much harder, as Palmer evidently realizes.
Re:Read Tom G. Palmer's response (Score:2)
Folklore, eh? Such as the fiction of "public" ownership of the airwaves, which congress pays lip service to and which exists only as a legal abstraction today?
There now exists the technology to open the airwaves to the public. Slashdot has covered all of the relevant advances of broadband, multi-spectrum radio communication. Yet encroachment of these resources has already occured, and the establisment is entrenched and not interested in the technology that could put the airwaves back in the control of the people, where it belongs. Will we hear a public discussion of this travesty in the mainstream (ahem "liberal") media?
Not bloody likely. For the same reason that Palmer ignores the issue entirely and focuses on isolated quotations from Bollier's essay, most of which are secondary to the points he so eloquently establishes.
Re:Read Tom G. Palmer's response (Score:4, Informative)
The Red Army, although calling itself communist, was more dictatorial in fashion. The kind of 'communism' practiced in Russia in that era is also known as Stalinism, and it differs greatly from communism in theory. In theory, there should be no government at all in a communist state; the people should control everything. In practice, the state controlled everything and it doled it out the people in little bits and pieces.
I suggest you quit knee-jerking and try to look at the issue from different sides, as well as knowing the concepts behind it.
Socialism is the answer (Score:2)
And Linux is a socialist technology as is Napster.
They both prove the socialist model does work for information based technologies such as source code,math, music, things like that
Honestly all information should be open and free, medicine patents too.
However, some things cant be free anytime soon, like real labor, construction, these keep us from being able to go completely socialist.
We should however adapt capitalism.
Information and the socialist model (Score:3)
However, this sort of "socialism" isn't necessarily the opposite of "capitalism". The largest corporations today have made ample use of the "commons", they drill for oil, use the oxygen in our atmosphere, use sea and air shipping lanes, etc. What we have is a capitalist subsystem, enclosed in a larger socialist universe. Capitalist corporations are citizens in the socialist universe, the only difference between them and individual citizens is their relative strength to help themselves to the public goods.
Re:Socialism is the answer (Score:2)
Linux works, because participation is voluntary.
It's not at all clear that napster works. I mean, the company is dead, and they came under a lot of fire, because they were basically grabbing the work of artists-- participation was not voluntary, and a lot of contributors were unhappy because of this.
Socialism does not work unless the participants are volunteers (and in that case, it really is not that much like socialist governments)
Re:i dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
I take it you've never been mugged before (Score:2)
--
Benjamin Coates
Not a collectivist rant (Score:3, Informative)
> private property from the capitalist pigs.
I read the article; you are putting words in his mouth.
Making property or land publicly owned is an old, well-documented legal idea. The Roman jurist Gaius describes it in his _Institutes_: ``Public things are regard as belonging to no individual, but as being the property of the whole world [ipsius enim universitatis esse creduntur]." As a result, Gaius argued that these public properties were not subject to the law of nations, but of an older, natural or common law -- ``communis onmium hominum jus" -- that is derived from custom, & not from legislation.
Last I checked, neither Gaius nor the hundreds of Civil Law jurists whose work derives from him were communists. Which is not surprising in that he lived some 1500 years before Karl Marx was born. And if he were, that would mean that the law of much of Europe & the rest of the world -- which is derived from Civil Law, as distinguished from Canon or Church, & from Common or Anglo-American -- follows Communist law.
Only a parochial US citizen would argue that much of the world follows a ``Communist" law. The same kind of person who instinctively equates communist with mass murderer, although there have been far more mass murderers who did not profess communism than did so.
In short, one can easily argue for the existence of a commons if the existence of intellectual property is assumed. And the concept of intellectual property is something that was invented only in the last few decades.
Geoff
Re:We currently lack a vocabulary for a reason! (Score:2)
Because being a "citizen" implies that you are involved in government, and take an active role. A "resident" just lives here, but has no say in matters of government. Calling citizens "taxpayers" is even worse, as it implies that the only contribution they can make to government is through taxes. If more Americans were citizens instead of just residents and taxpayers, maybe the U.S. government wouldn't be in the sad state it is now.
As for vehicles vs. cars and firearms vs. guns, I don't know what that's all about...
Re:What an insight!! (Score:2)
Re:This is nonsense (Score:2)