The idiocy here is astounding. I'm actually embarrassed for having read this.

I can't speak for him, but there are real examples of people working towards some of these ideals today. He probably has a far clearer idea of how to achieve his ideals than you do yours.

What you've described here is indentured servitude.

The talk of how workers really need to be told what to do is the height of arrogance. Like others stated before, this is the same argument used to justify slavery and many other despicable institutions "because they can't manage themselves."

It is strange how people act like the idea of worker-owned business is just some pipe dream. Examples of it exist this very day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management

Here is one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Bauen

Maybe you should ask these people how they manage. There are some small shops in the US that are run this way. If only more abandoned factories in the midwest had been recuperated, perhaps the US would still have some industrial capacity. Of course, this sort of democratic structure is absolutely hated by those who control the majority of the productive capital. In fact, they would rather keep the empty factory and let it rot than sell it to those who would wish to set up some sort of cooperative (yes, this has happened). Why? Simple -- first, they don't play in any real market. The big guys want to capture and control the market - to distort it for their own purposes. Selling their capital to those who could use it to sustain an economy independently would "set a bad example." Second -- it is very important that they demonize democracy and keep the middle class fighting over scraps, like those of you who support the current status quo.

FatherMcGruder, don't worry. Those of us who know anything about history know that what you are saying is correct. The rest of them, well... the propaganda of the American right works wonders on comfortable middle-class suburbia dwellers. They are the target of the "education," after all.

And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories. It's called a co-operative, and it is a wonderfully democratic way to have an industrial society.

Oh, but by taking this attitude, you are still making a political choice.


"Why try to make the world a decent place? Why not just forget about that and take care of myself?"

This is consistent with your preferred political world view, which boils down to this:

I think the scripts are rather useful. They are far more portable than having to mess with wxwidgets or whatever the hell else just to get what should be a simple console application to work. They are also easy to understand.

I would love to see many perl, python, and shell implementations of bitcoin.

I don't know about evil, but they both are used to manipulate markets.

It seems clear that many here do not wish to see fair markets or better information with which to make decisions. Pretty much the same situation as what exists on wall street seems to be emerging here. Another big scam.

Freezing funds is a drastic measure. Would you be ok with your bank freezing your money, without a "guilty verdict" while they were "looking into" it?

Ah, yes. Somalia! The land of plenty and the libertarian's utopia.

You've convinced me...


<ahem>

To the normal people trying to "discuss" with these fools, I suspect that most of these scholars and philosophers are also working on how to get BMX pegs for BTC.

 


You seriously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Maybe you should get out of the subdivision and check out the real world sometime. Your post count's rate may take a hit, but at least you'll learn how to not make yourself look like such an idiot. Maybe you'll even learn some grammar.


This from a man (?) who peddles a fucking ponzi scheme in his signature. You really think that this is the kind of thing that will help bitcoin? Anyone with even a modicum of decency will know what to think of your morals.

I just can't take any of you seriously.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/04/130329523/how-fake-money-saved-brazil


Perception is key.

Perhaps technical types with enormous computational resources already dedicated to distributed projects could help?

Check these guys out:

http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewforum.php?f=18

Do you realize how crazy you sound?

Do you also realize that you are advocating a system in which the individual does not have the right to assert ownership over his or her own creative works? And that you and your "fellow rebels" via "revolutionary anti-IP counter-economic activities" ( rol) are imposing their own values? Contradict much?


I'm so sure. Your posts definitely do.

I'll note that all of your examples predate the emergence of the modern transnational corporation, but they are interesting, nonetheless. Also, the bar for developing new technologies has been raised substantially (in terms of capital) since their times.

His famous inventions happened before 1881 and were patented (thanks, emergent - you made a statement of fact) well before the time of the modern multinational conglomerate.

It can also be argued that his inventions were not fundamental discoveries in basic science. One good example was the fluoroscope. Edison marketed the first commercial fluoroscope years after Roentgen made the critical discoveries at a university. See my point about about packaging and marketing of technology.

Now, let's take a closer look regarding emergent's point about patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_edison#War_of_currents
I think that is quite interesting. Who do you think enforces those rights? Who pays for that enforcement?

His main innovation was to pay his workers excellent salaries, which allowed them to actually buy the things they produced, ensuring a market for his cars. The novelty of his idea is lost on the modern corporation, and is actually seen as a means of "wealth redistribution" by some.

The invention of the telephone also came out of substantial university research. Most people don't know that Bell was a professor at Boston U. This is what set him up with the requisite knowledge for his patent.

Another good example of having the patent system on your side...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy

Plus, we know what became of his legacy (the Bell System).

We're talking pre-industrial revolution now? Why not include daVinci or the discovery of fire?

Patents galore, all of which stemmed from work done by...
who made his discoveries while working at a public university.

I appreciate you for setting that one up. 


You said it, brother.

More interesting:

I'm not sure that things are so simple. Perhaps you are opposed to the idea of IP, but many self-identifying libertarians (Randians come to mind) are supportive of such rights. fergalish describes one approach to IP, which seems to be quite reasonable.

There are, of course, extremes even within the so-called "libertarian" crowd. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, ultra-free marketers espouse the notion that everything should be privately owned. This includes, by necessity, ideas. It also includes things like air. The idea here is that once the resource is owned, then the owner will naturally want to take care of it. This seems crazy to me - more likely the owner will use the control over critical resources to coerce for profit.

I find the notion of universal private ownership absurd, but I do recognize the need for IP as a means to protect individuals and smaller business from being robbed by more powerful interests. I think people should be able to decide the terms by which their programs, music, writings, etc. are distributed, and for a period of time no longer than their natural lives. Unfortunately, the very tools that were meant to protect individuals and smaller shops have been co-opted by powerful interests. This is what happens when government stops being by and for the people. Democracy helps - and democracy can also help to define sane notions for IP in the digital age.

I agree.

You are arguing over semantics. The logical conclusion of what you are saying is in agreement with what I said. People agree (more or less) on a set of rules to govern (see that word?) their interactions and sustain their system.

First, I'm not trying to "legitimate taxation." I'm telling it the way it is.

Second, the bulk of US tax money goes to military spending, much of which supports all kinds of research both at universities and at corporate contractors. This is well known, and I'm surprised you could make such a statement with a straight face. None of the US aerospace firms would still be around if it weren't for military contracts.

A similar situation exists in europe as well, with airbus. I think you would be surprised to see just how dependent basic research is on taxes and the sheer scale of the funding.

Some people on this very forum have expressed the desire to see every valuable resource owned. If I own all the potable water in your city, I am imposing on your freedom to live, unless you pay. This is coercion.

Also, some people do think they have the right to do anything they want. They are called sociopaths, and most people recognize that they have to be controlled. So you have made what I think is a reasonable choice about what kinds of freedom are appropriate. Unfortunately, we can't just assume that these values are shared, and consensus via some democratic process and social contract (what you described) is required.


Unfortunately, this is demonstrably untrue. Basic medical research typically occurs at universities with large federal funding (NIH, NSF). All of the original work in what we consider computer science came from DARPA money from the 50s to the 80s. What came after were incremental improvements toward marketability. For instance, I don't consider an ipod to be a fundamental technological advancement to be compared with something like the transistor.

Even modern aerospace firms depend heavily on military spending to survive, only to incrementally improve technology that was developed at universities or NASA. I've had this same basic conversation many times over the years. Each major tech that is brought up is inevitably the result of government money.

I wasn't trying to find out how old you are, but I think we should all try to clarify important terms and discuss things without letting rhetorical tricks (unfortunately all around us in our day-to-day lives) get in the way. The Orwellian "language of politics" has effectively done away with politics today.