Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

G. Adams · Nov 7, 2003, 05:10 pm

I spent two years not meeting another communist or even another proper lefty, so I've never been indoctrinated if thats how it appears. I found myself on the hard left because I feel like shit everytime I see footage of starving people, knowing that it could be different. I want to make a difference for these people, to help them, and the only way I could make a meaningful contribution is to spread communism. If I became a doctor instead, a profession I hugely respect, all my help would be meaningless once I died, my help would end. If I ensure a better world for people to live in though, I know that my life hasn't been a meaningless waste.

This is why I'm ardant in my belief. I have spent a lot of time looking at it (and I was not far from the far right when I began at about 14, so I got to see it from a very different angle), and I stick by it because I see no real holes in it, except practical ones. And they can always be worked on and improved, the theory is still correct.

I won't do as politicians do and compromise for concensus (or should I get into the upper echelons of politics, compromise for power) because I'm not doing it for fun, power or any of those bullshit reasons people enter politics.

I will change the world for the better.

Black Fox · Nov 7, 2003, 05:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Being emotionally attached to a topic is not the same as blindly believing it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
True - but the danger of being emotionally attached to a belief is that it prevents you from being willing to accept valid arguments against your belief. Still, being emotionally attached to a belief means you have the passion to follow it through with actions - something that's very useful when you're up against lots of opposition.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Intellectual property is bad because it allows someone's creative works to be commodified - bought and sold. Government patents were a way for people to be ensured a pittance for their creative work, but business contracts are far less forthcoming. Ask anyone who's ever signed a record contract, and then wanted to produce their own works elsewhere.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
But isn't the problem here with the nature of the contract, and not the fact that the creative works can be commoditised? Would you object to the concept intellectual property if the creator of the IP was benefitting from her work?

nature of reality · Nov 7, 2003, 07:21 pm

"As has been asked before, tell me how Cuba is not working, please do"

I know! America has this huge problem with people trying so hard to escape from florida and their evil Bougrious Overlords that they almost die trying to cross over into Cuba. Its a real issue we have to resolve.

"Communism is a classless, stateless, government free society, where all property is under common ownership."

So, how excatly are you going to spread this? and even if it does take hold, what if i don't want to give up my shit? You don't have police or a government to loot me, who will do the looting for you? Unless you advocate a running looting-mob to run about collecting crap. But then they would have to distribute it. Wait a sec, thats a government!

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHAT KIND OF ECONOMY IS THIS? Its the Mystical Magical, Wonderful Economy that is neither Traditional, Command, or Market! Its the Magic Economy! It doesn't even work in theory, but somehow it will work in reality. ---Answer this.

"Nazism itself is a subsection of fascism. In entire opposition to communism, everything is divided into class. Also in opposition, is that property is not commonly owned, rather it is all owned by, or under the control of, the state. This property is both capital, labour and even bloody spiritual, with the state dictating morality."

Yea, because in communism they don't dictate Morality, only alturism. which isn't morality. duh. ?!??!

"Of course, you teach a person to fish, and he gets thrown in jail for fishing without a license. Then he realises he can't afford a license, and he must work for a company instead who can. But of course the company already has people working for them at a pittance, they can't even afford to buy a couple of fishes a day to feed their family with the money they are on, despite the fact they are hauling them in by the ton. Which is why the kids don't go to school, they have to work on the boats themselves just to keep the family alive, which of course keeps the circle going on and on."

What a great refutation of castille's statiscits about the wage rates in asia. O, no wait, this is a bunch of random, unsubstationated drivel.

"In those few incidences where scientists make real breakthroughs, yes I'm happy for them to benefit. But I don't see how these drugs, which could alleviate the suffering of millions, should be withheld from them? Currently AIDS drugs are 10 dollars a pop, and you need one a day. The average wage of people on this planet is $1.04 an hour. You do the fucking math.

And more importantly, medical science being totally private means that companies aren't researching things like AIDS nearly as much as they should be, because the people who would buy aids drugs can't afford them, so theres no profit to be made. But Oooh, look we can make an aspirin that works five minutes if we put 10 bill of research here, lets do it!"

Don't these two points contradict each other? One says Private companies deserve to be looted, they are making a killing of this AIDS thing. Other says Private Companies aren't even trying to cure this aids thing, theres no money in it! So lets loot them!

Ever wonder why dirty statists (such as your communism. Dont give me this governmentless crap, it doesn't even make sense in theory) always have secret police? Because t hey feel that nothing is private, not even the contents of your own mind.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 7, 2003, 08:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Black Fox,)
But isn't the problem here with the nature of the contract, and not the fact that the creative works can be commoditised? Would you object to the concept intellectual property if the creator of the IP was benefitting from her work?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>By buying the rights to the artist's creative work, the company is already exploiting the artist. The company can decide whether or not to advertise, produce, sell or lease the rights to yet another party, and the artist must comply. What happens if the stuff goes out of print (the company's decision) and the artist wants it produced? The company can (a) say no, and the artist is legally outta luck, (b) lease the rights back to the artist at an additional cost, or © sell the rights to another distributor not of the artist's choosing. The concept and practice of "intellectual property" were already corrupted before us internet pirates got there.

The question is, should it be a commodity or an inalienable right? There's a difference. Morally, there's nothing we pirates can do that isn't already being done, and legally - well, they're legal exploitation, we're illegal. We give free publicity at the cost of potential sales, they give small royalties a the cost of potential compensation.

G. Adams · Nov 7, 2003, 09:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
"As has been asked before, tell me how Cuba is not working, please do"

I know! America has this huge problem with people trying so hard to escape from florida and their evil Bougrious Overlords that they almost die trying to cross over into Cuba. Its a real issue we have to resolve.

"Communism is a classless, stateless, government free society, where all property is under common ownership."

So, how excatly are you going to spread this? and even if it does take hold, what if i don't want to give up my shit? You don't have police or a government to loot me, who will do the looting for you? Unless you advocate a running looting-mob to run about collecting crap. But then they would have to distribute it. Wait a sec, thats a government!

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHAT KIND OF ECONOMY IS THIS? Its the Mystical Magical, Wonderful Economy that is neither Traditional, Command, or Market! Its the Magic Economy! It doesn't even work in theory, but somehow it will work in reality. ---Answer this.

"Nazism itself is a subsection of fascism. In entire opposition to communism, everything is divided into class. Also in opposition, is that property is not commonly owned, rather it is all owned by, or under the control of, the state. This property is both capital, labour and even bloody spiritual, with the state dictating morality."

Yea, because in communism they don't dictate Morality, only alturism. which isn't morality. duh. ?!??!

"Of course, you teach a person to fish, and he gets thrown in jail for fishing without a license. Then he realises he can't afford a license, and he must work for a company instead who can. But of course the company already has people working for them at a pittance, they can't even afford to buy a couple of fishes a day to feed their family with the money they are on, despite the fact they are hauling them in by the ton. Which is why the kids don't go to school, they have to work on the boats themselves just to keep the family alive, which of course keeps the circle going on and on."

What a great refutation of castille's statiscits about the wage rates in asia. O, no wait, this is a bunch of random, unsubstationated drivel.

"In those few incidences where scientists make real breakthroughs, yes I'm happy for them to benefit. But I don't see how these drugs, which could alleviate the suffering of millions, should be withheld from them? Currently AIDS drugs are 10 dollars a pop, and you need one a day. The average wage of people on this planet is $1.04 an hour. You do the fucking math.

And more importantly, medical science being totally private means that companies aren't researching things like AIDS nearly as much as they should be, because the people who would buy aids drugs can't afford them, so theres no profit to be made. But Oooh, look we can make an aspirin that works five minutes if we put 10 bill of research here, lets do it!"

Don't these two points contradict each other? One says Private companies deserve to be looted, they are making a killing of this AIDS thing. Other says Private Companies aren't even trying to cure this aids thing, theres no money in it! So lets loot them!

Ever wonder why dirty statists (such as your communism. Dont give me this governmentless crap, it doesn't even make sense in theory) always have secret police? Because t hey feel that nothing is private, not even the contents of your own mind.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Calm down, you don't even understand what your ranting against so it seems sensless to get riled up.

I never said these corporations need to be looted. They need to be democratised, along with every other industry. In that way the people who do the work benefit from their work, rather than investors. But of course on person doesn't work in every industry, so the industries would have to work together and co-ordinate out of neccesity.

I'll assume that you are a supporter of democracy right? Your not another Impenitant who is simply a supporter of power, I hope anyway. So what is democracy? The sharing of power amongst the populace. Our forefathers had wars to take political power out of the hands of individuals and put it into parliaments and congresses. That is political power democratised. However, there is another power, economic power. While it was widespread among many rich people of different countries, it was not so greatly powerful. But now it is more important than political power, yet it is not democratised. A few individuals have great power over many. It is not right, and it is not fair. You may, like Impenitant, say that just tough, its how things are. Well the only response to that is well it'll be tough when a revolution comes for those individuals when their power is ripped from them and is democratised.

nature of reality · Nov 8, 2003, 12:30 am

"
I never said these corporations need to be looted. They need to be democratised, along with every other industry. In that way the people who do the work benefit from their work, rather than investors. But of course on person doesn't work in every industry, so the industries would have to work together and co-ordinate out of neccesity.
"

What do you mean "democratised?" Like saying "hey, you don't own the cure to aids anymore, since we have guns and you don't. Sucks to be you" ? That is looting. That is your "democracy"

Which the founding fathers didn't want either. A pure democracy is just as stupid as a dictatorship. There is no such thing as collective thought, and the concept of being ruled by the whim of the majority is appalling. That is not a government---but a lynch mob.

The sole purpose of the government is to give a instition, STRONGLY bound by objective laws, a monopoly on physical force, thus preventing foolish vendettas, thugs etc.

The government doing anything other then acting to preserve minority rights (with the smallest minority obviously being the Individual), is [i] coerceing [i] , ie using its monopoly on physical force to suspend rights.

Also, you still have not explaned how this economy will function without a market or a government.

Lets suppose you've "democraticed" a tractor factory, and it three weeks it created 300 tractors. What the hell are they gonna do with them? Can't sell them that would be a evil market. Can't have a government assign them since in "pure" (LOL) communism there is no government.

Production for consumption would rapidly become the sole concern, and de-specialization would be rapid. congradulations, your wonderful theory has undone the industrial revolution. Just another step closer to making men live like animals again.

Black Fox · Nov 8, 2003, 05:24 am

Hello, RebelWithanAK.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
By buying the rights to the artist's creative work, the company is already exploiting the artist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Really, when it comes down to it, it's a question of power, or who needs who more. I'm sure that if the artist had an effective way of promoting and distributing her own work she would do so without doing a deal with the company.

As to whether the company is exploiting the artist, it depends on the extent of the power situation I mentioned earlier. In most cases, the company does not compel the artist to do the deal - she enters into it voluntarily, being fully aware that there are other choices. After all, there are many artists who decide that they want to maintain control over their own work and do market and promote their work independently. I think it is very rare to have a situation where if the artist does not do a deal with that specific company, she will certainly starve.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The company can decide whether or not to advertise, produce, sell or lease the rights to yet another party, and the artist must comply. What happens if the stuff goes out of print (the company's decision) and the artist wants it produced? The company can (a) say no, and the artist is legally outta luck, (b) lease the rights back to the artist at an additional cost, or © sell the rights to another distributor not of the artist's choosing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> True, the company can do this. But you forget to mention that the company is taking a risk on doing the deal with the artist. What if after spending all that money, nothing happens? But it doesn't seem fashionable to look at a relationship from the point of view of the more powerful person.

Anyway, it seems that what you should be campaigning for is for artists to educate themselves on the need to study any contract that they are signing with a company so that they know what they are getting into.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The question is, should it be a commodity or an inalienable right?<hr size="1" /></blockquote> It's not as simple as that. If you consider a piece of music, so much work goes into making it. There are the singers, the instrumentalists, the arrangers, the producers and the songwriter. How do you decide who of this lot should have the IP as her inalienable right?

And if companies see that there is no future reward for taking a risk on an up-and-coming star (because the star will own the rights and money for her own music), there will be less of an incentive to promote the musician. (Come to think of it, that's not a bad thing - perhaps we will get less overhyped musicians. But that's just my personal opinion...)

RebelWithanAK · Nov 8, 2003, 10:28 am

Too lazy to quote the directly preceding post, BF. =P

In most cases, the company does not compel the artist to do the deal - she enters into it voluntarily, being fully aware that there are other choices.

Like what?

But it doesn't seem fashionable to look at a relationship from the point of view of the more powerful person.

I'm not listening to artist X because I'm a fan of producer Y, so why should I care what happens to producer Y?

It's not as simple as that. If you consider a piece of music, so much work goes into making it. There are the singers, the instrumentalists, the arrangers, the producers and the songwriter. How do you decide who of this lot should have the IP as her inalienable right?

And if companies see that there is no future reward for taking a risk on an up-and-coming star (because the star will own the rights and money for her own music), there will be less of an incentive to promote the musician. (Come to think of it, that's not a bad thing - perhaps we will get less overhyped musicians. But that's just my personal opinion...)

There are, depending on the instance, the composer, arranger, band leader, studio musicians or ensemble, and lead singer. The composer is almost always the original arranger, and if there is a band leader the composer is usually him as well. It is the composer's creative work first and foremost, and then the rest of the musicians secondarily. So to produce a record, the only thing that need be done is to compensate the composer for his composition, the ensemble for their time and effort to play it, and the lead singer for his/her interpretation of the work.

And it's plenty a bad thing if the label sees less of an incentive to advertise its artists' works because it never does, except for a few pop hits. Tower records is a big store for there only to be two or three pop sensations from the lead stars of the competing producers. There's plenty of music in Tower that nobody ever buys because nobody ever knew they existed, because all that CD money gets bumped back to hype 50 Cent and Eminem and J.Lo and not your average artisan.

Black Fox · Nov 8, 2003, 04:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
In most cases, the company does not compel the artist to do the deal - she enters into it voluntarily, being fully aware that there are other choices. - BF

Like what? - RWaA<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Like marketing her (the artist's) work herself, or approaching another company, or doing something else to earn a living.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But it doesn't seem fashionable to look at a relationship from the point of view of the more powerful person. - BF

I'm not listening to artist X because I'm a fan of producer Y, so why should I care what happens to producer Y? - RWaA<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

When I spoke about 'powerful person', I was talking about the company that the artist does a deal with. If you don't try to look at things from the point of view of the other person in the relationship, don't be surprised if you can't understand why they do what they do.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There are, depending on the instance, the composer, arranger, band leader, studio musicians or ensemble, and lead singer. The composer is almost always the original arranger, and if there is a band leader the composer is usually him as well. It is the composer's creative work first and foremost, and then the rest of the musicians secondarily. So to produce a record, the only thing that need be done is to compensate the composer for his composition, the ensemble for their time and effort to play it, and the lead singer for his/her interpretation of the work.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Stating that the work is primarily the composer's is an arbitrary decision, because no two works of art are the same. What if all the composer has done is to lay down a bass line and a few beats and the performers have to do a lot of work to turn that into the finished performance?

Ultimately, depending on the particular work, there will always need to be a contract signed between all parties involved in the creation of the work to determine who gets what - there will never be a standard formula for determining who has the rights. The important thing is that all parties voluntarily agree to the contract.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 8, 2003, 09:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Black Fox,)
Like marketing her (the artist's) work herself, or approaching another company, or doing something else to earn a living.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>You don't see the irony, do you? The artist wants their work produced; the producer wants money. The producer has the stronger position in the deal, because the artist does not have that many alternatives. Going to another producer hits the artist with the same problem, and the entire point of going to one in the first place tends to show the difficulty of marketing one's work oneself. Until the internet.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Black Fox,)
When I spoke about 'powerful person', I was talking about the company that the artist does a deal with. If you don't try to look at things from the point of view of the other person in the relationship, don't be surprised if you can't understand why they do what they do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I am well aware of the relationship. I was talking about the company. The company wants money. The artist wants money, too, but the artist also wants their work performed. The company's systems in getting profits are not the same as getting all their artists' work performed. Not to mention that the artist does not get $18.99 when you spend $18.99 for a CD. The artist barely gets a fifth of that.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Black Fox,)
Stating that the work is primarily the composer's is an arbitrary decision, because no two works of art are the same. What if all the composer has done is to lay down a bass line and a few beats and the performers have to do a lot of work to turn that into the finished performance?

Ultimately, depending on the particular work, there will always need to be a contract signed between all parties involved in the creation of the work to determine who gets what - there will never be a standard formula for determining who has the rights. The important thing is that all parties voluntarily agree to the contract.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>What of John Cage's 4'33'', where the performance is nothing but silence? What of John Zorn's game pieces, where the performers blurt out the piece based on an arbitrary set of rules and not from a score? What about tunes written by Duke Ellington where jazz musicians will always play into it what they will? Or Peter Tchaikovsky's symphonies based on local folk songs? Or Public Enemy's samples of pop tunes? I never said the solo performers, subsequent arrangers, samplers, or any usage of the work shouldn't also be credited. But they're all (and the composers, songwriters and lyricists especially) getting the short end of the stick. I'm saying that the current companies involved in the business are corrupting the idea - making it hard, hurting the creative process, and not looking in the artists' best interests.

You keep talking about credit, I keep talking about money. I absolutely believe that credit should always be given. But I don't think the producers are doing anything near a good job in ensuring fair marketing to their artists' work. If there's money involved, they'll keep it - Imagine if you couldn't sample any works from artist A because artist A is dead and company B owns their works until 2056, and threatens to sue if you try to use it. I'm looking for alternatives, and at the same time I'm supporting filesharers because they are FAR more effective marketers of new artists and are really hurting the industry behemoths where it hurts.

castille · Nov 10, 2003, 12:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
So under Communism, nobody owns property?

Sweet! This means I can take a shit on my neighbour's house whenever I want. He doesn't own it, does he?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Nope, but he does live there so he might beat you up for the insult and discomfort of cleaning up your shit.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So what if I kill him first?

This just proves that Communism is simply an anarchic "free for all" world.

G. Adams · Nov 10, 2003, 11:23 am

In that case locally made laws would come into affect. The militia would then be after you, just as the police would be under current systems.

This kind of situation can and does happen under capitalism, so it's a crap point to make.

Impenitent · Nov 10, 2003, 12:32 pm

laws and a militia?

that is the definition of a government

G. Adams · Nov 10, 2003, 02:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
laws and a militia?

that is the definition of a government<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

not really. if you read my other posts regarding this issue you can see how this doesn't come up to a 'government'

Or at least it is not government by its current form. Any laws proposed by the council must be ratified by a referendum. The councillors can be recalled at any time. Militia members can be thrown out of the militia by referendum. The council has very little power, unlike a proper government.

but for me this is only a transitional stage. It may be possible to take away even these insitutions eventually, but I couldn't say yes or no to that.

Impenitent · Nov 10, 2003, 02:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
laws and a militia?

that is the definition of a government<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

not really. if you read my other posts regarding this issue you can see how this doesn't come up to a 'government'

Or at least it is not government by its current form. Any laws proposed by the council must be ratified by a referendum. The councillors can be recalled at any time. Militia members can be thrown out of the militia by referendum. The council has very little power, unlike a proper government.

but for me this is only a transitional stage. It may be possible to take away even these insitutions eventually, but I couldn't say yes or no to that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

-gov·ern·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gvrn-mnt)
n. ...4 The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.

laws and militia is the definition of a government
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=government

you can try to change the definition of government but when a council or militia demands that people behave in specific ways, that is government. I don't care how fluid the council and the militia may appear to be, their existence is governmental... if you want to get rid of government, get rid of government, don't lie about government "light" on the road to hell er communism... if you don't take away the institutions you don't have communism, you have the USSR... if you take away the institurions you have anarchy in the literal sense and the strong will rise to the top and rule as they do now...

it will never work

G. Adams · Nov 10, 2003, 03:35 pm

no, its not a government, because it doesn't govern. it puts forward proposals.

Okay, it is a government, one in which every citizen is a member of, and the council is just the committee for this giant legislature. The committee puts forwards ideas and the people say yes or not to them, perhaps raise possible amendments to the proposals etc

Impenitent · Nov 10, 2003, 04:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
no, its not a government, because it doesn't govern. it puts forward proposals.

Okay, it is a government, one in which every citizen is a member of, and the council is just the committee for this giant legislature. The committee puts forwards ideas and the people say yes or not to them, perhaps raise possible amendments to the proposals etc<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

-G. Adams Posted: 11-10-2003 12:23 PM Quote

" In that case locally made laws would come into affect. The militia would then be after you, just as the police would be under current systems."

it doesn't govern? does the council control this militia? or does the council simply put forth the proposal to whip up the militia and lynch this particular governmental member? I propose we hang him... no just shoot him in the head... no, draw and quarter him... no, exile him to become some other group's problem...

do you see the contradiction yet?

G. Adams · Nov 10, 2003, 04:36 pm

The militia is controlled by the populace because it controls the council. Its not a contradiction. Strained perhaps, bending the strict definitions. But it isn't a proper contradiction.

Impenitent · Nov 10, 2003, 04:59 pm

from:
http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wi...tradiction.html

In logic, the law of non-contradiction judges as false any proposition P asserting that both proposition Q and its denial, proposition not-Q, are true at the same time and "in the same respect". In the words of Aristotle, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." More tersely, for any proposition P, it is not both the case that P and not-P.

it is or it isn't.

it isn't this but a little bent and not this....

it is or it isn't... not both ... you have a contradiction

G. Adams · Nov 10, 2003, 05:03 pm

No, your over simplifying it. Proposition Q.i and proposition Q.ii are different, although similar.

Nov 7, 2003, 05:10 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	I spent two years not meeting another communist or even another proper lefty, so I've never been indoctrinated if thats how it appears. I found myself on the hard left because I feel like shit everytime I see footage of starving people, knowing that it could be different. I want to make a difference for these people, to help them, and the only way I could make a meaningful contribution is to spread communism. If I became a doctor instead, a profession I hugely respect, all my help would be meaningless once I died, my help would end. If I ensure a better world for people to live in though, I know that my life hasn't been a meaningless waste. This is why I'm ardant in my belief. I have spent a lot of time looking at it (and I was not far from the far right when I began at about 14, so I got to see it from a very different angle), and I stick by it because I see no real holes in it, except practical ones. And they can always be worked on and improved, the theory is still correct. I won't do as politicians do and compromise for concensus (or should I get into the upper echelons of politics, compromise for power) because I'm not doing it for fun, power or any of those bullshit reasons people enter politics. I will change the world for the better. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 7, 2003, 05:57 pm	#62 (permalink) (top)
Black Fox Molten Ash Posts: 40	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) Being emotionally attached to a topic is not the same as blindly believing it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> True - but the danger of being emotionally attached to a belief is that it prevents you from being willing to accept valid arguments against your belief. Still, being emotionally attached to a belief means you have the passion to follow it through with actions - something that's very useful when you're up against lots of opposition. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Intellectual property is bad because it allows someone's creative works to be commodified - bought and sold. Government patents were a way for people to be ensured a pittance for their creative work, but business contracts are far less forthcoming. Ask anyone who's ever signed a record contract, and then wanted to produce their own works elsewhere.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But isn't the problem here with the nature of the contract, and not the fact that the creative works can be commoditised? Would you object to the concept intellectual property if the creator of the IP was benefitting from her work?

Nov 7, 2003, 07:21 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	"As has been asked before, tell me how Cuba is not working, please do" I know! America has this huge problem with people trying so hard to escape from florida and their evil Bougrious Overlords that they almost die trying to cross over into Cuba. Its a real issue we have to resolve. "Communism is a classless, stateless, government free society, where all property is under common ownership." So, how excatly are you going to spread this? and even if it does take hold, what if i don't want to give up my shit? You don't have police or a government to loot me, who will do the looting for you? Unless you advocate a running looting-mob to run about collecting crap. But then they would have to distribute it. Wait a sec, thats a government! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHAT KIND OF ECONOMY IS THIS? Its the Mystical Magical, Wonderful Economy that is neither Traditional, Command, or Market! Its the Magic Economy! It doesn't even work in theory, but somehow it will work in reality. ---Answer this. "Nazism itself is a subsection of fascism. In entire opposition to communism, everything is divided into class. Also in opposition, is that property is not commonly owned, rather it is all owned by, or under the control of, the state. This property is both capital, labour and even bloody spiritual, with the state dictating morality." Yea, because in communism they don't dictate Morality, only alturism. which isn't morality. duh. ?!??! "Of course, you teach a person to fish, and he gets thrown in jail for fishing without a license. Then he realises he can't afford a license, and he must work for a company instead who can. But of course the company already has people working for them at a pittance, they can't even afford to buy a couple of fishes a day to feed their family with the money they are on, despite the fact they are hauling them in by the ton. Which is why the kids don't go to school, they have to work on the boats themselves just to keep the family alive, which of course keeps the circle going on and on." What a great refutation of castille's statiscits about the wage rates in asia. O, no wait, this is a bunch of random, unsubstationated drivel. "In those few incidences where scientists make real breakthroughs, yes I'm happy for them to benefit. But I don't see how these drugs, which could alleviate the suffering of millions, should be withheld from them? Currently AIDS drugs are 10 dollars a pop, and you need one a day. The average wage of people on this planet is $1.04 an hour. You do the fucking math. And more importantly, medical science being totally private means that companies aren't researching things like AIDS nearly as much as they should be, because the people who would buy aids drugs can't afford them, so theres no profit to be made. But Oooh, look we can make an aspirin that works five minutes if we put 10 bill of research here, lets do it!" Don't these two points contradict each other? One says Private companies deserve to be looted, they are making a killing of this AIDS thing. Other says Private Companies aren't even trying to cure this aids thing, theres no money in it! So lets loot them! Ever wonder why dirty statists (such as your communism. Dont give me this governmentless crap, it doesn't even make sense in theory) always have secret police? Because t hey feel that nothing is private, not even the contents of your own mind. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 7, 2003, 08:33 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Black Fox,) But isn't the problem here with the nature of the contract, and not the fact that the creative works can be commoditised? Would you object to the concept intellectual property if the creator of the IP was benefitting from her work?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>By buying the rights to the artist's creative work, the company is already exploiting the artist. The company can decide whether or not to advertise, produce, sell or lease the rights to yet another party, and the artist must comply. What happens if the stuff goes out of print (the company's decision) and the artist wants it produced? The company can (a) say no, and the artist is legally outta luck, (b) lease the rights back to the artist at an additional cost, or © sell the rights to another distributor not of the artist's choosing. The concept and practice of "intellectual property" were already corrupted before us internet pirates got there. The question is, should it be a commodity or an inalienable right? There's a difference. Morally, there's nothing we pirates can do that isn't already being done, and legally - well, they're legal exploitation, we're illegal. We give free publicity at the cost of potential sales, they give small royalties a the cost of potential compensation. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 7, 2003, 09:10 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,) "As has been asked before, tell me how Cuba is not working, please do" I know! America has this huge problem with people trying so hard to escape from florida and their evil Bougrious Overlords that they almost die trying to cross over into Cuba. Its a real issue we have to resolve. "Communism is a classless, stateless, government free society, where all property is under common ownership." So, how excatly are you going to spread this? and even if it does take hold, what if i don't want to give up my shit? You don't have police or a government to loot me, who will do the looting for you? Unless you advocate a running looting-mob to run about collecting crap. But then they would have to distribute it. Wait a sec, thats a government! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHAT KIND OF ECONOMY IS THIS? Its the Mystical Magical, Wonderful Economy that is neither Traditional, Command, or Market! Its the Magic Economy! It doesn't even work in theory, but somehow it will work in reality. ---Answer this. "Nazism itself is a subsection of fascism. In entire opposition to communism, everything is divided into class. Also in opposition, is that property is not commonly owned, rather it is all owned by, or under the control of, the state. This property is both capital, labour and even bloody spiritual, with the state dictating morality." Yea, because in communism they don't dictate Morality, only alturism. which isn't morality. duh. ?!??! "Of course, you teach a person to fish, and he gets thrown in jail for fishing without a license. Then he realises he can't afford a license, and he must work for a company instead who can. But of course the company already has people working for them at a pittance, they can't even afford to buy a couple of fishes a day to feed their family with the money they are on, despite the fact they are hauling them in by the ton. Which is why the kids don't go to school, they have to work on the boats themselves just to keep the family alive, which of course keeps the circle going on and on." What a great refutation of castille's statiscits about the wage rates in asia. O, no wait, this is a bunch of random, unsubstationated drivel. "In those few incidences where scientists make real breakthroughs, yes I'm happy for them to benefit. But I don't see how these drugs, which could alleviate the suffering of millions, should be withheld from them? Currently AIDS drugs are 10 dollars a pop, and you need one a day. The average wage of people on this planet is $1.04 an hour. You do the fucking math. And more importantly, medical science being totally private means that companies aren't researching things like AIDS nearly as much as they should be, because the people who would buy aids drugs can't afford them, so theres no profit to be made. But Oooh, look we can make an aspirin that works five minutes if we put 10 bill of research here, lets do it!" Don't these two points contradict each other? One says Private companies deserve to be looted, they are making a killing of this AIDS thing. Other says Private Companies aren't even trying to cure this aids thing, theres no money in it! So lets loot them! Ever wonder why dirty statists (such as your communism. Dont give me this governmentless crap, it doesn't even make sense in theory) always have secret police? Because t hey feel that nothing is private, not even the contents of your own mind.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Calm down, you don't even understand what your ranting against so it seems sensless to get riled up. I never said these corporations need to be looted. They need to be democratised, along with every other industry. In that way the people who do the work benefit from their work, rather than investors. But of course on person doesn't work in every industry, so the industries would have to work together and co-ordinate out of neccesity. I'll assume that you are a supporter of democracy right? Your not another Impenitant who is simply a supporter of power, I hope anyway. So what is democracy? The sharing of power amongst the populace. Our forefathers had wars to take political power out of the hands of individuals and put it into parliaments and congresses. That is political power democratised. However, there is another power, economic power. While it was widespread among many rich people of different countries, it was not so greatly powerful. But now it is more important than political power, yet it is not democratised. A few individuals have great power over many. It is not right, and it is not fair. You may, like Impenitant, say that just tough, its how things are. Well the only response to that is well it'll be tough when a revolution comes for those individuals when their power is ripped from them and is democratised. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 8, 2003, 12:30 am	#66 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	" I never said these corporations need to be looted. They need to be democratised, along with every other industry. In that way the people who do the work benefit from their work, rather than investors. But of course on person doesn't work in every industry, so the industries would have to work together and co-ordinate out of neccesity. " What do you mean "democratised?" Like saying "hey, you don't own the cure to aids anymore, since we have guns and you don't. Sucks to be you" ? That is looting. That is your "democracy" Which the founding fathers didn't want either. A pure democracy is just as stupid as a dictatorship. There is no such thing as collective thought, and the concept of being ruled by the whim of the majority is appalling. That is not a government---but a lynch mob. The sole purpose of the government is to give a instition, STRONGLY bound by objective laws, a monopoly on physical force, thus preventing foolish vendettas, thugs etc. The government doing anything other then acting to preserve minority rights (with the smallest minority obviously being the Individual), is [i] coerceing [i] , ie using its monopoly on physical force to suspend rights. Also, you still have not explaned how this economy will function without a market or a government. Lets suppose you've "democraticed" a tractor factory, and it three weeks it created 300 tractors. What the hell are they gonna do with them? Can't sell them that would be a evil market. Can't have a government assign them since in "pure" (LOL) communism there is no government. Production for consumption would rapidly become the sole concern, and de-specialization would be rapid. congradulations, your wonderful theory has undone the industrial revolution. Just another step closer to making men live like animals again. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 8, 2003, 05:24 am	#67 (permalink) (top)
Black Fox Molten Ash Posts: 40	Hello, RebelWithanAK. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by By buying the rights to the artist's creative work, the company is already exploiting the artist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Really, when it comes down to it, it's a question of power, or who needs who more. I'm sure that if the artist had an effective way of promoting and distributing her own work she would do so without doing a deal with the company. As to whether the company is exploiting the artist, it depends on the extent of the power situation I mentioned earlier. In most cases, the company does not compel the artist to do the deal - she enters into it voluntarily, being fully aware that there are other choices. After all, there are many artists who decide that they want to maintain control over their own work and do market and promote their work independently. I think it is very rare to have a situation where if the artist does not do a deal with that specific company, she will certainly starve. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The company can decide whether or not to advertise, produce, sell or lease the rights to yet another party, and the artist must comply. What happens if the stuff goes out of print (the company's decision) and the artist wants it produced? The company can (a) say no, and the artist is legally outta luck, (b) lease the rights back to the artist at an additional cost, or © sell the rights to another distributor not of the artist's choosing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> True, the company can do this. But you forget to mention that the company is taking a risk on doing the deal with the artist. What if after spending all that money, nothing happens? But it doesn't seem fashionable to look at a relationship from the point of view of the more powerful person. Anyway, it seems that what you should be campaigning for is for artists to educate themselves on the need to study any contract that they are signing with a company so that they know what they are getting into. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The question is, should it be a commodity or an inalienable right?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's not as simple as that. If you consider a piece of music, so much work goes into making it. There are the singers, the instrumentalists, the arrangers, the producers and the songwriter. How do you decide who of this lot should have the IP as her inalienable right? And if companies see that there is no future reward for taking a risk on an up-and-coming star (because the star will own the rights and money for her own music), there will be less of an incentive to promote the musician. (Come to think of it, that's not a bad thing - perhaps we will get less overhyped musicians. But that's just my personal opinion...)

Nov 8, 2003, 10:28 am	#68 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Too lazy to quote the directly preceding post, BF. =P In most cases, the company does not compel the artist to do the deal - she enters into it voluntarily, being fully aware that there are other choices. Like what? But it doesn't seem fashionable to look at a relationship from the point of view of the more powerful person. I'm not listening to artist X because I'm a fan of producer Y, so why should I care what happens to producer Y? It's not as simple as that. If you consider a piece of music, so much work goes into making it. There are the singers, the instrumentalists, the arrangers, the producers and the songwriter. How do you decide who of this lot should have the IP as her inalienable right? And if companies see that there is no future reward for taking a risk on an up-and-coming star (because the star will own the rights and money for her own music), there will be less of an incentive to promote the musician. (Come to think of it, that's not a bad thing - perhaps we will get less overhyped musicians. But that's just my personal opinion...) There are, depending on the instance, the composer, arranger, band leader, studio musicians or ensemble, and lead singer. The composer is almost always the original arranger, and if there is a band leader the composer is usually him as well. It is the composer's creative work first and foremost, and then the rest of the musicians secondarily. So to produce a record, the only thing that need be done is to compensate the composer for his composition, the ensemble for their time and effort to play it, and the lead singer for his/her interpretation of the work. And it's plenty a bad thing if the label sees less of an incentive to advertise its artists' works because it never does, except for a few pop hits. Tower records is a big store for there only to be two or three pop sensations from the lead stars of the competing producers. There's plenty of music in Tower that nobody ever buys because nobody ever knew they existed, because all that CD money gets bumped back to hype 50 Cent and Eminem and J.Lo and not your average artisan. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 8, 2003, 04:48 pm	#69 (permalink) (top)
Black Fox Molten Ash Posts: 40	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by In most cases, the company does not compel the artist to do the deal - she enters into it voluntarily, being fully aware that there are other choices. - BF Like what? - RWaA<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Like marketing her (the artist's) work herself, or approaching another company, or doing something else to earn a living. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But it doesn't seem fashionable to look at a relationship from the point of view of the more powerful person. - BF I'm not listening to artist X because I'm a fan of producer Y, so why should I care what happens to producer Y? - RWaA<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> When I spoke about 'powerful person', I was talking about the company that the artist does a deal with. If you don't try to look at things from the point of view of the other person in the relationship, don't be surprised if you can't understand why they do what they do. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by There are, depending on the instance, the composer, arranger, band leader, studio musicians or ensemble, and lead singer. The composer is almost always the original arranger, and if there is a band leader the composer is usually him as well. It is the composer's creative work first and foremost, and then the rest of the musicians secondarily. So to produce a record, the only thing that need be done is to compensate the composer for his composition, the ensemble for their time and effort to play it, and the lead singer for his/her interpretation of the work.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Stating that the work is primarily the composer's is an arbitrary decision, because no two works of art are the same. What if all the composer has done is to lay down a bass line and a few beats and the performers have to do a lot of work to turn that into the finished performance? Ultimately, depending on the particular work, there will always need to be a contract signed between all parties involved in the creation of the work to determine who gets what - there will never be a standard formula for determining who has the rights. The important thing is that all parties voluntarily agree to the contract.

Nov 8, 2003, 09:57 pm	#70 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Black Fox,) Like marketing her (the artist's) work herself, or approaching another company, or doing something else to earn a living.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>You don't see the irony, do you? The artist wants their work produced; the producer wants money. The producer has the stronger position in the deal, because the artist does not have that many alternatives. Going to another producer hits the artist with the same problem, and the entire point of going to one in the first place tends to show the difficulty of marketing one's work oneself. Until the internet.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Black Fox,) When I spoke about 'powerful person', I was talking about the company that the artist does a deal with. If you don't try to look at things from the point of view of the other person in the relationship, don't be surprised if you can't understand why they do what they do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I am well aware of the relationship. I was talking about the company. The company wants money. The artist wants money, too, but the artist also wants their work performed. The company's systems in getting profits are not the same as getting all their artists' work performed. Not to mention that the artist does not get $18.99 when you spend $18.99 for a CD. The artist barely gets a fifth of that.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Black Fox,) Stating that the work is primarily the composer's is an arbitrary decision, because no two works of art are the same. What if all the composer has done is to lay down a bass line and a few beats and the performers have to do a lot of work to turn that into the finished performance? Ultimately, depending on the particular work, there will always need to be a contract signed between all parties involved in the creation of the work to determine who gets what - there will never be a standard formula for determining who has the rights. The important thing is that all parties voluntarily agree to the contract.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>What of John Cage's 4'33'', where the performance is nothing but silence? What of John Zorn's game pieces, where the performers blurt out the piece based on an arbitrary set of rules and not from a score? What about tunes written by Duke Ellington where jazz musicians will always play into it what they will? Or Peter Tchaikovsky's symphonies based on local folk songs? Or Public Enemy's samples of pop tunes? I never said the solo performers, subsequent arrangers, samplers, or any usage of the work shouldn't also be credited. But they're all (and the composers, songwriters and lyricists especially) getting the short end of the stick. I'm saying that the current companies involved in the business are corrupting the idea - making it hard, hurting the creative process, and not looking in the artists' best interests. You keep talking about credit, I keep talking about money. I absolutely believe that credit should always be given. But I don't think the producers are doing anything near a good job in ensuring fair marketing to their artists' work. If there's money involved, they'll keep it - Imagine if you couldn't sample any works from artist A because artist A is dead and company B owns their works until 2056, and threatens to sue if you try to use it. I'm looking for alternatives, and at the same time I'm supporting filesharers because they are FAR more effective marketers of new artists and are really hurting the industry behemoths where it hurts. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 10, 2003, 12:55 am	#71 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) So under Communism, nobody owns property? Sweet! This means I can take a shit on my neighbour's house whenever I want. He doesn't own it, does he?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Nope, but he does live there so he might beat you up for the insult and discomfort of cleaning up your shit.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So what if I kill him first? This just proves that Communism is simply an anarchic "free for all" world. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 10, 2003, 11:23 am	#72 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	In that case locally made laws would come into affect. The militia would then be after you, just as the police would be under current systems. This kind of situation can and does happen under capitalism, so it's a crap point to make. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 10, 2003, 12:32 pm	#73 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	laws and a militia? that is the definition of a government "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 10, 2003, 02:05 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) laws and a militia? that is the definition of a government<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> not really. if you read my other posts regarding this issue you can see how this doesn't come up to a 'government' Or at least it is not government by its current form. Any laws proposed by the council must be ratified by a referendum. The councillors can be recalled at any time. Militia members can be thrown out of the militia by referendum. The council has very little power, unlike a proper government. but for me this is only a transitional stage. It may be possible to take away even these insitutions eventually, but I couldn't say yes or no to that. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 10, 2003, 02:24 pm	#75 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) laws and a militia? that is the definition of a government<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> not really. if you read my other posts regarding this issue you can see how this doesn't come up to a 'government' Or at least it is not government by its current form. Any laws proposed by the council must be ratified by a referendum. The councillors can be recalled at any time. Militia members can be thrown out of the militia by referendum. The council has very little power, unlike a proper government. but for me this is only a transitional stage. It may be possible to take away even these insitutions eventually, but I couldn't say yes or no to that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> -gov·ern·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gvrn-mnt) n. ...4 The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority. laws and militia is the definition of a government http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=government you can try to change the definition of government but when a council or militia demands that people behave in specific ways, that is government. I don't care how fluid the council and the militia may appear to be, their existence is governmental... if you want to get rid of government, get rid of government, don't lie about government "light" on the road to hell er communism... if you don't take away the institutions you don't have communism, you have the USSR... if you take away the institurions you have anarchy in the literal sense and the strong will rise to the top and rule as they do now... it will never work "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 10, 2003, 03:35 pm	#76 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	no, its not a government, because it doesn't govern. it puts forward proposals. Okay, it is a government, one in which every citizen is a member of, and the council is just the committee for this giant legislature. The committee puts forwards ideas and the people say yes or not to them, perhaps raise possible amendments to the proposals etc Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 10, 2003, 04:31 pm	#77 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) no, its not a government, because it doesn't govern. it puts forward proposals. Okay, it is a government, one in which every citizen is a member of, and the council is just the committee for this giant legislature. The committee puts forwards ideas and the people say yes or not to them, perhaps raise possible amendments to the proposals etc<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> -G. Adams Posted: 11-10-2003 12:23 PM Quote " In that case locally made laws would come into affect. The militia would then be after you, just as the police would be under current systems." it doesn't govern? does the council control this militia? or does the council simply put forth the proposal to whip up the militia and lynch this particular governmental member? I propose we hang him... no just shoot him in the head... no, draw and quarter him... no, exile him to become some other group's problem... do you see the contradiction yet? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 10, 2003, 04:36 pm	#78 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	The militia is controlled by the populace because it controls the council. Its not a contradiction. Strained perhaps, bending the strict definitions. But it isn't a proper contradiction. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 10, 2003, 04:59 pm	#79 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	from: http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wi...tradiction.html In logic, the law of non-contradiction judges as false any proposition P asserting that both proposition Q and its denial, proposition not-Q, are true at the same time and "in the same respect". In the words of Aristotle, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." More tersely, for any proposition P, it is not both the case that P and not-P. it is or it isn't. it isn't this but a little bent and not this.... it is or it isn't... not both ... you have a contradiction "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 10, 2003, 05:03 pm	#80 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	No, your over simplifying it. Proposition Q.i and proposition Q.ii are different, although similar. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill