Jason Joel Thompson wrote:
> > I define the difference between pirate and legitimate broadcasters, in the
> > absence of intellectual property laws, to be a matter of ethics, morals,
> > personal integrity.
> > Your definition of 'best at getting content to lots of people' would have
> to be
> > tempered by what means of obtaining and delivering that content the ethics
> > the people (i.e. that of every individual you seek to deliver to) are
> willing to
> > accept. If the popular opinion of you is that your are a no good theif who
> > steals the work of others, then a popular boycott of you is likely to
> > limit the Q rating of your network, assuming of course that you can find
> > people to work for you.
> Are you suggesting that it wouldn't be illegal to re-broadcast your content,
> but it would be unethical?
Yes, Because there are three types of people in this world: makers,
takers, and fakers. Rebroadcasting work created by someone else without
compensating them for it moves you into the second category of people
(claiming it as your own would put you in the third). Naturally, all
makers in this world look on the other two groups of people as the
lowest scum on earth.
> If it's unethical behavior, then why would we remove the laws governing it?
Because its wrong to legislate morality.
> You can't have it both ways-- you want it to be free content on one hand,
> but then be able to call me thief if I use it on the other.
No, I want you to be free to make up your own mind if you are going to
be a productive member of society or a leech, and not have the choice
forced on you by jack booted thugs (or your fear of them). A good and
ethical society can only arise when all members of that society are free
to make their own choice to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and
evil.... ;-) and live with the consequences to their reputation in
society as a result of that choice.
> And if people would be tempted to call me a thief (as I suspect they would!)
> this is only further justification for my position. Why make it legal to be
> a thief?
Because libertarianism (and anarchism in general) demand non-initiation
of violence. Such a society can only exist when all are free to chose to
be ethical, and can only be dealt with by other individuals in that
society in a non-violent way.
> > Your inability to see through the smoke is obvious, but its the smoked
> > of the shyster that is blocking your view.
> Ok, look, we disagree, that much is clear. In fact, I'd say we
> fundamentally disagree. I'm certain we find the other short sighted,
> stubborn, naive... contentious even. But I certainly don't attribute any
> malice or intent to decieve to your position. But this is the second time
> in as many days that the 'opposition' has questioned my moral integrity, and
> frankly I find it kind of weird. My intellect is on display here and you
> may attack it at will, call me stupid if you must, but I'd like to politely
> ask that we refrain from comments from the position of ethical superiority.
> I mean, it's a little early for that, isn't it?
I understand that you are trying to imagine the possibility of living in
a new society under new rules, but have not thought them all out
completely yet, your preexisting prejudices automatically assumes that
it would a criminal and chaotic society. I suggest you read David
Freeman's essays on libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:49 MDT