We need to be careful here as there are two arguments running which are intricately
intertwined - intellectual property, and the sovereignty of the individual.
"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> A corporate CEO, chairman, or president is held accountable by the board of
> directors (i.e. congress) who themselves are held accountable by the
> stockholders (the body of voters).
So you are supporting a 'republic' system of governance, where a single person makes
decisions everyday over others with the ever so fragile perception of the voter who is
allowed an either/or vote once every 1,4 or 6 years and where ultimately he with the most
money wins? If so, you've already made my point. If not, then:
> If a corporation is a dictatorship, then so is every 'democratic' society that
> ever existed, and there is no such thing as democracy.
You're right there is no such thing as a democracy - yet! I challenge you to show me a
single form of governance larger than 100,000 people that has ever been run as a true
democracy. The moment you 'elect' somebody to 'represent' you as in the U.S. or your
typical corporation, you have at best a *republic* system of government. At least with
the current government you have the pretense of one person, one vote. But in
corporations, he with the most stock makes the rules.
> An employee has the choice whether or not to be a voter, by buying stock, just
> as every citizen of a democratic country is free to choose whether or not to
> vote. Is the elected president of a country a dictator simply because some part
> of the population decides not to vote?
Again, the moment you put an 'alpha' in charge, regardless of how they got there, is no
longer a democracy assuming it was one to begin with. And besides what you seem to be
advocating is not only putting various alpha's in charge but worse in that we are only
allowed to decide between a few hand picked alpha's every 2,4 or 6 years. They on the
other hand get to decide how we live our lives every hour of every day they remain in
charge.
> No. What you seem to want is a mobocracy, where total democracy reigns, and the rights
> of no individual is beyond elimination by a simple vote of the majority
> (or even a vote of x number of people who want to do something, which would be a
> lynchocracy). Sorry, we are not that sort of society. The majority is
> constrained by the rights of the individual that are protected by supermajority
> limitations. Don't like it? Go elsewhere if you want to steal other people's
> work.
Hardly! You are obviously missing the entire point of my argument. By the way, what
individuals are you talking about? Oh, I'm sorry you must be thinking of corporations as
individuals or perhaps those individuals who are majority stockholders, or CEO's, or
record executives? Well, they don't give a damn about me, so why should I give a damn
about them? Luckily I do give a damn about them as individuals as long as their rights
don't involve stepping on mine. I already paid them a royalty when I purchased the song
the first time in 8-track or LP. Now that I grab a digital copy of it I'm a thief?
As for the oxymoronic intellectual property meme, the idea that you can lock up
information which by its nature can be duplicated endlessly with little or no cost, is
nothing less the the enforcement of *artificial scarcity*. That makes them thieves! I've
said it before and I'll say it again, enforcing artificial scarcity by extending
intellectual property protections beyond a reasonable time period is theft of the commons.
Besides, it was the invention of recordable media that allowed them to make any money in
the first place. So now that technology changes the rules all over again, we have to
enforce artificial scarcity to maintain their money stream? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying
it. It seems obvious to me that you have not read Stallman 'Right to Read' link I
provided, otherwise you would have responded to the very compelling arguments it makes
about the ultimate tyranny of fictional 'intellectual' property rights. And before we
forget, the original intent of copyright law was to permit individuals a limited time
monopoly as a further incentive to continue creating. Now that powerful corporations have
managed to extend such protections indefinitely has effectively eliminated fair use and is
a despicable development that could seriously squelch the free flow of ideas.
Unless I've misread you, what you seem to be advocating is that the legal construct known
as a corporation should always be given precedence over the rights of individuals. I on
the other hand am advocating an individualocracy, not a mobocracy or a lynchocracy as you
think. What is individualocracy? Consider it the ultimate bottom-up approach to politics,
where the sovereignty of the individual takes precedence over the community, which in turn
takes precedence over that of the county, or state, which in turn takes precedence over
that of the federal government or large corporation. Call me a 10th amendment extremist.
What kind of society would develop because of this is anyone's guess. One thing is
certain it would be a lot more decentralized and free than what we have now. Want to
smoke pot and have public sex? Well luckily for you in this forthcoming individualocracy
those who agree with you will be forming communities to do just that.
Paul Hughes
http://planetp.cc/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:55 MDT