More #$%& from #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ Re: [ PFIR ] Netanyahu's son removes anti-Semitic meme from Facebook following outcry

Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
Fri Sep 22 16:21:51 PDT 2017


On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:09:00PM +0000, Hollow Domer wrote:
> > juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
> > Fri Sep 22 12:13:41 PDT 2017
> >
> > [do not] infringe other people's rights
> >
> 
> Ack.
> 
> > the moment you publish them they are not
> > 'yours' anymore.
> > they come from other people.
> >
> 
> So ideas are not the property of someone,

Except until that person publicizes the idea.

Until then, it's "his" idea.

But, when published, those who read the publication, are duplicating
the idea into their own brains, therefore now "they" own the idea
too.

(duplicate modulo capacity to grok of course...)


> unless it is a new idea,
> then it belongs to all those who thought before it,

Come on - we've all heard the principle "I stand on the shoulders of
giants".

Language itself - that mechanism where concepts in thought are
translated into sequences of sounds and/ or caricaters in order to
convey the idea to another soul/mind, is a pretty fantastic
"invention" or "discovery" or "creation".

Let's not get too caught up on pedantry eh?


> > copyright and patents
> 
> The legal terms are what we disagree on.  The right to ownership is not.
>  I concede to your argument against my defense of laws to defend things,
> seeable or not.

Mercantilistic individuals when they "think" that they "have thunked"
a "great idea" which they wish to "profit" from, might consider only
sharing/communicating that idea "privately" with other humans who
sign an onerous odious ogre-ous not-disclosure agreement or
something.

However most folks these days have become accustomed to things like
the Free Software movement, the Wikipedia and the licenses at the
foundation of these types of public sharing arrangements, and
therefore very few folks these days will ever enter into ("stupid" in
my humble opinion) self-sabotaging contracts.

It's hard to resist Steve Kinney's observation yesterday though - "it
is our moral duty to relieve a fool of his money" - I kid, I kid - for
the sake of our collective future we ought (where possible) educate
those who cross our path.


> > And you are accusing me of doing what *you* do? please.
> 
> If you think that the right to ownership can only be granted by others,
> which is what you argue when you say that the right to copy can only be
> granted as a privilege by some external authority.

That's actually what copyright is.

You could personally use something like contract, instead of
copyright, in order to "protect" your "original idea", but when you
rely on copyright, you are relying on some statute law in some
jurisdiction, ∴ created by the govt of that jurisdiction, and that
govt says something like "we will allow you to sue/punish those who
"violate" your copy'right'.

Copyright is in our era something created by govt statute.

Contract is what you can, by your own right/capacity, enter into
with other humans, and it's a different beast entirely.


> > United States of America was founded in 1776
> > as a slave society/concentration camp?
> 
> The United States is “a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed,
> circumcised Jew bastards".
> -Bobby Fischer
> 
> Prove Jews didn't own all the slave ships.
> Prove Jews didn't own most of the slaves.
> Prove slavery isn't a semitic tradition.
> 
> Pro-tip:
> **You can't.**
> 
> > national borders
> 
> I never argued for "national" borders.
> I tried to overstand your position on what defines a border and how
> these "imaginary" lines, physical or not, differ from those drawn in
> sovereignty of one's body ?

>From a purely technical perspective, one could of course argue that
the boundaries of ones body are in fact, though physical, only
boundaries to the extent that fellow humans respect those boundaries.

Indeed your mention of slavery brings to mind the obvious - the
boundaries of the body of a slave are a very appropriate boundary
which, in the mind of the slave owner, perfectly delineates his (the
slave owner's) possession, and the slave is almost a non-entity,
merely like cattle, and for that matter the slave is not even as
useful as a bullock since the bullock can pull a laden cart or turn a
grain wheel - the slave does have hands and usually a full set of
fingers though, so has one up on the bullock in that regard.


Frankly, as a good friend said to me years ago - I have freedom
within the limits of my capacity, and I have the right to expand
those limits (again, within the limits of my capacity, but also
within the limits of my conception).


And by obvious and logical extension, I have rights and possession
over that which:
 - I can conceive as having rights/possession in regards to
 - that which I have the capacity to exercise such rights
   and/ or protect such "possession"

To the extent that I have the unilateral capacity to "protect",
"act", "do" or otherwise, it can be said that I have "an absolute in
right" in regard to that thing or concept or arrangement.

And the corollary: to the extent that other humans bring forth their
own actions in any way in response to my actions, then it would be
wise for me to consider such (re)actions from others, to actions of
my own.


I know this might sound like tautology - and in a sense it is of
course - but it can be useful to carefully and clearly distinguish
such foundations of our existence.

Good luck,


> You offered nothing but "not valid".
> Just like your "bullshit" argument; why ?
> 
> > cheaters
> >
> 
> I do not cheat, sir.
> How dare you. =)


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list