LXer: A Kernel of all things!

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Yeah, I think that's what he's saying, and it's stupid to say this, IMO. So what if the relatives didn't write the book, they are his family and he would want to give them the money earned from his book. Does RMS want everyone to start from zero every time without any inheritance of any kind ? How incredibly hellish that would be, you could never progress in any way, it would be like a caste system almost ... and likely absolute domination / totalitarianism because of the lack of distribution of power. It's an incredibly dumb idea, IMO, and hopefully he didn't really mean it. I mean imagine if your parents couldn't give you any money (or very little) because of these types of laws being implemented, you'd have to work your @$$ off and in the end you wouldn't be able to leave your children any inheritance either ... a caste system basically, everyone would be maintain at the same level of poverty ... pure hell on earth.

The inheritance would have to come from the money made from the book sales when the author was alive, the inheritance would be left for his relatives if he went to the effort to ensure that he left something behind, instead of the relatives getting money in addition to what the author meant to leave behind, or if he didn't mean to leave anything behind at all.

And, a "caste" system, by definition is "an endogamous and hereditary social group limited to persons of the same rank, occupation, economic position, etc., and having mores distinguishing it from other such groups." by that, it means a fair society. So this also means everyone would be maintained at the same level of wealth.

Instead of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. He meant that the author's book should be allowed to be used after a certain period of time by everybody, public domain. Everybody can benefit from it. This way is fair. Sellers can include the author's relatives, which people are likely to buy the book from because of their relation to the author, if not, then people wouldn't want and don't want the author's relatives in charge of the book's price, and for them to be the only ones they can buy the book from.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H My sig: Anarchy - a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. ~ Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Also:
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: ...

The world works because of government, without it humanity dies. Imagine a world where a person can kill you, and get away with it, because there is no one looking for him, except the people who knew the victim. Also the "no government" or "small government" idea is something the republicans believe in strongly.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Yeah, I think that's what he's saying, and it's stupid to say this, IMO. So what if the relatives didn't write the book, they are his family and he would want to give them the money earned from his book. Does RMS want everyone to start from zero every time without any inheritance of any kind ? How incredibly hellish that would be, you could never progress in any way, it would be like a caste system almost ... and likely absolute domination / totalitarianism because of the lack of distribution of power. It's an incredibly dumb idea, IMO, and hopefully he didn't really mean it. I mean imagine if your parents couldn't give you any money (or very little) because of these types of laws being implemented, you'd have to work your @$$ off and in the end you wouldn't be able to leave your children any inheritance either ... a caste system basically, everyone would be maintain at the same level of poverty ... pure hell on earth.

DudeManAwesome says:

The inheritance would have to come from the money made from the book sales when the author was alive, the inheritance would be left for his relatives if he went to the effort to ensure that he left something behind, instead of the relatives getting money in addition to what the author meant to leave behind, or if he didn't mean to leave anything behind at all. And, a "caste" system, by definition is "an endogamous and hereditary social group limited to persons of the same rank, occupation, economic position, etc., and having mores distinguishing it from other such groups." by that, it means a fair society. So this also means everyone would be maintained at the same level of wealth. Instead of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. He meant that the author's book should be allowed to be used after a certain period of time by everybody, public domain. Everybody can benefit from it. This way is fair. Sellers can include the author's relatives, which people are likely to buy the book from because of their relation to the author, if not, then people wouldn't want and don't want the author's relatives in charge of the book's price, and for them to be the only ones they can buy the book from.

Quote of HteX-Mex-H: Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post My sig: Anarchy - a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. ~ Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

DudeManAwesome continues:

Also: 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: ... The world works because of government, without it humanity dies. Imagine a world where a person can kill you, and get away with it, because there is no one looking for him, except the people who knew the victim. Also the "no government" or "small government" idea is something the republicans believe in strongly.

* sigh * ... I guess I try to keep the answers as short and concise as possible, mostly because there is no real point in me replying, it seems you are beyond hope.

Originally Posted by DudeManAwesome And, a "caste" system, by definition is "an endogamous and hereditary social group limited to persons of the same rank, occupation, economic position, etc., and having mores distinguishing it from other such groups." by that, it means a fair society. So this also means everyone would be maintained at the same level of wealth. Instead of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. He meant that the author's book should be allowed to be used after a certain period of time by everybody, public domain. Everybody can benefit from it. This way is fair. Sellers can include the author's relatives, which people are likely to buy the book from because of their relation to the author, if not, then people wouldn't want and don't want the author's relatives in charge of the book's price, and for them to be the only ones they can buy the book from.

*cough*, well, it seems clear you don't know what a caste system is. It is a system to keep the poor poor and the rich rich and in absolute control. The caste you are born in is the caste you die in, and you can never change it. It is the deepest level of hell imaginable, but likely people who a part of one will never realize this, which is even sadder.

As for a book, I believe after it goes out of copyright it is automatically released in the public domain. So really all you needed to do is decrease the time it takes for a copyright to expire, which would be agreeable as the author's lifetime + 100 years may be a bit much.

Also: 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: ... The world works because of government, without it humanity dies. Imagine a world where a person can kill you, and get away with it, because there is no one looking for him, except the people who knew the victim. Also the "no government" or "small government" idea is something the republicans believe in strongly.

Those are the definitions your govn't wants you to believe, but in reality they are incorrect definitions. Although anarchy is commonly associated with chaos and disorder, that is because it is assumed that lack of a ruler causes anarchy. This is incorrect. If you take a system which has a ruler and then remove him/her instantly, of course there will be chaos, disorder, confusion ... but this is not anarchy, it is just chaos, disorder, and confusion. Anarchy is a system that must be actively implemented and maintained by the people themselves, it is NOT the lack of government or laws, because in this case the people are the government ... a true democracy, unlike the pseudo-democracy that exists today where two groups call themselves by different names, argue for different things, but when it comes down to what they do and what their agenda is, that is ALWAYS the same ... absolute domination, oppression, enslavement. And, this will likely never change. Most likely, anarchy can never be implemented, mostly because the population may never be ready to accept it. You should also know that govn't is NOT what keeps society together and working. Maybe you should travel more, because there are places where govn't only exists to oppress the people to kill them and enslave them, but the people persevere, they have mutual respect for one another, they know what must be done to keep things in balance and in order.

Probably everything I've said will not affect you in any way, you will likely go back to believe in the theater they play for you on a stage, the one that makes you feel that you have some say in how you are governed, but in reality the system has not changed since the beginning of written history, and it will likely never change ... pity you can't step back and see what it really is ...

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H * sigh * ... I guess I try to keep the answers as short and concise as possible, mostly because there is no real point in me replying, it seems you are beyond hope. *cough*, well, it seems clear you don't know what a caste system is. It is a system to keep the poor poor and the rich rich and in absolute control. The caste you are born in is the caste you die in, and you can never change it. It is the deepest level of hell imaginable, but likely people who a part of one will never realize this, which is even sadder.

No. This is normally the behavior of a "caste" system that actually failed in doing what it is supposed to do.

These are commonly seen effects in countries that claim to have a "caste" system, but actually have something more a long the lines of a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H As for a book, I believe after it goes out of copyright it is automatically released in the public domain. So really all you needed to do is decrease the time it takes for a copyright to expire, which would be agreeable as the author's lifetime + 100 years may be a bit much.

This is how it currently works, 50 to 100 years after the author's death. But this is the right way to do it, maybe 25 to 50 years after death would be a little more reasonable. However, the author's relatives can renew the copyright, because it became their property after the author died, so they renew it, they make money, they die, they pass it on, until the book is eventually worthless because of the age, and mass amount of copies of it. Then the relatives, be it 200 years in the future, finally don't renew it, and 50-100 years after that we finally have the freedom to use the author's old, old, old, work how ever we want.

When the author should have died, and that be the end of it, 100 years later it's in the public domain, not being sold by the author's relatives for whatever they want to charge for it, when they wouldn't even have written the book or even had a close relation with the author, because this would be 100 years after the author's death.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Those are the definitions your govn't wants you to believe, but in reality they are incorrect definitions. Although anarchy is commonly associated with chaos and disorder, that is because it is assumed that lack of a ruler causes anarchy. This is incorrect. If you take a system which has a ruler and then remove him/her instantly, of course there will be chaos, disorder, confusion ... but this is not anarchy, it is just chaos, disorder, and confusion. Anarchy is a system that must be actively implemented and maintained by the people themselves, it is NOT the lack of government or laws, because in this case the people are the government ... a true democracy, unlike the pseudo-democracy that exists today where two groups call themselves by different names, argue for different things, but when it comes down to what they do and what their agenda is, that is ALWAYS the same ... absolute domination, oppression, enslavement. And, this will likely never change. Most likely, anarchy can never be implemented, mostly because the population may never be ready to accept it. You should also know that govn't is NOT what keeps society together and working. Maybe you should travel more, because there are places where govn't only exists to oppress the people to kill them and enslave them, but the people persevere, they have mutual respect for one another, they know what must be done to keep things in balance and in order. Probably everything I've said will not affect you in any way, you will likely go back to believe in the theater they play for you on a stage, the one that makes you feel that you have some say in how you are governed, but in reality the system has not changed since the beginning of written history, and it will likely never change ... pity you can't step back and see what it really is ...

OH MY GOD! You are the most retarded person I have ever read anything from, and that's saying a lot.

People cannot run a country by themselves, like I said, there has to be a singular authority controlling, and directing resources when something illegal happens, because people can only do so much by themselves.

I believe in freedom, but anarchy is too far.
You make government, sound like a government conspiracy.

Originally Posted by DudeManAwesome OH MY GOD! You are the most retarded person I have ever read anything from, and that's saying a lot.

I didn't insult you, so I don't see why you have to insult me. Anyway, I guess that is the end of the discussion.

Perhaps you two (i.e., H_TexMex_H and DudeManAwesome) should both consider, for example, a country like Switzerland where an actual democratic (note the small "d") government is in use. On one hand, it illustrates the problems of a democratic system (e.g., Last time I was there, Basel had some highway exit ramps that terminated in mid-air because the city population declined to continue to pay for the construction.) and the strengths of that system.

The real problem with a democratic system (call it anarchy if you wish) is that an actual consensus is both difficult to get (so little get started) and hard to maintain (so some of what's started is not finished). The problem with, for example, the republican system (again, not the small "r") is that the reliance on representatives to accurately reflect the consensus of their constituents depends on the honesty of the representatives, and (given "human nature") that assumption is, at best, problematic.

So, my take: "anarchy" depends on people being both well educated and honest (both assumptions at variance with reality) and other systems ("central government") also depend on the honesty of those doing the governing.

The "American" model attempts to deal with these issues by trying to maximize the dissemination information to the "people" (e.g., "freedom of the press", "open government records," etc.) but, of course, fails to enforce any penalties for anything less than flagrant dishonesty in representatives.

As Winston Churchal is reported to have observed: Democracy [capital "D"] is the worst form of government known, except for all the rest.

You're right, I would normally say I'm for democracy ... a rule by the people ... but most unfortunately the term has been bastardized so badly that I don't feel comfortable using it. Most people think it would mean I'm a Democrat ... no way. Besides, I'm also against any kind of vote, I'm for unanimity. Assuming the vote is not falsified, which it usually is, just because (in an extreme case) 99 % of the people think something is the right thing to do has absolutely NOTHING to do with the true correctness of that action, because their opinions are easy to sway, and most people are not astute enough to know propaganda when they see it, much less to think about the consequences, or just to think logically in many cases. I guess that's the biggest problem, a good system of government will only be possible with the right foundation ... the people. The people must be aware, they must be intelligent, they must care about one another and respect one another, they must understand why they must do so ... wishful thinking I guess.

Oh, one more thing to mention, unanimity can be a bad thing too ... take Fidel Castro ... he always get 100% of the votes ... mmmmhhhhmmm