Maybe it's the fact that it's now an election year in the US that's got me thinking politics again, or maybe it's the fact that society and other things under Human control continue in this modern age to suck what can only be described as a whole lot of ass.
Anyway, in my travels online and in conversations IRL I have had with different people (and different kinds of people), there is a large and growing consensus that whatever floated the Colonists' boat two centuries ago, it just isn't working anymore. Of course, something like that is seldom spoken out loud for fear of sounding like a Revolutionary, which is somehow synonymous these days with everything a Good American is supposed to hate.
Besides that, there are the not insignificant facts that if Americans were to revolt en masse against their government, they would be laid to waste by the strongest military power the world has ever known; that most Americans just don't care enough to defend something as abstract as Liberty against a tyrannical government when they have something as literal as an iPod and "bills to pay;" and that nobody outside of the Establishment would have the first clue about how to design a proper Government anyway; so even if there was a Revolution, it would fail.
Well, that kind of thinking is depressing for a person like me who not only thinks the system has failed but has long since outlived its usefulness anyway. Add to that my delusions of grandeur and my foolhardy wish to "live in interesting times" (which is an old Chinese curse, by the way), and it's just a mood killer when you tell me how broken the world is and then say, "Eh, but whatcha gonna do?"
Usually, when your logic tells you there's no good way to avoid something, it's right. Sometimes, though, your logic is flawed. Sometimes your logic just isn't equipped to deal with the problem you're facing, because it's based on the same set of circumstances that led to your problem in the first place. I believe that right now, we as Americans (and probably people in "The West" in general) are living in just such a time. All the signs are pointing to the apparently undeniable "fact" that our governments are becoming more and more ubiquitous and all-seeing all the time; that "privacy" is something you only read about in fairy tales and lawsuits against peeping Toms; and that We the People are just in for it, no matter how you look at it.
But what if that's all just hogwash, and the only reason we believe it is because we've been conditioned to believe it? What if the reality is that the Government and the "System" in general is just a great big game of Monopoly set up two hundred years ago and has been hijacked, exploited, cracked open, broken into, and under constant attack since before it started? If that were true, if the Government we supposedly "owe" our allegiance to, just because it happens to be in power, is only a game, then what's keeping us from just walking away?
This isn't about taking off and living in the hills. It's about a paradigm shift that's desperately needed by millions of people. It's about recognizing what the hell is going on, really. There are people in Washington and London and Paris and everywhere else, and these people are playing a game called Politics. The game has its own rules, etiquette, and protocols. And like any game worth playing, there is a prize if you "win." But unlike most games, the prize for this one is quite literally stolen from people who never signed up for the game in the first place. Most people don't realize that politics is a game. They think it's Serious Business, but it isn't. Have you seen the great big stupid grins that get stuck on politicians' faces whenever they're hanging out with each other? Those aren't fake.
So all of politics is a game. Everything, from international warfare, to micromanaging regulations within Federal departments, to the lines painted on the streets you drive on every morning, is a part of this game. The money you carry around with you is not actually worth anything -- it's just a "promise" that it's okay to pay you in paper because other people are all playing the same game that you're playing, and will also accept that paper as payment.
The problem of course is that this game has very high stakes, and it doesn't care who gets the short end of the stick. Especially with the jackasses who are currently playing at the top levels of the game, any recourse for the Little Guy is drying up quick. That's why there's so much talk about the System failing and everybody's wringing their hands because it doesn't feel good to know there's something wrong that you can't fix.
Except we can fix it. Politics is a game, so quit playing. Make a new game, and alternative game, make it open to anybody who wants in so you can grow quickly. Make it simple, make it fair, and put it into practice wherever you can. Model community groups after it. Model online groups after it. All that we really need to do is make that intellectual leap from this dogmatic "There is only one Government and My Government is The Government" drivel, to knowing that politics is only a game and you're perfectly within your natural rights to make your own.
People are (generally) born with two hands, two feet, and two eyes. Know how many governments we are born with? None.
First, Mittens
Heh, right before I read the last paragraph I was thinking, "Well
I'm not playing that game." Glad that was the direction you were going. It's a strange modern world we live in - culture is madness. If we were to teleport someone in from the era of Feudal Monarchy, I wonder (once they had gotten past the HOLY SHIT, ELECTRICITY?! phase) if they'd think this way of life is better than theirs was.
The way you frame it, Vex, it sounds like if you're not a high level player, you're just
losing. But I don't think that's the case - I think most people are playing an entirely different sort of game. ComfortQuest. And the rules of that game (how fast you can drive, how much money you can make, whether or not you can rip legally purchased CDs to your computer) are defined by the people playing the higher-level game (which involves wearing suits and "representing" others).
One of the recurring themes here on PD is the desperately and hopelessly fucked up state of modern living. And one of the questions we've wrestled with is What The Fuck Can I Do? I want to help make things better, but any avenue for change has been kaiboshed by bureaucracy or just plain apathy (they go hand in hand towards Aftermath). Your suggestion, make a new game, is one solution.
And I look at my life and realize that in a way, that's what I've been doing all along. My life will go on more or less the same, regardless of the War in Iraq, regardless of which puppet wins this November's election, regardless of whether or not it's legal to rip my CDs to my hard drive. Grover Cleveland could take the white house and I'll still be drinking Dr. Pepper, smoking pot, playing D&D on Sunday, etc.
But you can't escape it for long, right? No matter how much escapism I've engineered into my life - and I consider my hobbies and my group of friends a form of escapism - there's still bullshit everywhere. We live in it. I can escape from it for a while but in the end I'm still getting screwed by the City of Yonkers. I'm still getting paid shit and then giving a third of it to the government.
But these are the dangers of modern living.
Primitive man had to face wild animals, starvation, tribal warfare. We have to face income tax, draconian schedules, the RIAA, and apathy.
QuotePeople are (generally) born with two hands, two feet, and two eyes. Know how many governments we are born with? None.
:argh!:
It sounds like you're saying that a society is simply laid over the human condition, like a very lumpy carpet. That whatever system you're in, provided it sustains your continued existence, the basic facts of human nature will out.
The difference is that income tax only exists because we believe it does. A Saber-Tooth Tiger could eat a caveman no matter how many committees pass a resolution against it.
We can avoid the bullshit if we want to, we can drop off the radar and live a life Thoreau would be proud of if we want to, and we can form coalitions to see how we can better play Their Game if we want to. But there's a problem with all that -- that is all still playing the game. The game rules say, "Pay your bills or go without electricity / Get a SS card or go without social benefits / Obey our silly rules or live in the woods and fend for yourself against bears and property owners."
If you make a new game, you set the rules to be better. And it doesn't take a violent uprising against the current government -- you just stop recognizing that government's power. Granted, a firing squad doesn't much care how valid you think it is, but if your game is simple, viral, and leads to people seeing the difference between natural laws and the arbitrary rules of a stupid game, that won't matter for long.
The idea here is that such a system could propogate itself without fear of being decapitated because it would never have a head to begin with. Just communication and data, and people receiving that data deciding whether or not it's worth it.
With luck, the Revolution would just sort of 'happen,' as more and more people jump ship from obsolete nation states. It's a huge goal I know, but there isn't really much to it, if you can get people to stop a moment and think. The only reason the world is as shitty as it is is because 99% of the world is trusting their governments to play the game for them, and because nobody seems to realize that it's just a game in the first place.
Quote from: LMNO on January 02, 2008, 04:43:08 PM
It sounds like you're saying that a society is simply laid over the human condition, like a very lumpy carpet. That whatever system you're in, provided it sustains your continued existence, the basic facts of human nature will out.
In a way that is what I'm saying. Human nature is one thing, and the methods we use to reign in parts of that nature and bring out other parts are a society's rules. What I'm proposing here though is that instead of taking your society and bending it to your will by imposing a new set of rules with a new cabal of assholes in the driver's seat, you create a system that runs itself. It's sort of the idea behind the American Constitution, except that idea failed.
Utilizing modern technology, almost 100% direct democracy is now possible. It won't be implemented of course, because that scares the powers that be, but it is possible nevertheless. And because such democracy is possible, it is no longer necessary to wait for those in power to put it in place. We can just build it, and use it.
100% democracy would be a fucking horribe way of living in a society.
Why? Because my views on how to live are almost always in the minority.
100% democracy = Mob Rules.
IMHO...
Things are going to get a lot worse before they ever get better.
The capitalists are consolidating at a faster rate than ever before, perhaps soon they will have a winner, the guy/gal who owns everything. Politics is just a means of settling the lower classes by offering them a (false) hope of being able to change the system. With the current players and field, the Reps will win the big seat, backed by the Supreme Court. I'm expecting the same shenanigans we've seen the last two elections with perhaps a bit more bravado on the losing side this time, but still no widespread violence, and more importantly, no change for the better, unless you're filthy rich and have something to gain from a less friendly more intrusive law enforcement package.
Quote from: vexati0n on January 02, 2008, 03:30:28 PM
Besides that, there are the not insignificant facts that if Americans were to revolt en masse against their government, they would be laid to waste by the strongest military power the world has ever known;
Have you seen the non-lethal weapons the military has been developing? Bet they're not for invading foreign governments...
Quote
that most Americans just don't care enough to defend something as abstract as Liberty against a tyrannical government when they have something as literal as an iPod and "bills to pay;" and that nobody outside of the Establishment would have the first clue about how to design a proper Government anyway; so even if there was a Revolution, it would fail.
Its not that they don't care, they just aren't learning how or why the country was formed. They have no basis for complaining and attacks against the status quo are scary...Change is not good unless you're at Taco Bell.
Quote
Well, that kind of thinking is depressing for a person like me who not only thinks the system has failed but has long since outlived its usefulness anyway. Add to that my delusions of grandeur and my foolhardy wish to "live in interesting times" (which is an old Chinese curse, by the way), and it's just a mood killer when you tell me how broken the world is and then say, "Eh, but whatcha gonna do?"
Quote
Except we can fix it. Politics is a game, so quit playing.
The choice to not play is a vote in and of itself. It would be nice to set up a democratic utopia, but without changing the existing system you may be hard up for resources.
Sad as it is the choice must be to vote for one of the major ass clowns and hope that the powers that be finish up their god damned pyramid so that a paradigm shift can actually take place.
Quote from: LMNO on January 02, 2008, 05:02:32 PM
100% democracy would be a fucking horribe way of living in a society.
Why? Because my views on how to live are almost always in the minority.
100% democracy = Mob Rules.
I didn't mean that actual 100% democracy is the way to go. But we need to increase representation levels. The same 0.1% of the population parading around like they're in it for the Common Man is getting a little old, even for some of the more Pro-Establishment people I know.
Diseris:
People are gaining a reason to complain all the time, and not just whacko paranoid conspiracy buffs. But those people aren't exactly given a talk show.
There's no reason that a new system cannot leech off the old system while it's growing. It would be like dual citizenship until the time comes to just pull the plug.
Why would I vote for one of the puppets when I know they are
all on the same team playing the same game? Voting for them and then hoping something changes more than aesthetically is pointless, and that's the reason this system keeps getting worse. Too many people still have some faith that it can accomplish something.
I don't believe that all the puppets are playing for the same team, there are a few deviants from the norm running, but the money and power don't want them to win so you don't hear much from them. Well, maybe I'm just throwing away my vote, but the hope is that more and more people will see that third parties and minor candidates are getting more popular, which will, hopefully, feed itself.
What happens when the small fries go big? Probably the same betrayals as always, but at least there is some hope of change.
Opting out will work if you can feed off of the resources of the current system, but not using money and not voting isn't going to give you a real popular party. Where will the food and materials necessary for life come from, those still in the old system? And why should one arbitrary new system be used over any other arbitrary system? Hell, you could have one president elected for each web portal, because, for sure, there is no unity on the net. Maybe you could get all the malcontents together to agree there is a problem but beyond that there won't be much agreement.
Better yet, run for office.
Spout a bunch of God is good nonsense and shape yourself up to look and act like a politician, get some cash from the big boys then get in office and work for the little guy and social justice. You're still free to do that.
I'll vote for ya. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on January 02, 2008, 05:02:32 PM
100% democracy would be a fucking horribe way of living in a society.
Why? Because my views on how to live are almost always in the minority.
100% democracy = Mob Rules.
Oppression by popular conscensus.
Fuck that.
Quote from: Diseris on January 02, 2008, 05:28:11 PM
I don't believe that all the puppets are playing for the same team, there are a few deviants from the norm running, but the money and power don't want them to win so you don't hear much from them. Well, maybe I'm just throwing away my vote, but the hope is that more and more people will see that third parties and minor candidates are getting more popular, which will, hopefully, feed itself.
What happens when the small fries go big? Probably the same betrayals as always, but at least there is some hope of change.
Opting out will work if you can feed off of the resources of the current system, but not using money and not voting isn't going to give you a real popular party. Where will the food and materials necessary for life come from, those still in the old system? And why should one arbitrary new system be used over any other arbitrary system? Hell, you could have one president elected for each web portal, because, for sure, there is no unity on the net. Maybe you could get all the malcontents together to agree there is a problem but beyond that there won't be much agreement.
The alternative system is better. Also, it doesn't require you to give up the amenities afforded you by the dominant system. It capitalizes on the waste of the dominant system -- wasted time, wasted effort, wasted resources. Also, the dominant system is quickly decaying into a de-facto police state because interest in keeping it a republic is dropping like crazy.
Yeah, you're right, I'm Pope, may as well be president too!
I don't think he was preaching anarchy.
At least, I hope not because I really liked the OP.
Just having a real hard time with the economics behind the idea.
Looks like a setup for soylent green.
The disassociated drop out, the rich get richer and maintain control through force, you get one of four roles to play...dog, pig, sheep or rat.
The tracking shouldn't be too bad, everyone who wants to vote in the new system will need some form of ID to ensure single votes.
...
I read the last paragraph (which introduces the new game as a possible solution to this elaborate problem Vex has described) as a call to drop out and change your priorities, rather than to set up your own independent nested society.
It's like - the gov't has you fooled into thinking you're poor. Vex suggests (I think) that things are fucked because there's this yardstick that the government The MachineTM holds, and on one end it says Rich and the other end says Poor, and you're somewhere along that continuum, but you wish you were somewhere else.
So rather than trying to beat the system by getting rich, abandon the rich/poor continuum. Change your life so that money doesn't matter to you anymore. And if your method / mindset works, it'll spread virally.
am I reading you right, vex?
I love the thoughts vex, preach it brother. If am am wrong please pardon the analogy, but it seems that your line of thought was expressed analogously by the baby boomer's commune ideal, although it seems you wish for a more splinter cell type approach. If this is a correct summation, what made those fail and how can we avoid those issues?
Wait a minute... Communal Tribalism?
EXREME ANARCHO CUMMUNAL TRIBALISM
(is a lizard conspiracy)
...and then we set all the cows loose so they migrate towards the poor people.
Is Communal Tribalism different from Tribal Communism?
CRAM: yes, you're right for the most part, except I was thinking a coherent system that snowballs into something larger, but does so quietly and quickly so that the State is caught off-guard (until this post is read by some NSA robot).
Fr. Puck: The Hippies failed because they were living in a dream world and based their philosophy on bullshit, but mainly they failed because the only Enemy they ever had was some vague notion of The Man, Man. We, on the other hand, have the benefit of another 40 years of evolution, plus the ability to laugh at ourselves. Plus, we have more Enemies than we can count. Also, Discordians tend to be less addicted to Free Love for its own sake.
I like the OP, but I'm not sure I agree with the optimistic conclusion (Didn't we try Dropping Out once?).
But a small point, the nation we live in today, is not the idea conceived by the colonists, their idea has been dead for more than a century. It was dying before the Civil war, but Lincoln put the final bullet in its head. Once the states were no longer freely associated, then they were all under the rule (rather than the guidance) of the Federal system. Since the that system has continued to grow in scope. Things like social security, universal healthcare, FEMA, FDA, ATF etc etc etc were exactly the opposite of that initial government design.
I'm not saying that I'm against those concepts or anything, just that the 1776 gang didn't plan for a society such as ours. And that just as their idea was quickly corrupted, so too would anything that replaced it. Anarchy may be for fools, but organized political systems appear no less full of fools. :wink:
Any movement or organisation of humans is going to contain fools. The best laid plans will be those structured with that in mind and with the best system of checks and balances for those. Of course then you get into the matter of who defines "best system", and it seems a very lofty challenge to ever to get anything within spitting distance of that ideal.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2008, 06:39:06 PM
Any movement or organisation of humans is going to contain fools. The best laid plans will be those structured with that in mind and with the best system of checks and balances for those. Of course then you get into the matter of who defines "best system", and it seems a very lofty challenge to ever to get anything within spitting distance of that ideal.
This is an interesting thread and one that reminds me of a class I took a few years back called "Non-Euclidian Politics: A view from neither left or right" in it RAW basically spent 8 weeks showing off all the other models of government that have been discussed/debated/shitcanned in the past 200 years. Dozens of forms of Anarchy, versions of Libertarian that mix and mash in everything from anarchism or communism... but in all of these different systems, there are horrific flaws that don't account for the fools, the idiots and basic human nature. In systems that have a State strong enough to take care of its citizens in emergencies etc, the State is also strong enough that it can quickly become a tyrant in the hands of fools or humans. In systems with a weak or non-existent State, the State is powerless to assist in a time of need because of fools or humans.
Quote from: vexati0n on January 03, 2008, 06:26:20 PM
Fr. Puck: The Hippies failed because they were living in a dream world and based their philosophy on bullshit, but mainly they failed because the only Enemy they ever had was some vague notion of The Man, Man. We, on the other hand, have the benefit of another 40 years of evolution, plus the ability to laugh at ourselves. Plus, we have more Enemies than we can count. Also, Discordians tend to be less addicted to Free Love for its own sake.
Of course the hippies philosophy was deluded, however, my concern is
how does your proposal differ?
What have we learned in the last 40 years that will make the cut? I feel if we can lay this layer this may just present a serious option for the disenchanted.
I feel Ratatosk brings up a good point; if the nexus of governance was local instead of national we would have a greater variety of living options, which seems to be the point of the damn thing, at least for a few generations. Early Grecian [and to some extent early Roman] rule is a relatively good analogy; central governance, local power.
No system can be perfect, and every system will eventually be subject to corruption and eventually to collapse. It should not be the aim of any generation to define a Utopia for all future generations, but to do their best to get as close to Utopia as they reasonably can, and leave it up to future generations to take on the same challenge.
That said, the theory behind governments is one of the points I'm trying to work out here. A government is a system of social control (obviously). In developed nations this system replaces or controls (to a large degree) natural systems of social control such as disease, tribal warfare, and the elements. People however are genetically programmed to adapt to and overcome systems of social control, and their governments are no exception to this innate law.
The corruption of a government is in part due to the fact that there is always somebody driving the thing, and beyond things like greed and power lust these people are designed to use any system at their disposal as a tool to increase their social standing. We are monkeys after all and just because we have legislatures and armies instead of sticks and rocks doesn't mean we don't wield them like weapons all the same.
The idea then behind designing a system less susceptible to corruption was, to the American Colonists, to design a system where no one had absolute power. They did this by using checks and balances, which worked for a while and then broke down, because somebody was in control of the checks and balances. They did not occur automatically. For example if the Congress wanted to pass a draconian law, the President had to choose to veto it.
The next step, in my opinion, is to create a system where no one is in control. How can it be done? I have some ideas but this post is already too long.
Quote from: vexati0n on January 03, 2008, 06:52:39 PM
No system can be perfect, and every system will eventually be subject to corruption and eventually to collapse. It should not be the aim of any generation to define a Utopia for all future generations, but to do their best to get as close to Utopia as they reasonably can, and leave it up to future generations to take on the same challenge.
That said, the theory behind governments is one of the points I'm trying to work out here. A government is a system of social control (obviously). In developed nations this system replaces or controls (to a large degree) natural systems of social control such as disease, tribal warfare, and the elements. People however are genetically programmed to adapt to and overcome systems of social control, and their governments are no exception to this innate law.
I agree with this notion a lot. Though for it to work, we would either need to live a life similar to that described as "rational anarchy" in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (where the rules/State exist for people that need them and we as individuals follow the rules until they inconvenience us, then we selectivly ignore them), or some sort of system that would be a Utopia for the insane diversity we have here in the US.
In tribal systems, there is a political system, there are political rules/beliefs/traditions etc. It seems to work because everyone in the tribe shares the same view of reality. Here in the US we have thousands of "tribes", scattered across a continent. I have yet to determine what a Utopia would look like if it were to please a Fundie from Alabama, a liberal atheist from New York and the 998 other tribal groups that make up the US. Indeed, this point is really the only argument I can see against "diversity". The more our lives are different, the less likely we seem to be to agree... different cultures, languages, belief systems etc seem a guarantee that a nation will be fragmented.
JW's translated the Nebuchadnezzer's dream of a great statue as the march of World Powers that affected God's People (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and "Anglo-America". They assign Anglo-America to the feet made "partly of stone and partly of molded clay" as a reference to the structural instability of our society vs. that of historical world powers... an interesting analogy maybe.
Quote
The corruption of a government is in part due to the fact that there is always somebody driving the thing, and beyond things like greed and power lust these people are designed to use any system at their disposal as a tool to increase their social standing. We are monkeys after all and just because we have legislatures and armies instead of sticks and rocks doesn't mean we don't wield them like weapons all the same.
The idea then behind designing a system less susceptible to corruption was, to the American Colonists, to design a system where no one had absolute power. They did this by using checks and balances, which worked for a while and then broke down, because somebody was in control of the checks and balances. They did not occur automatically. For example if the Congress wanted to pass a draconian law, the President had to choose to veto it.
The next step, in my opinion, is to create a system where no one is in control. How can it be done? I have some ideas but this post is already too long.
our
Good points, its one of the reasons I see Universal Healthcare as currently a dangerous plan, since it will (as with all things) be mutable based on the will of the party in power. So the next question is, HOW do we develop a system that has built in checks and balances that don't depend on humans.
My first guess might be a system were any and all laws automatically sunset after a period of X years and must be reviewed etc before they can be renewed.
Blow voting out of the system as well, set it up by randomly choosing the tribal representatives from among the literate populace. Have draconian laws against corruption in the state added to it and you could get a whole different brand of people running things, and their main interest had better be the betterment of their communities.
This would eliminate the need for campaigning and that associated corruption.
Can't remember whose idea it was originally, but school was quite a while ago.
Quote from: BiP Alternate???
So, if you're interested, I'd like to invite you to a New Game... Just turn around.
...? this is more along the lines of something i was thinking. i'll have to chew on this and read the OP a few more times.
It fits in a way. Everybody is playing a game most of the time, the politics game, the work game, the 'family guy' game. But this synonymous with other discussions about masks people wear. I'd rather just put this down in the "can also be described as" column, than rehash the same thing we've already talked about for a year.
correct motorcycle running through the above post.
Control of technology is the source of all power. The Systemtm owns (almost) all the scientists and engineers, and thus has (almost) total control over technology. What we need are more scientists, engineers, technologists, etc... who refuse to hand over their knowledge and power to a soulless machine, but instead design technology that helps individuals gain more independence from the man/machine/system.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on March 02, 2008, 02:07:58 AM
Control of technology is the source of all power. The Systemtm owns (almost) all the scientists and engineers, and thus has (almost) total control over technology. What we need are more scientists, engineers, technologists, etc... who refuse to hand over their knowledge and power to a soulless machine, but instead design technology that helps individuals gain more independence from the man/machine/system.
We do, at least at the software level, have a fairly big movement for that (or something similar). Linux and free software and cyber hippies and all that.
I'm somewhat aware of the open source software movement. I think I've at least skimmed over the GPL at some point. I'm a hardware guy myself (electro-mechanical, manufacturing, industrial, etc...), about a year from graduating. I'm in the process of finding ways to use my powers for good rather than evil i.e. the Corporatocracy/Military Industrial Complex.
So far the best I've been able to come up with is evil vending machines.
Hmm, meatspace engineering is a lot harder for that kind of deal. Free software is only available because of the low cost of entry (almost any computer, skills, and an internet connection, legal protection is free unless you actually go to court).
I suppose you could always design things in your spare and then refuse to patent them. But the global patent system is so screwed up, that somebody else would just patent them instead if you did that. (Actually, they'll probably patent your idea regardless, you would just have the advantage of your own patent in the court if it came to that). And a GPL style patent process wouldn't work well, unless you have ridiculous amounts of money to spend on patent applications. (10 grand a pop in the US iirc, plus fees for a patent lawyer if you actually want it to go through).
A simple patent with less than 3 independent claims can be filed for as little as a few hundred dollars if it is accepted the first time, but it usually isn't. This would of course mean doing all your own patent research and writing the patent yourself.
The closest analogy, as far as I can tell, to GPL/free software concerning inventions is the concept of prior art. If you design something and then publish your design, it makes it impossible for you or anyone else to patent it, but unlike the GPL (as I understand it) someone could come along and modify your design and get a patent on their new variation of your design, but the original design would still be free.
Also, all expired patents are free. Most patents expire after 17 years I think.
Anyone with their name on a patent will be among the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Earlier in the thread someone commented that Feudalism was no better. I disagree... The technology was poor, education was dire, medicine was as likely to kill as to cure you... But feudalism itself? Is it so bad? It was just another form of 'rich mans socialism'
See, under feudalism the ruling classes knew that if they pissed off the populace sufficiently then heads would roll... and heads did roll, regularly. Now, I know that isn't an ideal situation but what it DID do is keep the nobility on their toes much of their time.
One day, following an unusually large cluster of noble beheadings the heads of europe decided that all this power simply wasn't worth having ones head cut off over... and democracy was born. Democracy has always been simply a way of retaining power whilst never finding your head on the block. It was beautiful, it was simple, it worked. It threw a giant rubber pacifier in the mouth of the discontent masses.
Democracy thus requires two parties (minimum) who oppose each other over EVERYTHING (even common sense things) whilst protecting the interests of themselves and the landowners using superficially competing paradigms. Seriously, democracy as it stands was the death knell for what remained of the public power.
But hey, if you think they're letting you down, go vote for the guys echoing your sentiments. It wont achieve anything. Your life will still suck, Your leader will still lie, your people will still be slaves. But, at least you get to choose the colour scheme for your cell... which HAS to be a good thing, no ?
I say nothing will improve unless we go back to cutting off heads... and KEEP cutting them off until the position no longer appeals to the greedy and self-interested.
Don't get me wrong though. Democracy, as an ideal, is not in itself a 'bad thing'. Unfortunately, democracy is just a word... modern applications of it have little to do with the dictionary definition and instead represent just another recloaking of 'socialism for the rich'... a meme.
Don't like the way democracy is working out for you? Hmm? Then quite clearly you're a dirty stinkin' communist and representative of all thats wrong with your country. you oughta be ashamed ; )
~ Pope Fing Feng III
Quote from: FingFeng on March 04, 2008, 11:31:16 AM
Anyone with their name on a patent will be among the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
triggerhappy fellow, are you? kill this, shoot that, first against the wall then ..
Democracy's busted, but unless you've come up with an adequate replacement, no amount of dead buerocrats are gonna save the world. Take what's going on every day in South America - there's coup after coup, but nobody's itching to replace Democracy. Democracy is appealing because it's the way that the average shmuck thinks he can become a powerful shmuck. So no, I think it's here to stay.
At least until the ROBOT REVOLUTION.
Robert Heinlein often pointed out in his books that no goverment is perfect, it's more about what works for the most people.
As long as we're talking Heinlein and government, I feel compelled to give this quote.
"... a system where the government gets very little say, and the people, bless their black twisted little hearts, get no say at all" (probably mangled horribly, from Time Enough For Love).
Quote from: triple zero on March 04, 2008, 01:24:57 PMtriggerhappy fellow, are you? kill this, shoot that, first against the wall then ...
I'm actually quite peacable...
But seriously, democracy and patents both fellate monkeys.
~ Pope Fing Feng II
Yes, because Bulgaria was a wonderful country :roll:
There is straightforward solution here - crime.
That's right, crime. Be a fucking criminal.
What do we know about crime? That's right - it's bad.
How do we know? Cos everybody says so. Everybody, who we already know have been brainwashed by ... thats right .. teh bad people.
So a bunch of crooks and liars have convinced us that "crime don't pay"
Trust me on this - I've tried both ways - crime is the only way to make an honest buck.
For a kick off you get taxted to death if you try to do it the legal way.
"oh but if you break the law you might get caught and go to jail" I hear you say
congratulations - you're already in their prison and with that attitude there is absolutely NO WAY OUT!
I'm not saying be a murderer here but do not pay taxes, do not pay for goods and services, steal from the corporations to line your own pockets. Pretty soon you'll be feeling the benefit. Or you may get busted and lobbed in jail. If you don't take the chance you'll never get out the one you're in.
That's your choice right there.
This is decent advice except when you introduce the added complication of having a family to support.
So are you suggesting that people just start playing a new game, but try to rewrite the rules to avoid the current popular game's failings?
I think it'd be better to just play solitaire. As in, prank the IRS buy giving them US Dollars instead of money.
yeah. solitaire. that's basically what i meant. the game itself isn't the game, the game is the fact that you're playing a different game.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 07, 2008, 02:23:51 AM
So are you suggesting that people just start playing a new game, but try to rewrite the rules to avoid the current popular game's failings?
I think it'd be better to just play solitaire. As in, prank the IRS buy giving them US Dollars instead of money.
:lol:
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 06, 2008, 04:18:49 PM
There is straightforward solution here - crime.
That's right, crime. Be a fucking criminal.
What do we know about crime? That's right - it's bad.
How do we know? Cos everybody says so. Everybody, who we already know have been brainwashed by ... thats right .. teh bad people.
So a bunch of crooks and liars have convinced us that "crime don't pay"
Trust me on this - I've tried both ways - crime is the only way to make an honest buck.
For a kick off you get taxted to death if you try to do it the legal way.
"oh but if you break the law you might get caught and go to jail" I hear you say
congratulations - you're already in their prison and with that attitude there is absolutely NO WAY OUT!
I'm not saying be a murderer here but do not pay taxes, do not pay for goods and services, steal from the corporations to line your own pockets. Pretty soon you'll be feeling the benefit. Or you may get busted and lobbed in jail. If you don't take the chance you'll never get out the one you're in.
That's your choice right there.
I'm all for not paying taxes, which you can avoid partially through bartering for as much as you can.
As for stealing... no. Although I don't feel pangs of conscience over stealing from giant corporations, it's still a soul-killing route because it feeds the inner sense of entitlement to the fruits of other people's labor. The thing is, you can make CHOICES about who you buy your goods and services from, and in many cases you can buy from sole proprietorships and individual craftspeople, supporting the people who are functioning in a way you find conscienable without sacrificing your own integrity.
yeah, but the local vegan co-op doesn't promise Low Everyday Prices.
plus if we all stopped buying stuff from corporations, doesn't that mean we're being dicks to the Chinese working class?
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 06, 2008, 04:18:49 PM
crime is the only way to make an honest buck.
If this hasn't already been added to the one-sentence meme-bomd thread, it should be. That's great.
Quote from: vexati0n on March 08, 2008, 04:16:01 AM
yeah, but the local vegan co-op doesn't promise Low Everyday Prices.
plus if we all stopped buying stuff from corporations, doesn't that mean we're being dicks to the Chinese working class?
:lulz: