A few problems on this argument. First, you take a "you have to own your thoughts to be a person" to basically naturalize property. I guess it's fine as a normative philosophy? You may think this is the proper way of society to function, and that's fine. But is in no way a good descriptive model. "Ownership of thoughts" as a prerequisite to personhood implies that 1 - thoughts work like property in the sense you fully control them and their destiny and this control is guaranteed by law and 2 - lack of such control would imply in denial or loss of personhood. The second one is evidently problematic for the group of people with cognitive disabilities who would be ejected of humanity. More interestingly for our purposes however, 1 is completely against all.modern developments in biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology and neurology. Humans are social primates and as such they operate brains that are illogical machines whose thought processes are much more products of the environment than unique logically-processed enunciations. You are operatinh in a 19th-century positivist philosophical style where rationality is perfect isolate and can be perfectly applied by humens effortlessly. Not even science with all it's rigor sees itself operating in this world of purely isolated rationality. Second, and this is merely a sidenote but must be pointed out out of sheer prevalence among internet types: you clearly have no idea how fiduciary money works. Managing the money supply is not "piracy", it's exactly the job of a Central Bank. Its somewhat hilarious that you say you can't duplicate money and you have to correct yourself saying no the FED can totally do it and then calling them pirates for it. I don't know if you are aware of this but private banks that take cash deposits can also increase and decrease the money supply by varying their exposure to lending risk, or leverage - fiduciary money is what we call endogenous money, because it's supply varies based on internal factors. Duplicating money is possible because money is a social concract where we as a society agree to denominate our goods and services in a unit of measurement and to collectively assign the power of managing the representation of all goods and services produced by the economy to a set of institutions that at least ideally behave in accordance to democratic and constitutional principles. "Copying the currency" just means the FED believes the money supply is incompativle with the distribution of means of production in the economy and that it wishes to increase the supply in order to change this, usually by promoting consumption and therefore demand, usually in a bid to preserve employment. One would assume this means all the money in the public's hands would be devalued by the amount of copied money, and by assuming that you would be an adherent of the QTM, or Quantitative Theory of Money. Albeit not a dead theory like positivist cognition, QTM is not the most current or accepted theory of money, simply because it fails to recognize both that variations in the money supply affects production and therefore the overall economy's value (remember that fiduciary money is just a representation of the economic output of that society) and that value destruction and therefore inflation can happen outside of money supply variations. Second, the "stealing". You may not like the direction the FED takes because the money supply is at heart a locus of political dispute between societal groups. This is fine. You can't honestly call it stealing however, not without also admitting that certain societal groups have an inherent right to most of societies' wealth. Calling money printing stealing is a classic trickle-down economics position, and to assume it you must also adhere to the idea that the elites are inherently more capable and that leaving most of the money to them is the best outcome for society. Because printing money is most of the times a policy used when there is a diagnostic of a surplus in the financial economy (the part that does not pay salaries) and deficit in the real economy (the part that pays salaries). The societal groups with capital and access to financial markets has essentially blocked all forms of direct economic (non-militar that is) government action and tax reform to spur the real economy, and what's left as politically feasible is public debt and money printing (essentially because those are needed in recessions). This group then made money printing a boogeyman, "stealing", instead of what it is: a reresentation of the political dispute between the societsl gropus that depend on the real economy for income and those who do not. The middle class is usually terrified above all else of becoming destitute, so they usually overvalue the risk of inflation (the stock of wealth they already have and usually insufficient for sustaining life) and undervalue the risk of societal-induced unemployment (the flux of money they use to pay the bills, build wealth and that they individualize the risk on). Third, the kitchen analogy is bad. First there's the idea that if he has no idea that's his property then he's not a person. Second, he would still have the moral rights as inventor of the dish even if food was mandatory free software. Third, uh, in my country you do get to see the kit hen of a restaurant whenever you like. It's law, and it's exactly in place for situations where you begin to mistrust the kitchen and would like to know if you should call the equivalent of the FDA or something. Fourth, you are overvaluing the idea of the dish and undervaluing the execution and presentation as creators of value - many restsurants would hardly go out of business if all the recipes went online. Fifth and most importantly, FOOD IS NOT SOFTWARE DAMMIT. There are special recipes that are actually secret and the knowledge is an industrial advantage. It might surprise you, but in fact, there are no industry secrets technology-wise in the software industry. I'd even grant you that in some corners (game dev, some scientific research, military) there is behaviour unknown or at least hard to emulate (everybody sees CoD but no one quite gets the gunfeel or the performance 100% equal), but those are exceptions worthy of special treatment. Outside these cases, there are no pieces of software that can't be remade in the same level without ever looking at source code by hiring market available top shelf engineers. No Photoshop, no Mac OS, no John Deere tractor, mosdef no Zelda Tears of the Kingdom. The point is that this code and this functionality is usually feuded by patents, and their use is illegal. Did you know that Microsoft patebted the thing of dividing the screen in 2 with 2 apps? Did you know no one can iterate on the great nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor outside of shitty Shadow of War because WB Games patented it? Free software is not about the fucking source code. It's about copyleft, having forever permission to keep iterating on improving. The source code is there for simplicity and expediency.
So although you've put me in the positivist category, I'm actually operating in a Christian framework. That framework roughly being that God made the world and everything in it. And he made humans in his image. He owns his thoughts and all that he thought up. And so humans, as sub-creators, own their own thoughts and the things they think up. As for references to the federal reserve, you're correct. I think a central authority manipulating the society's money supply is bad and usually stealing. And regardless of the metrics used or intentions of that central authority, I don't think anyone should have that power. As for the food analogy, I agree that food is not software. But I'm sort of projecting the scenario of a chef into a fictitious world where every human thought is GPL'd. I get that he'd have inventor rights. But, in that world, I think an inventor is reduced to the level of a "soulless machine" - the machine that came up with the recipe first. I'm glad that's not the real world. In the real world people do have ownership of their thoughts and some do choose to GPL their code. I have no qualms with that. I mainly have issues with the rhetoric that says anything that's "non free software" is malicious and thus everything should be copy-able (this gets then applied to music, movies, etc.).
The moment you asserted this understanding of "soul" as some kind of axiomatic truth you immediately undermined any good faith discourse with your ideas. Which by the way are totally flimsy and lack any kind of specific nuance or conjecture. Genuinely hilarious given you literally preface the video by asking the viewer to hold on to their seats because you are “going deep” and end it with a surface level restaurant analogy that would seem questionable if given by a literal teenager, like its some kind of zinger.
I agree. I don't think every company or individual that tries to retain ownership of their intellectual property is inherently evil. The original author should be free to publish his works without access to the source code (assuming he doesn't use a GPL or similar license, which would make sense if he valued selling his product). That being said, I really do support the FOSS idea of sharing and providing basic utilities and even more advanced software for free. Things like text editors, browsers, office suites, photo editors, etc. are all pretty basic and IMO shouldn't require a significant one-time purchase or subscription (like MSO & Adobe Photoshop). The free alternatives are really great in that everyone has access to those types of products while not requiring software theft. And yes, I know FOSS is free as in freedom. I can't remember the last time I paid for software that wasn't a video game (and I'm not a thief, either). That's truly awesome considering where most software was 20-30 years ago.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
A few problems on this argument.
First, you take a "you have to own your thoughts to be a person" to basically naturalize property. I guess it's fine as a normative philosophy? You may think this is the proper way of society to function, and that's fine. But is in no way a good descriptive model. "Ownership of thoughts" as a prerequisite to personhood implies that 1 - thoughts work like property in the sense you fully control them and their destiny and this control is guaranteed by law and 2 - lack of such control would imply in denial or loss of personhood. The second one is evidently problematic for the group of people with cognitive disabilities who would be ejected of humanity. More interestingly for our purposes however, 1 is completely against all.modern developments in biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology and neurology. Humans are social primates and as such they operate brains that are illogical machines whose thought processes are much more products of the environment than unique logically-processed enunciations. You are operatinh in a 19th-century positivist philosophical style where rationality is perfect isolate and can be perfectly applied by humens effortlessly. Not even science with all it's rigor sees itself operating in this world of purely isolated rationality.
Second, and this is merely a sidenote but must be pointed out out of sheer prevalence among internet types: you clearly have no idea how fiduciary money works. Managing the money supply is not "piracy", it's exactly the job of a Central Bank. Its somewhat hilarious that you say you can't duplicate money and you have to correct yourself saying no the FED can totally do it and then calling them pirates for it. I don't know if you are aware of this but private banks that take cash deposits can also increase and decrease the money supply by varying their exposure to lending risk, or leverage - fiduciary money is what we call endogenous money, because it's supply varies based on internal factors. Duplicating money is possible because money is a social concract where we as a society agree to denominate our goods and services in a unit of measurement and to collectively assign the power of managing the representation of all goods and services produced by the economy to a set of institutions that at least ideally behave in accordance to democratic and constitutional principles. "Copying the currency" just means the FED believes the money supply is incompativle with the distribution of means of production in the economy and that it wishes to increase the supply in order to change this, usually by promoting consumption and therefore demand, usually in a bid to preserve employment. One would assume this means all the money in the public's hands would be devalued by the amount of copied money, and by assuming that you would be an adherent of the QTM, or Quantitative Theory of Money. Albeit not a dead theory like positivist cognition, QTM is not the most current or accepted theory of money, simply because it fails to recognize both that variations in the money supply affects production and therefore the overall economy's value (remember that fiduciary money is just a representation of the economic output of that society) and that value destruction and therefore inflation can happen outside of money supply variations. Second, the "stealing". You may not like the direction the FED takes because the money supply is at heart a locus of political dispute between societal groups. This is fine. You can't honestly call it stealing however, not without also admitting that certain societal groups have an inherent right to most of societies' wealth. Calling money printing stealing is a classic trickle-down economics position, and to assume it you must also adhere to the idea that the elites are inherently more capable and that leaving most of the money to them is the best outcome for society. Because printing money is most of the times a policy used when there is a diagnostic of a surplus in the financial economy (the part that does not pay salaries) and deficit in the real economy (the part that pays salaries). The societal groups with capital and access to financial markets has essentially blocked all forms of direct economic (non-militar that is) government action and tax reform to spur the real economy, and what's left as politically feasible is public debt and money printing (essentially because those are needed in recessions). This group then made money printing a boogeyman, "stealing", instead of what it is: a reresentation of the political dispute between the societsl gropus that depend on the real economy for income and those who do not. The middle class is usually terrified above all else of becoming destitute, so they usually overvalue the risk of inflation (the stock of wealth they already have and usually insufficient for sustaining life) and undervalue the risk of societal-induced unemployment (the flux of money they use to pay the bills, build wealth and that they individualize the risk on).
Third, the kitchen analogy is bad. First there's the idea that if he has no idea that's his property then he's not a person. Second, he would still have the moral rights as inventor of the dish even if food was mandatory free software. Third, uh, in my country you do get to see the kit hen of a restaurant whenever you like. It's law, and it's exactly in place for situations where you begin to mistrust the kitchen and would like to know if you should call the equivalent of the FDA or something. Fourth, you are overvaluing the idea of the dish and undervaluing the execution and presentation as creators of value - many restsurants would hardly go out of business if all the recipes went online. Fifth and most importantly, FOOD IS NOT SOFTWARE DAMMIT. There are special recipes that are actually secret and the knowledge is an industrial advantage. It might surprise you, but in fact, there are no industry secrets technology-wise in the software industry. I'd even grant you that in some corners (game dev, some scientific research, military) there is behaviour unknown or at least hard to emulate (everybody sees CoD but no one quite gets the gunfeel or the performance 100% equal), but those are exceptions worthy of special treatment. Outside these cases, there are no pieces of software that can't be remade in the same level without ever looking at source code by hiring market available top shelf engineers. No Photoshop, no Mac OS, no John Deere tractor, mosdef no Zelda Tears of the Kingdom. The point is that this code and this functionality is usually feuded by patents, and their use is illegal. Did you know that Microsoft patebted the thing of dividing the screen in 2 with 2 apps? Did you know no one can iterate on the great nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor outside of shitty Shadow of War because WB Games patented it? Free software is not about the fucking source code. It's about copyleft, having forever permission to keep iterating on improving. The source code is there for simplicity and expediency.
So although you've put me in the positivist category, I'm actually operating in a Christian framework. That framework roughly being that God made the world and everything in it. And he made humans in his image. He owns his thoughts and all that he thought up. And so humans, as sub-creators, own their own thoughts and the things they think up.
As for references to the federal reserve, you're correct. I think a central authority manipulating the society's money supply is bad and usually stealing. And regardless of the metrics used or intentions of that central authority, I don't think anyone should have that power.
As for the food analogy, I agree that food is not software. But I'm sort of projecting the scenario of a chef into a fictitious world where every human thought is GPL'd. I get that he'd have inventor rights. But, in that world, I think an inventor is reduced to the level of a "soulless machine" - the machine that came up with the recipe first. I'm glad that's not the real world. In the real world people do have ownership of their thoughts and some do choose to GPL their code. I have no qualms with that. I mainly have issues with the rhetoric that says anything that's "non free software" is malicious and thus everything should be copy-able (this gets then applied to music, movies, etc.).
Gross misrepresentation of the free software philosophy.
In what way?
In what way?
Not the followers: a huge chunk of FOSSers don't believe in intellectual property and will pirate arguing you can't own stuff like that anyway.
I love the video. Thanks!
The moment you asserted this understanding of "soul" as some kind of axiomatic truth you immediately undermined any good faith discourse with your ideas. Which by the way are totally flimsy and lack any kind of specific nuance or conjecture. Genuinely hilarious given you literally preface the video by asking the viewer to hold on to their seats because you are “going deep” and end it with a surface level restaurant analogy that would seem questionable if given by a literal teenager, like its some kind of zinger.
In my (Christian) understanding of the world, God created humans as living souls. And so having a soul _is_ axiomatic.
I agree. I don't think every company or individual that tries to retain ownership of their intellectual property is inherently evil. The original author should be free to publish his works without access to the source code (assuming he doesn't use a GPL or similar license, which would make sense if he valued selling his product).
That being said, I really do support the FOSS idea of sharing and providing basic utilities and even more advanced software for free. Things like text editors, browsers, office suites, photo editors, etc. are all pretty basic and IMO shouldn't require a significant one-time purchase or subscription (like MSO & Adobe Photoshop). The free alternatives are really great in that everyone has access to those types of products while not requiring software theft. And yes, I know FOSS is free as in freedom.
I can't remember the last time I paid for software that wasn't a video game (and I'm not a thief, either). That's truly awesome considering where most software was 20-30 years ago.