3 ms·

Since software disproves the utility of authoritarian restraints on intellectual labor, you should only expect the defenders of patents to be incapable when it

Since software disproves the utility of authoritarian restraints on intellectual labor, you should only expect the defenders of patents to be incapable when it comes to physiology. Only animals with dysfunctional genetics would advocate for restrictions on vectors of progress. Naturally as a result of evolution summoning its own enemies following the destruction that years of evolution and growth orchestrates.

bbor 3y ago
I would express extreme incredulity at the argument that anyone who has different opinions than I do about intellectual property is deficient in any particular “physiological” way, especially a genetic one. For example an easy example, consider how all your favorite intellectual heroes from eras past were completely wrong about SO much - physics, astronomy, chemistry, and social ethics are common pain points. If Aristotle and Newton can be so wrong, then our opponents aren’t necessarily deficient. But also I’m being pedantic and I agree that the rise of IP laws is a natural consequence of IP having value in the first place.
- makerdiety 3y ago
  Impositions on intellectual property exist in the first place because the biologically deficient have cleverly acquired a violent weapon to inflict some substantial damage on those organisms which would exclude carriers of genes that evolution itself deems a failure. For evolution's unknown teleos toward fit species and individuals, whatever that particular end looks like according to evolution's grand designs for the world. Life isn't fair and doubly so under the regime of evolution and its objective reality. So there's going to be some antagonism coming from the losers of biological life. That biology affects the possession of technical equipment like software and the socio-cultural valuation of intellectual property laws, for instance, proves itself harmful to natural and effective technological development. The rejection of intellectual freedom incriminates itself in the sphere of natural selection and physical physiology. Blatant advertising and screening of bad genetic dispositions, rationally, for those who take the physical sciences seriously and who also would like to resist purely unnecessary games and drag on progress. But if information wants to be free, if technology wants to hook up with some smart and intelligent individuals, then it will try to find a way to such liberty. Enlisting the aid of free software hackers, for instance. And who knows what that villain would plan next if hacker geeks fail at being good henchmen for it.

bbor 3y ago

I would express extreme incredulity at the argument that anyone who has different opinions than I do about intellectual property is deficient in any particular “physiological” way, especially a genetic one. For example an easy example, consider how all your favorite intellectual heroes from eras past were completely wrong about SO much - physics, astronomy, chemistry, and social ethics are common pain points. If Aristotle and Newton can be so wrong, then our opponents aren’t necessarily deficient. But also I’m being pedantic and I agree that the rise of IP laws is a natural consequence of IP having value in the first place.

makerdiety 3y ago
Impositions on intellectual property exist in the first place because the biologically deficient have cleverly acquired a violent weapon to inflict some substantial damage on those organisms which would exclude carriers of genes that evolution itself deems a failure. For evolution's unknown teleos toward fit species and individuals, whatever that particular end looks like according to evolution's grand designs for the world. Life isn't fair and doubly so under the regime of evolution and its objective reality. So there's going to be some antagonism coming from the losers of biological life. That biology affects the possession of technical equipment like software and the socio-cultural valuation of intellectual property laws, for instance, proves itself harmful to natural and effective technological development. The rejection of intellectual freedom incriminates itself in the sphere of natural selection and physical physiology. Blatant advertising and screening of bad genetic dispositions, rationally, for those who take the physical sciences seriously and who also would like to resist purely unnecessary games and drag on progress. But if information wants to be free, if technology wants to hook up with some smart and intelligent individuals, then it will try to find a way to such liberty. Enlisting the aid of free software hackers, for instance. And who knows what that villain would plan next if hacker geeks fail at being good henchmen for it.