3 ms·

> This is our world, and anyone telling us they get to gatekeep information exchange is not an ally Sorry, but this is a worldview that universally leads to na

> This is our world, and anyone telling us they get to gatekeep information exchange is not an ally Sorry, but this is a worldview that universally leads to nastiness. It's everyone's world, and just as I don't have the right to sleep in your bed (even though it's "our" world and who are you to stop "us"?) we have to have a non-low resolution and non-tribal view of situations. There is a way to think about this that clears that very low bar, and so this level of discourse is not necessary.

neves 2y ago
It's really interesting when people doesn't notice that the view of "copyright=pepper" is pure ideology.
- tivert 2y ago
  > ...view of "copyright=pepper" is pure... Huh?
amarcheschi 2y ago
Your example would more apt by saying "I don't have the right to sleep in a perfect copy of your bed". You're not literally preventing others (in this case, him) from accessing resources (the bed)
- c22 2y ago
  In this case the "resource" is ostensibly the contents of your wallet.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
The coherent way to think about this is in terms of the common good. In fact, the private good is for the sake of the common good: by being able to have private goods, we are better able to flourish (e.g., by removing conflict over common use). But because the common good is superior to private good, it is not the case that there is an absolute right to the private good. This doesn't mean principles of justice can be violated. On the contrary, it allows for them to be more perfectly realized. If you own a warehouse full of food in the middle of a famine, then it isn't theft for the hungry to take it, because you have a moral obligation to supply the starving with that food. The trouble with the liberal notion of property rights is that it has things exactly backwards. It posits private property as primary, and the common good as a perhaps regrettable, but necessary concession of the private good. But it is the common good that is prior and justifies the private good. So, in this case, does a company like Elsevier serve the common good?
- tivert 2y ago
  You are exactly right, especially with the example of the famine. Maybe in some cases moderate amounts of greed and selfishness can lead to the common good (though the market), but higher moral principles must always take priority with there's a conflict. Unfortunately a lot of people miss that, especially with the astounding amounts of free market propaganda out there, hocking incomplete models and nonsense like defining good as whatever the market does. If you find yourself in a famine with a warehouse of food, and your thought is "how can I exploit this situation for maximum profit" you are doing it wrong.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > higher moral principles must always take priority with there's a conflic People disagree about their higher moral principles. Resolving to absoluteness requires violent resolution.
    - tivert 2y ago
      > People disagree about their higher moral principles. Resolving to absoluteness requires violent resolution. And what do you think the implication of that is? For example, in the GGP's scenario about the warehouse of food in a famine? That point is often used as part of a non sequitur excuse to behave badly (e.g. people don't agree on everything, therefore lets have a free for all ruled by only the market).
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        This sort of extreme argument is silly. Yes in that instance you need bureaucrats who parcel out what's there. But almost all the time (except in countries where governed by "social good" politics, where millions have starved to death) you aren't in a life or death situation and can just proceed normally, producing what people want to consume, or being further back in the supply chain and producing what businesses want to consume, is by far the best approach. Let people decide what they want to do and what they want to buy, and leave them alone as much as possible to achieve that.
echelon 2y ago
The right analogy here is that you make 50% of the beds in the world and you are preventing anyone from buying sheets except from your own official supply. When someone wants to read a book in a bed you manufactured, you charge the author 30%. When someone wants to watch a TV show in a bed you manufactured, you take a cut of the subscription revenue and force them to use your accounts and billing system. When someone wants to have sex in a bed you manufactured, you have to vet them first and you only let them deploy on Tuesdays. And if they don't know the latest moves, they're out. Also they have to wear your condoms, meet people through your dating app, and pretty much obey your rules or they're banned from your beds. And the other bed manufacturer? You get kickbacks from them. It's just the two of you, controlling all the beds in the world. The problem is the bed shouldn't really be yours anymore. And you've extended your reach way beyond the original moment of sale into literally every activity the purchaser performs. Why does Apple get to control what dating apps I use? Why do they get a cut of Kickstarter revenue? Why can't I write software the way I want and give it away to others? It's just silicon, after all. Whatever happened to open computing and monopoly busting? Apple's vice grip just keeps getting tighter as they ensnare more and more of the world.

neves 2y ago

It's really interesting when people doesn't notice that the view of "copyright=pepper" is pure ideology.

tivert 2y ago
> ...view of "copyright=pepper" is pure... Huh?

amarcheschi 2y ago

Your example would more apt by saying "I don't have the right to sleep in a perfect copy of your bed". You're not literally preventing others (in this case, him) from accessing resources (the bed)

c22 2y ago
In this case the "resource" is ostensibly the contents of your wallet.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

The coherent way to think about this is in terms of the common good. In fact, the private good is for the sake of the common good: by being able to have private goods, we are better able to flourish (e.g., by removing conflict over common use). But because the common good is superior to private good, it is not the case that there is an absolute right to the private good. This doesn't mean principles of justice can be violated. On the contrary, it allows for them to be more perfectly realized. If you own a warehouse full of food in the middle of a famine, then it isn't theft for the hungry to take it, because you have a moral obligation to supply the starving with that food. The trouble with the liberal notion of property rights is that it has things exactly backwards. It posits private property as primary, and the common good as a perhaps regrettable, but necessary concession of the private good. But it is the common good that is prior and justifies the private good. So, in this case, does a company like Elsevier serve the common good?

tivert 2y ago
You are exactly right, especially with the example of the famine. Maybe in some cases moderate amounts of greed and selfishness can lead to the common good (though the market), but higher moral principles must always take priority with there's a conflict. Unfortunately a lot of people miss that, especially with the astounding amounts of free market propaganda out there, hocking incomplete models and nonsense like defining good as whatever the market does. If you find yourself in a famine with a warehouse of food, and your thought is "how can I exploit this situation for maximum profit" you are doing it wrong.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > higher moral principles must always take priority with there's a conflic People disagree about their higher moral principles. Resolving to absoluteness requires violent resolution.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > People disagree about their higher moral principles. Resolving to absoluteness requires violent resolution. And what do you think the implication of that is? For example, in the GGP's scenario about the warehouse of food in a famine? That point is often used as part of a non sequitur excuse to behave badly (e.g. people don't agree on everything, therefore lets have a free for all ruled by only the market).
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      This sort of extreme argument is silly. Yes in that instance you need bureaucrats who parcel out what's there. But almost all the time (except in countries where governed by "social good" politics, where millions have starved to death) you aren't in a life or death situation and can just proceed normally, producing what people want to consume, or being further back in the supply chain and producing what businesses want to consume, is by far the best approach. Let people decide what they want to do and what they want to buy, and leave them alone as much as possible to achieve that.

echelon 2y ago

The right analogy here is that you make 50% of the beds in the world and you are preventing anyone from buying sheets except from your own official supply. When someone wants to read a book in a bed you manufactured, you charge the author 30%. When someone wants to watch a TV show in a bed you manufactured, you take a cut of the subscription revenue and force them to use your accounts and billing system. When someone wants to have sex in a bed you manufactured, you have to vet them first and you only let them deploy on Tuesdays. And if they don't know the latest moves, they're out. Also they have to wear your condoms, meet people through your dating app, and pretty much obey your rules or they're banned from your beds. And the other bed manufacturer? You get kickbacks from them. It's just the two of you, controlling all the beds in the world. The problem is the bed shouldn't really be yours anymore. And you've extended your reach way beyond the original moment of sale into literally every activity the purchaser performs. Why does Apple get to control what dating apps I use? Why do they get a cut of Kickstarter revenue? Why can't I write software the way I want and give it away to others? It's just silicon, after all. Whatever happened to open computing and monopoly busting? Apple's vice grip just keeps getting tighter as they ensnare more and more of the world.