4 ms·
Yes, and yes. Property is theft. Monopoly on objects which have virtually zero cost to be duplicated can't be justified by any moral ground, so it's basically o
by psychoslave 1y ago
Yes, and yes. Property is theft. Monopoly on objects which have virtually zero cost to be duplicated can't be justified by any moral ground, so it's basically only possible with corrupted mind enforcing this as social policy using psychological manipulation since garden, and every brutal means that can impose them in the obey or suffer dichotomy mindset.
- fastball 1y agoYou believing all property is theft is very avant-garde of you, but at the same time it is not a stance the vast majority of the world agrees with (including Germany), so it hardly seems relevant to a constructive conversation centered around the behavior of German ISPs.
- psychoslave 1y agoIt's not avant-garde, the expression in this form for what I know was coined by the 19th century German philosopher Max Stirner. The nub of the issue though is not really if something is theft on a legal definitional level. Laws themselves are extremely rarely enacted by direct decisions of those who are commanded to follow them. so they don't reflect what the vast majority of people would consider moral, which often include reciprocity, fairness, and staying beneficial to the society as a whole rather than benefit a tiny minority with highly detrimental consequences for the rest of people.
- fastball 1y agoCopyright protects random individuals in the same way it protects corporations.
- psychoslave 1y agoSounds like "Weapons protects random knife holders in the same way it protects military–industrial complexes."
- fastball 1y agoNot sure I follow. Weapons don't protect the military-industrial complex in the same way. Guns do protect random individuals in the same way they protect military soldiers though.