Hacker News Reader

You're responding to a comment which aims to make your same point.

Ah. Reading it again, I can see what you mean. Unfortunately I encounter a lot of people here who would write that comment in all seriousness, so if it was sarcastic I hadn’t noticed. I think I’m still not sure about that.

It was neither approving or sarcastic. It was simply the explaination for the supposedly unfathomable state of affairs.

I don't say I like it or that it's reasonable or fair, it wasn't approving.

It's not sarcastic because it's literally the actual explaination.

in the world that has become a parody of itself it is not unfathomable that the GP post was dead serious.

Aside note, but: "Hear, hear!". Until years ago, I would normally use that kind of mockery of absurd ideas by reciting adherence to impossible beliefs and opinions, with the implicit that nobody would hold them unless insane, so of course I was being purely ironic.

I do not do that anymore. The world is clearly full of cases for which absurdities are tenable - not by an odd minority, but by "(pseudo)random people". If you declare them, the presumption of irony is gone.

I'm not sure what dead serious means, but the comment was quite literal and simple.

Which is not to say that I approve, merely to state the root explaination for the insane state of affairs. You could say dead serious in the sense that I wasn't joking, that really is the explaination.

Libraries these days also offer movies, music, and some even have games. Should digital versions of all that stuff be free for all as well?

I can't say what we should or shouldn't do. But I think we would be better off if we did that. Notice I said that in order to make this viable we would want to make sure to provide for everyone so that no one's livelihood is threatened. I look at it this way: digital information has value. digital information can be copied for free. therefore we can copy value for free. if we leverage this principle we can generate a whole lot of value for essentially zero cost. this distribution of value would lead to more value creation, as for example children that grow up with access to way more books are probably more likely to produce more valuable art, science, and engineering output of their own.

I think we would be better off if we do this with movies, music, games, and engineering designs like designs for medical equipment, cars, etc. most of the standard economic arguments for intellectual property restrictions are wrong and short sighted, and I have heard them all. I think this concept is well worth exploring both philosophically and in practice

What are the benefits vs. deadweight losses of a copyright-maximalist regime?

Who benefits? Who loses? And to what extent?

And what would the net total cost of rectifying any shift of advantage to a copyright-minmalist regime be?

For that last, look to the net total annual revenues of commercial media.

And keep in mind that we're carrying out this discussion on a technological ecosystem founded in very large part on FSF Free Software / Open Source software.

> And keep in mind that we're carrying out this discussion on a technological ecosystem founded in very large part on FSF Free Software / Open Source software.

That's about as relevant as saying we should keep in mind we are carrying out this conversation on hardware mostly made in China (and most free software is also written on hardware made in China) so perhaps that is where we should be looking for answers.

No, it's not.

Your comment above suggested that stripping direct profit motive and incentives from copyright would produce a net harm. The Free Software model is based on the premise that stripping most exclusive rights under copyright, and specifically the ability to create new copies of, and new derivatives of works, is actually a net benefit to society, and often to the original author of a work who benefits by the collaborative and collective development and advancement of it.

One of the more fascinating characteristics of not only the Web but modern computing is that it's been the abandonment of proprietary interest in works (code, standards, protocols, operating systems) which have delivered the greatest value. AT&T did not voluntarily relinquish UNIX to the world, it was forced to do so under a 1950s US antitrust decree which granted the firm its monopoly in telecommunications but forbade it from engaging in the computer business.

https://www.softpanorama.org/History/Unix/unix_chonology.sht...

Arpanet, IETF, the GNU Project, TBL's CERN document-distribution project, Linux, multiple programming languages, and other elements are all based on the notion of non-proprietary ownership rights to the extent that free use and (generally) modification are permitted, often with little further restriction (MIT/BSD licenses), or with the requirement that further distribution also requires source availability in preferred form for making modifications (GNU GPL, AGPL, etc.).

That is: my comment was salient to the (implied) central fallacy of your previous statement. A foundation which your subsequent replies suggest is in fact your point.

Is there a good reason why not?

The broader class of cultural products includes different types of expression as subclasses: the discriminator is in the broader class - cultural products.

> libertarian society as long as we have community ownership of the means of production

Libertarianism includes the right to own property.

Also common ownership of the means of production is an old idea, and has been tried many times. It always results in poverty.

Ah hello Walter. I recognize your username as you and I have disagreed on this before.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t have the right to own property. But that a good way of organizing society is collective ownership of the means of production. If you are part owner in something with shares and a contract, that obviously still relies on property rights. That is how the stock market works after all.

EDIT: I am basically proposing a change in norms, rather than a change in rights. Currently the norm is individual private owners or ownership by a board of directors. I am proposing ownership by communities as a collective. Same rights involved, but a different norm.

Changing norms is a nice idea, but you'll have to lead by example I believe.

That said, I think privately- and collectively-owned enterprises can coexist (and compete!) just fine, and in a truly free market we'd see a healthy amount of both.

I am working on leading by example, though putting the pieces together for my career will take some time. I have so far already been working on this for a few years. I am spinning up a non profit open source project to design solar powered farming robots and I run two YouTube channels to promote my economic ideas and the farming robot project. Still, I do like to discuss the merits of the base philosophy here.

> in a truly free market we'd see a healthy amount of both

In the US, at least 10,000 collectives have been formed. You can form one any time you like. They're not illegal.

The US is a free country. You can form a voluntary collective any time you like.

To be perfectly honest this feels like a knee jerk response that fails to engage with what I am saying. Nowhere did I say I am being prevented from forming a voluntary collective. But obviously if I believe we should form an economy comprised of many collectives then I need to discuss this idea with other people! I literally cannot form a collective by myself. For my part I am working on a career trajectory that will allow me to co-found a collective that owns machines which produce free hot meals for people. But that is a few years away. Still I find it interesting that you want to argue without really thinking about what I am saying. Obviously forming collectives necessarily involves discussing these ideas openly with others.

There certainly is no shortage of people who believe as you do in collectives. Go ahead and form one with them.

> you want to argue without really thinking about what I am saying

I've thought about it for many decades. I'm not trying to suppress your discussion, ideas, or any efforts you may make towards creating a (voluntary) collective.

Feel free.

BTW, I read somewhere that over 10,000 collectives had been created in the United States. Where are they now? Oh, they all failed.

A famous one was the Summer of Love in San Francisco in the 1960s. It only lasted for a summer. Seattle's Summer of Love a couple years ago lasted a few days before imploding. (Google CHAZ - Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone)

> There certainly is no shortage of people who believe as you do in collectives. Go ahead and form one with them.

It really feels like you are not reading my comments. I just said in the comment you are responding to that I am working on this, but it is a few years away. That is not to say I am not doing anything now, but I have to lay the ground work. For me to say I am actively working on this and to read your response as "go ahead and do it then" really feels like you do not want to engage with what I am saying.

> BTW, I read somewhere that over 10,000 collectives had been created in the United States. Where are they now? Oh, they all failed.

They all failed? Walter, I can easily find a long list of active co-ops just in the Bay Area alone. It seems to me you are speaking with authority on a topic you don't know very much about. https://www.cooperationrichmond.org/coop-movement/worker-coo...

That said, failures do happen. Lots of privately owned businesses fail too. Would you suggest then that privately owned business as a concept is not viable?

I think what you are missing is that people in today's economy are suffering, and people are desperate for something to change. I suspect you are doing okay, and not desperate for change. Good for you. But the number of people in your position is literally dwindling from a statistical perspective in the USA. For everyone else, they cannot just sit comfortably and dismiss suggestions on how to change things. They need change, as for many it is literally a life and death situation.

> I can easily find a long list of active co-ops just in the Bay Area alone

A long list? A handful out of the zillions of companies in the bay area. It's statistical significance is zero. Some are charities, which are obviously not self-sustaining. I wouldn't be surprised if others were sustained by government checks. People start collectives in the US all the time, but the test is if they last. A typical collective seems to last about 2 years before imploding.

> Lots of privately owned businesses fail too. Would you suggest then that privately owned business as a concept is not viable?

Compare your list of a few communes with what's in the Yellow Pages for the area for the answer.

> I am working on this, but it is a few years away

While I wish you success in your endeavor, it's not really a collective unless you have other collective members signed up and collaborating with you. From much personal experience, I can attest that announcing one is working on something doesn't mean anything to anybody. It only matters if you've got something to deliver. I know that sounds harsh, and it is, but that's how things work.

> what you are missing is that people in today's economy are suffering, and people are desperate for something to change

I understand very well that they are suffering. They are suffering as the result of leftist government policies, not capitalism.

> A long list? A handful out of the zillions of companies in the bay area. It's statistical significance is zero.

You are moving the goal posts. You said "they all failed" but this is false. I was pointing out your error.

> Compare your list of a few communes with what's in the Yellow Pages for the area for the answer.

I believe from the above two quotes you are saying that co-ops have failed as a concept on their own merits. I.E. we can observe their relative popularity compared to hierarchical corporations and conclude that co-ops as an idea are a failure.

But of course, as you seem to be a libertarian capitalist, you must also believe in the correctness of ideas which have so far failed to gain traction. In fact there are many philosophical ideas throughout history which were superior to the status quo but had not gained traction. For example take democracy versus monarchy. Would you have looked at Europe 1000 years ago and concluded that democracy had failed in the marketplace of ideas? Certainly not. In the same way, cooperatively owned businesses are part of a broader labor movement which was systematically attacked by those in power to dismantle its strength.

One notable example is the Taft–Hartley act of 1947, which placed significant limitations on the legal right to strike or boycott. I am not an expert on the labor movement in the USA but without going in to an entire debate on the subject, you can understand how the existence of unions and cooperatives (which I lump together as part of a common labor movement) may not have failed purely on its own merits, but may have failed due to attacks from organized special interests. So without proving or disproving that claim, you can see how a simple examination of the state of the labor movement today is insufficient to conclude the merits of those ideas as they relate to the average person. Just as you could not look at Europe in 1000AD and conclude that democracy was an unworkable ideal, and that monarchy was obviously superior.

> I understand very well that they are suffering. They are suffering as the result of leftist government policies, not capitalism.

You mean the leftist government which placed significant limitations on the power of labor organizations? The leftist government which funds the largest war machine in human history? The leftist government that remains the only major country in the world without some form of universal health care? Sorry Walter, but only in the wild fantasies of FOX News commentators looking to get re-hired and Republican politicians trying to scare their base to secure their election is the USA a leftist government. Though to be clear, I am a libertarian communist and I want the US government to stay out of my way. This is why I advocate for cooperative ownership of the means of production and not government control of industry.

I appreciate that you finally chose to engage with what I was saying instead of dropping the same tired arguments I have heard and disproved so many times before. But of course I still disagree with your position. My issue with capitalism is not free markets. My issue with capitalism is direct control of our economy by an elite few who have class interests that run counter to the interests of the average person. The mismatch in interests between those in control (who seek power and profit) and the other 99% of the world population is what creates poverty and strife. And only when the people have control over the machinery that provides for their survival can we truly be free.

> Where are they now? Oh, they all failed.

Failing and disappearing is a feature. Failing and lingering on through violence and coercion is the real sin.

I doubt that you are free to share copyrighted information, even if you declare yourselves a voluntary collective.

You can contribute to your collective all of your property and intellectual property.

I suggest you contact all like-minded authors and suggest they join your book collective and donate all their intellectual property rights.

You say this as if this forum is not an appropriate place to begin to make such contact. We must discuss with other like minded people the merits of sharing our work as open source, but when people try to do that here it feels like you are saying they should go somewhere else to do it.

And we can certainly discuss the merits of our government granting ever increasing copyright terms. Copyright is not a natural concept, but an artificial one created by government agents. Surely this forum is a good place to question those choices and discuss alternatives.

I'm sorry if you inferred I thought your posts were inappropriate here. I do not think such, and it is not my intent.

Have you heard from any?

> copyright terms

I have a history here of advocating short copyright terms. I speak as someone who made a living selling copyrighted materials. The stuff I write today is all released under the Boost License, which is as close to public domain as it gets (because some countries have no legal concept of public domain).

I also have a history here of dispensing with patent laws, even though I hold some patents.

> I'm sorry if you inferred I thought your posts were inappropriate here. I do not think such, and it is not my intent.

Thank you for the clarification. When I try to discuss these ideas I feel like you respond, without asking what I have been doing to pursue this, by saying "go and start one then" "it's not illegal" "go find other people to talk to about this then", which feels very much like you do not think that is exactly what I am doing when discussing it here. It feels like you think I need to be somewhere else to be doing that. And it feels rude that you tell me to go and start one without understanding that I am laying the groundwork in my own life to be able to do something unprofitable indefinitely (my collective will be a non-profit collective). I cannot just quit my job and do that tomorrow, but I have been working very hard for years to arrange my life appropriately to follow that pursuit, and I have made great progress. Already I am getting several hundred dollars in donations to my non profit. Not enough to live off of, but I continue to produce youtube videos promoting my non profit engineering. Your comment of "go and start one then" feels very dismissive.

> Have you heard from any?

From like minded people? Yes! My generation is extremely interested in libertarian leftist ideas. In providing for everyone regardless of the market value of their skills. I run two small youtube channels where I promote these ideas, though there are many very large channels with millions of subscribers who talk about them with more skill than I can, as most of my time is dedicated to my non profit engineering organization.

I am glad we agree on copyright and patents. I too have a few patents but would prefer we dispense with patent laws. And I release everything of mine under permissive open source licenses.

It would be anarchist-communism. Sure, it has been tried, notably in Spain in the 1930s, but it was suppressed by the Marxists and Fascists. I don't think "it always results in poverty" has been reliably established.

You don't need to think about it - just point to one.