The Anarchist in the Library 377
| The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System | |
| author | Siva Vaidhyanathan |
| pages | 256 |
| publisher | Basic Books |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | The Importance of |
| ISBN | 0465089844 |
| summary | A thoughtful but pointed examination of the sparring roles of centralized control and anarchy in the control of and creation of information. |
Basically, the book puts the information battles relating to culture and copyright into a broader context, ranging from Parisian enlightenment cafes through the latest copyright battles to the Zapatistas and Falun Gong. Unlike many recent books that deal with these issues, Siva doesn't approach them from a legal perspective so much as from a political/cultural/media theory basis. But don't let that scare you, the book is as readable as it is wide-ranging.
At its most basic level, The Anarchist in the Library is about control of information, both cultural and political. As Siva says in the last chapter, "This book was supposed to be about entertainment - the battle over control of digital music, text, and video ... But as I researched this new project, the world shifted beneath my feet ... My concerns moved to the regulation and control of all sorts of information, much of it cultural, much of it political." Thus, throughout the book, Siva contrasts two very different regimes of information control: oligarchy and anarchy.
Oligarchy we are all familiar with. It is the traditional, centralized control of information by the few. It is the system that, for the most part, we all grew up with and continues to be the default today. On the other hand, we've all heard of anarchy, but most of us aren't familiar with its deeper meanings and history. Siva helps us to understand anarchy as a serious positive political philosophy, something more than merely a reaction to oligarchy. To his credit, however, Siva fully endorses neither position. His is a course of moderation, avoiding the excesses and pitfalls of both sides.
The other theme that runs throughout the book is that of cynicism. Here Siva contrasts the civically engaged cynicism of the Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, with the narcissistic cynicism of Seinfeld's George Costanza. Why cynicism? In Siva's words, "What could be a more ideal environment for a cynic than cyberspace...?" The question, however, is whether and how we can promote the responsible and humane cynicism of Diogenes vs. the shallow, rude and selfish cynicism of Costanza. Of course, it sort of depends on how you define rude. To make a point, Diogenes once masturbated in the market square. Says Siva, with tongue in cheek but also a valid point, "And nothing represents the overall nature and substance of the Internet better than masturbating in the marketplace."
Diogenes' zealous humanity is also an especially important consideration of Siva's. Whenever possible, Siva emphasizes consideration of the humane over cold theory. It is this concern with the humane, I think, that draws Siva from engaging with Metallica's issues with P2P to questions of terrorism and networks.
Framed by these themes, Siva proceeds to dig through the many information control issues that have come to the fore these past few years or so. He starts with Peer-to-Peer, of course, and moves through many of the issues constantly showing up in "Your Rights Online" such as MP3s, DeCSS, the broadcast flag, the Phantom Edit and many, many others. The path is not random, however; Siva is demonstrating the reactions between oligarchic control and anarchic response in the creation of culture, and that culture requires, even demands, some anarchy in order to thrive.
From this point, Siva begins to leave the world of digital rights and begins to explore other means of controlling information and culture, such as the subtle, sometimes nearly invisible assumptions made by many international institutions through trade policy and market regulations. The book also discusses how information and cultural controls (such as the PATRIOT Act) grow out of security concerns and fear.
At this point in the book, some readers who might have been nodding along in agreement so far may begin to disagree with some of the points Siva makes, as he takes on the WTO riots, "Techno-Libertarianism," and the war in Iraq. But the book is no thoughtless, radical polemic; it seeks a moderate, well-articulated and researched middle ground.
In the end, Siva's moderation is demonstrated as he concludes that there are seldom easy answers in a world where control of information and culture is sometimes necessary. Without giving specific answers, Siva argues for approaching problems from a particular perspective: with engaged, humane cynicism and a commitment to civic republicanism, both within and without our borders. It is a perspective well worth reading about.
[Full disclosure: I've met Siva a couple of times at conferences and corresponded with him by email on occasion. I would consider him a friend in the fight against copyright maximalism.]
You can purchase The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews. To see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Is this in english? (Score:2, Funny)
Ummm, this means that Seinfeld was right to live across from Kramer, right?
Re:Is this in english? (Score:2)
We are all anarchists (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see a more nuanced definition of anarchy than we usually get in the mainstream news. For example, with the political conventions almost upon us, and protests scheduled for each, watch how often the mainstream press managed to slip in the word "anarchists" to describe some of the protestors, with the implication that anarchists are only interested in causing destruction.
In fact, here on /., we are all anarchists (well, other than the Microsoft toadies and PR people and the like). We don't want centralized control of information, but rather a free flow of ideas. Whoa, dude, like that makes us like anarchists or something! Relax, doesn't mean you're going to throw a brick through a Starbucks windows. Real anarchists don't do such destructive acts. That's the job of undercover police officers trying to make protestors look bad (I joke, I joke, such a thing could never, ever happen, huh?)
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:5, Insightful)
At it's core, Anarchy has a faith in mankind. The general reasoning is that any form of government can become corrupt because the people it is comprised of can become corrupt. The only revolution that will really change things is a social one, one that deals with people. If that can be achieved, then the question of what system of government to use comes down to one of efficiency, which is anarchy. Anarchy is more efficient because it is willing and unrestricted co-operation.
Anarchy is a faith in people's ability to work together without coercian. It is most definitely not disorganisation - just lack of control.
It's rather cruel to post a geocities site on
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Its good reading.
Mod parent "+1 insightful" (Score:2)
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:3, Interesting)
Tad of a contradiction, no?
Well, no actually, although I see how you read my post. Getting past our corruption is a pre-requisite for a successful anarchist society, hence the dream of such a society holds the implicit faith in mankind's ability to achieve such a state.
1) abolish the state 2) ???? 3) utopia!
I think it's worth taking a little longer to consider anarchist theory in depth before dismissing it - there is a great deal out there. One thing worth mentioning is that anarchism is not 'ab
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Well, no actually, although I see how you read my post. Getting past our corruption is a pre-requisite for a successful anarchist society, hence the dream of such a society holds the implicit faith in mankind's ability to achieve such a state.
The way I like to think about it is that where Madison says "If men were angels, they would need no government" the anarchist says "If men were angels, they could be trusted with government." The very act of legitimizing, and centralizin
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
And this is where radical Transhumanism parts company with anarchism. We recognize that humans have no ability to do this. It's simply not in primate hierarchical dominance/submission neurology. Human fear trumps all reason. Always.
However, if you do away with human nature, anything becomes possible. This is Transhumanism.
Or at least radical Transhumanism - most of the so-called "Transhumanists" are clo
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
I am aware that there is a so-called "Christian anarchism" movement (which is even tinier than the regular anarchism movement). It's a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron - and for morons only.
I understand that what you mean is that the so-called ideals of Christianity are similar to those of anarchism in soc
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:4, Informative)
Oligarchy is the leadership of the few
Hierarchy Leadership by level (height)
anarchy the 'an' prefix means 'without' or 'not needing' as in anerobic bacteria (don't need air). or anachronism (outside it's time).
Anarchy is not the same as disorder. It's a situation where there are not static leaders. People might (and often do) show up to take things on, and gain respect for what they do. Other people can (and sometimes do) come in and duplicate and/or replace those other active and respecte members.
In an anarchy, one does not get respect by being a leader. One becomes an effective leader as a function of gained respect.
The early years of The Internet were especially like this. Anybody who wanted to could easily put their two bits into any discussion. Standards really became standards by use, and the years (sometimes) of discussions leading up to the creation of 'official' net standards occured because people realized that getting a consensus meant two things:
1: If everybody agreed, it would get wide implementation and acceptance very quickly.
2: If everybody agreed, there was likely not to be any big, unexpected, 'show-stoppers'.
( A side-effect was that internet protocols tended to allow a lot of freedom, such that things like the world wide web and P2P could be become centerpieces of the 'net more than a decade after the underlying protocols were designed).
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2, Interesting)
The best pragmatic definition of an anarchist I know is "Someone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do."
KFG
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
If I hadn't already posted umpteen times in this thread, I would mod you funny, or insightful. If you weren't already listed as a friend, I'd add you now.
As it is, I'll simply have to steal your quote and use it as often as I can. V. nice.
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker.
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
This is the only authority to which anyone should defer - and only after due consideration.
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Disagreements between two people who fervently believe opposing points of view (vi vs. EMACS, Republican vs. Democrat, Christianity vs. Islam vs. everyone else, and so on) are eventually going to get to a point where one is going to go their way, the other's going to go theirs, and join
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
an ill-flowing anarchy can degrade into a nasty situation.. At that point it becomes necessary for the people in the anarchy to 'put down' such nastiness.
In general, I'd suggest that rule by power developing out of an anarchy is the creation of a heirarchy which is (once again) very differ
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
And you're also saying that the natural state of humans is to form dominance/submission hierarchies.
Correct on both counts.
Which is why radical Transhumanism supports anarchism as a political philosophy, but does not assume anarchism can work any more than any other social organization. The term "social organization" when applied to humans is an oxymoron. It's either a dominance/submission hierarchy or it's chaos.
As Bill
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Heh! I think I might be that other poster. If Utopia breaks out then as you say, all systems of government would work and we'd simply pick the most efficient. Which would almost certainly be Anarchy: witness the Linux development cycle compared to Windows for an illustration of this.
I want to emph
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Me thinks they missed the nuances...
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
And before you say it, I'm about as far from a Microsoft toady as they come.
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
If you ever find one in reality or anytime in history, let me know. And don't even think of referring to any extant nation or the early United States.
I'm not holding my breath. Utopia is more likely to come first.
In fact, the entire concept is an oxymoron. All government is and must of necessity be both coercive and imperialistic. It is only the degree of coercion and imperialism that v
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Oh, Jesus Baron Von Christ, spare me from another "armchair anarchist"!
Oh, wait, you're right. "Real" anarchists - i.e., actual "anarchists" that exist - don't do these things.
Which is why REAL anarchists don't exist. (Except me, and I did my time in the Federal joint.)
Get a clue. If you're NOT SHOOTING "undercover police officers", you AIN'T an "anarchist". You're a PUNK.
And I mean that in the prison sense.
And, yes, most of the so-called "anarchists
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Please explain.
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never understood if there is one political ideology based on anarchy or two. One where people think it's good to smash windows and one where they do not (and, presumably, a lot of other stuff).
The same can be applied to Capitalism, Christianity and just about any other group you care to name that doesn't have strict membership control.
I'll speak first as someone who has participated in some very large protests (mainly anti-war) which have attracted a large number of people who describe themselves as anarchist. The vast majority were very peacable, even one time in the face of police aggression in Bristol, UK. Nor did they support property damage. They pretty much denounced such people as not being proper anarchists in the same way that hackers denounce script kiddies, muslims denounce Al Quaeda and Americans denounce Bush (at least on
However, I would say that the most fundamental definition of anarchy is that mankind is better off living without central control than with and this does not comment on violence one way or another. Nevertheless, few anarchists have such a low-level definition of anarchy. You can find anarcho-captialist factions, anarcho-socialist factions, and others, but most (all?) of these begin to denounce violence. Once you begin to use violence to get your way then whatever your intentions were, you'll find it very hard to stop using violence.
The non-window smashing anarchy that you are interested in consists of finding ways of returning people's repsonsibility for their lives to them, taking it back from the government. The example I usually use is local currencies. See here [calgarydollars.ca], but as I'm on
In this sense Anarchy seems very much like a more humane capitalism; humane because anarchists are usually very community orientated. They have to be community orientated because the intention is to replace Government force with self-governance. However, likening anarchy to enlightened capitalism is only my view. Others will draw closer parallels to Socialism. In reality it is neither - it is simply the belief that mankind functions better working together willingly and co-operatively, than he does through force and the threat of force (which is what government is based on.) If you find your belief falls under this then it is in accord with anarchism.
There are few hard and fast definitions, but like hacking, it is only outsiders who think anarchism==criminal. More depth can be found here [geocities.com]. Whether you agree with anarchism or not, if you find a group of them, you can usually be sure of some lively political debate.
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
While virtually all anarchists oppose coercion, many historical anarchists believed that only violence against the state - even crime - was the only proper way to destroy the state. They were never successful, however, because their tactics tended to be simplistic.
The first use of a car in an armed b
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:3, Informative)
The latter has devolved and been co-opted by punks (in both senses of the word) who just think it's cool to spray paint "A" on things and wouldn't know who Proudhon was if you hit them with a copy of
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
the idea that everyone will just rise up and wipe out the nation-state system and then live in h4rm0ny with no government just comes off a tad naive
It always was. Not necessarily because it was impossible (it's happened repeatedly throughout histroy), but because revolutions always go 360 degrees with the new faction merely becoming like the old faction - they aren't called revolutions for nothing. A lot of modern anarchists feel that the best approach is not to overthrow the government but to supplant
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Why would working people be pissed? It's not their property. I've been the guy replacing the stolen/vandalized thing a few times, and it didn't even mildly annoy me. I got paid by the hour. I probably owe many hours of gainful employment to people's larcenous and destructive nature.
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
I might as well call George Bush a student becaues he studies secret CIA reports.
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Funny, my definition of anarchism is slightly different, and may be based on a dictionary denotation rather than an historical connotation. Anarchism, in my definition, is the absence of government control, period. No government. It's Adam Smith (classical) liberalism taken to the logical conclusion, libertarianism at it's purest, and the worst thing to happen to a Marxist since the founding of the New York Stock Excha
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Excuse me.
There is also a branch of anarchism which is based on the free market and opposes socialism.
"the idea that everyone will just rise up and whipe out the nation-state system and then live in harmony with no government just comes off a tad naive."
Yes, this idea is naive. There are, however, other means to destroy the state (and religion and most other coercive human institutions as well). We radical Transhumans will use them instead.
You are correct, however, that the depth of anarchist tho
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Social defense is not government.
Government is a monopoly on coercive behavior, as a definition. In practice, government is an extortion/protection racket. Government says, "You give us everything you have and do exactly as we tell you, and we'll protect you from the 'bad guys' inside and outside our borders - and if there aren't any 'bad guys', we'll pass some laws to make some." It's rule based on fear.
And you don't need an "ever-ready" police/military to defend against 'bad guys'. All you ne
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
"Libertarian" is a co-opted term. The original meaning of "libertarian" (small L) in Europe was "anarchist".
A bunch of US political philosophers co-opted the term in the 20th Century (most of them followers of Ayn Rand) to mean free-market statists (an oxymoron, but no surprise there).
A few (very confused) anarchists continued to maintain membership in the Libertarian Party even when it became clear that, to use Bob Black's words, the Libertarians were little more than "Republicans who smoke d
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
Just because some left anarchists decide to vote the free-market anarchists out of the movement doesn't make it true.
Free market anarchism has a history in the United States which is just as illustrious as the left anarchists. Left anarchism arose in Europe and never had a clue about the free market because most Europeans never had a clue about the free market.
Anarchism is against exploitation, but private property is not exploitation. It is the natural state of humans. "Capitalism" as it
Re:We are all anarchists (Score:2)
It's your assumption that's wrong.
Anarchy != disorder (entropy).
Order doesn't necessarily require centralized C&C -- it can also happen bottom-up in an emergent fashion. Witness evolution, or an ant colony.
--
Anarchy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Anarchy (Score:2)
Why do anarchists drink herbal tea? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why do anarchists drink herbal tea? (Score:2)
"Property is theft" is one his quotes.
Do note he also said "Property is freedom" (or something like that, I forget the exact set of quotes.)
Some people think he was just being French. Others that he was actually making a point that whether you consider property theft or not depends on what property and how you acquire it and other constraints on the concept.
Quote from the article. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, I know that to elaborate on this one should read the fine book, anyway: the problem is not whether information and culture should be controlled, but the fact that in modern world such control Cannot Be Achieved without artificial barriers imposed to the people. Most people resent that and they are right.
In other words, one thing is the government censoring the press and the tv, but censoring internet access and fruition is different. It's more personal, like revoking freedom of speech.
Control of Culture? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was with him till this sentence. The control of culture is sometimes necessary???
I for one do not welcome our new Brittany spears-Clearchannel-Fox news overlords....
As for the control of information, that imo is a red-herring too. In a "free" society, there should be no control of information as the free flow of information is crucial to an informed citizenry, and thus to civilian oversight of governmental deeds and misdeeds.
Re:Control of Culture? (Score:3, Insightful)
These types of information I can see as being controlled by nessessity.
Also, some cultural behaviours are deemed anti-social. Such as cannibalism. In some places this might have been acceptable, but in others it is not. Should this be uncontrolled?
I'm all for freedom of information and freedom of expression, but not when it's damaging to other people.
Re:Control of Culture? (Score:2)
Re:Control of Culture? (Score:2)
By dangerous information I meant something that will most probably be used in an inappropriate way. Such as releasing detailed schematics and a step-by-step guide on making a powerful nuclear suitcase bomb for under £100 using nothing but household items (I know this is a silly example but you get the point...right?). I don't mean day to day peices of information that can be made dangerous in the way it's percieved.
Secondly, by anti-social I meant in a harmful way
There is the rub, (Score:2)
"Infringes" to me means I do physical harm to you or your property. Thus, I would say you can use all the drugs you want, just dont get behind the wheel. Either we realize that freedom means leave your neighbor alone, even if he makes choices
Re:There is the rub, (Score:2)
I agree with this. The problem with most of these 'rights' that are being 'infirnged' on, is that they cause some kind of intangible harm. (the best example would be 'market value' harm. 'My neighbors weeds and ugly yard are harming my home value')
The problem here is that there is no action (or lack of action) that does not have some effect on the market value of something. That means nothing is off limits - and the net result is that t
Re:Control of Culture? (Score:2)
Yes. Definitely. Culture is nothing but Control.
It _IS_ necessary to control 'culture', but what
This is one of those area's where there are no true absolutes.
Yes, cultures must control themselves, lest they ignore the fundamental rudiments of human existence (eat, sleep, drink, fuck, shit, die), but at the same time, cultures must maintain an excellent pace of change, lest the
Re:Control of Culture? (Score:2)
So should we tag everyone with any knowledge of chemistry or biology?
Also, I believe the founding fathers would disagree with you regarding the control of knowledge. Most of the guns they used to overthrow the British, (which was by the way a TERRORIST action against established authori
Re:Control of Money? (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy on the crack pipe there buddy - in Europe, Republicans would be defined somewhere between conservative and fascist. Democrats would fall between liberal and conservative. You don't have any socialists since they all fled to Canada a long time ago.
Cynicism? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, yeah. Sure it does.
Anarchy as information control? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps this is explained in the book, but I don't think it's obvious how anarchy [wikipedia.org] is a "regime of information control."
If you have that messy [cia.gov] sort of anarchy - the type that usually just means no central authority in what people still want to consider a state - then it's not really the anarchy that's controlling your information, it's the control structures that have taken hold in the absence of central power.
This is probably just a case of lazy writing, but I wish there were an explanation of what the reviewer meant here.
Re:Anarchy as information control? (Score:2)
I think the reviewer probably meant:
i.e. having some characteristics of oligarchy or anarchy respectively. However, I'm expect Siva explains what he means in detail in his book.The Right To Stay The Same. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Natural Universe already takes its toll on every single word. Entropy is a tempest. As human beings, if there is one thing that our cultures has produced, is the evident desire to be something.
The right to be extends to authors. If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
So far, technology has produced the paradox that it is simultaneously capable of reproducing things, perfectly, and guarantee'ing their 'sameness'
People who have something to say, have a right to be heard. That right includes the stipulation that, if you are relaying what someone has to say about something, to someone else, you have a responsibility not to alter that work.
Its an absolute, and we all know how impossible they can be, but change for the sake of change is destructive
And we know how tired a philosophical stance that is. Booo---orring... Bring on the real intellectuals, the ones who are capable of a little more than just pedantic materialism...
Re:The Right To Stay The Same. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you write something what you write still exists even if someone makes a new version that has been changed.
To put it in terms a programmer can understand Larry Wall put it like this: "When perl 6 comes out you'll still have perl 5, you aren't going to lose anything"
Also authors are always so paranoid thinking someone is going to go tinkering with their work. Think of how many classic texts are out of copyright? Do people read some kind of funky edited redo version of Kant or
Re:The Right To Stay The Same. (Score:3, Insightful)
authors [...] have a right to not have their works consistently and persistently changed
No. Rights are the actual benefits of the social contract, and as the latter changes the former obviously do too. If there is no god-given social contract, there cannot be god-given rights. Inasmuch gods vary from society to society, there can't be the god-given social contract, hence your categorical assertion is mere wishful thinking.
In "primitive" societies without the concept of authorship, the bards and singer
An author responds (Score:2)
I'm an author (published several magazine articles, have completed my first book, looking for an agent to represent me now), and I don't agree with your statement. Yes, if I decide to place my novel on the Web, I don't want someone to alter it and claim that this is the original work. But I'm well aware that my book will find its way all over
Re:An author responds (Score:2)
you may hope to profit, but that is just a hope! your words defeat you while they also glorify your existence!
its a paradox. get over it---
That EXACTLY is the GPL ideals. You make it and release it to whomever will listen/use.
This is also the EXACT reason why many musicians are paid. Listening to a cd is static.. So you pay them for THEIR time and for THEIR skills. Would you rather have a CD play songs at a weddin
Re:The Right To Stay The Same. (Score:3, Insightful)
Says whom?
You have a right to speak, certainly. I'm not so sure about a right to be heard. What does that mean, anyway?
Re:The Right To Stay The Same. (Score:2, Insightful)
--
Karma to burn... (Score:4, Insightful)
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
-Percy Bysshe Shelley
1792-1822
Re:The Right To Stay The Same. (Score:3, Insightful)
wrong.
They have the right to say it, but they do not have the right to make people hear it.
Re:The Right To Stay The Same. (Score:2)
Re:The Right To Stay The Same. (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I haven't read the book
The right to not have their works consistently and persistently changed -- where does it come from? It's possible that such a right exist, but if it does I'd like
Not by a long shot (Score:2)
The right to be extends to authors. If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
You have no such right.
Anyone anywhere can infer that you said X or claimed Y, and no amount of legislation can prevent that. The fundamental process of thought is one that involves taking the thoughts of others as a base for which to build new ideas. In any universe in which you are not the only person your wish is impossible.
If you want p
Re:The Right To Stay The Same. (Score:2)
I didn't walk away from "The Anarchist In the Library" with anything more than yet-another dialectic view that 'the only true alternative to something is its opposite' ... Bring on the real intellectuals, the ones who are capable of a little more than just pedantic materialism...
Ok. How's this for starters ...
"Broadly speaking, a dialectic is an exchange of propositions (thesis) and counter-propositions (anti-thesis)resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions or at least a qualitative transf
Re:The Right To Stay The Same. (Score:2)
the fact is, the second your work is published, it begins to change by the mere fact that the context in which the present day is viewing it is changing. you can
Nice troll *chomp* (Score:2)
But that would be *gasp* un-scientific and therefore "irrational".
As human beings, if there is one thing that our cultures has produced, is the evident desire to be something.
If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
If "being" is to be strived for, how can it also be a basic/inalienable right? Isn't it more approp
Where Can I Ddownload a Bootleg Copy of this Book? (Score:2)
Re:Where Can I Ddownload a Bootleg Copy of this Bo (Score:2)
In a deep sense, I agree. The earth has been around for billions of years before humans showed up. Nobody can claim ownership rights to the land. However, for the sake of getting along, I think the land should be divided, not for a price, but for an inheritance for us, our children and their children. After all, we are territorial animals.
Is the book copyrighted? (Score:2)
Re:Is the book copyrighted? (Score:2)
I 'm not trolling... (Score:2)
but how do you pronounce this guys name?
Seriously now. I just want to know.
thoughtless radical vs moderate well-articulated (Score:5, Insightful)
"But the book is no thoughtless, radical polemic; it seeks a moderate, well-articulated and researched middle ground."
Looks someone has been eating up those top-down memes with a spoon! And a big spoon, too!
Look, radicals are just about the only humans who actually DO think; everyone else just outputs a program. Well, that may be a little overbroad, but that is the gist of it.....
Re:thoughtless radical vs moderate well-articulate (Score:2)
A little overbroad?
That's funny, there are some religous radicals out there who blew up some large buildings somewhere.. they thought god really wanted them to I guess. Or so someone told them.
Care to clarify what you mean by "radical" now?
Ya see, becaus
Anarchy, Chaos and a middle ground (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the more interesting aspects of Libertarian politics is a dedication to the principles of the constitution of the US, the Declaration of Independence, and other such things. As "The Importance Of" points out, this is a middle ground.
The original copyright and patent, for example, was enacted for only a limited time. This bears little resemblance to todays unlimited copyright. The abuse is based on the fact that politicians have only one motivation: Election. They sell law to the highest bidder.
This looks like a good book, and I hope to find a pirate e-version on the P2P networks soon.
(oh no, I'd never do that. really.)
Bob-
Anarchy and Chaos - one and the same? (Score:4, Interesting)
In the real world, there's little difference. Sooner or later, someone will make a choice that relieves you of a choice-- robbery, rape, murder, etc.
Larry Niven wrote an excellent short story on this, called Cloak of Anarchy (http://www.larryniven.org/stories/cloak_of_anarc
One could argue what point Mr. Niven was trying to make, but when I read it, I was well into being an anarchist, and that story started me on the road out.
Re:Anarchy and Chaos are not the same thing. (Score:2)
I submit that chaos happens anyway, just like proton decay. It is the vast majority of us who are peaceful and respectful of others that end up paying the price of such "order" as drug prohibition, income tax and elimination of Habeas Corpus.
All for our own good, of course.
The Austrian School of Economics philosophers and Nobel Lauriates point out that it requires government to c
Anarchy is simply without force. (Score:2)
Maybe a good middle ground, like Libertarianism, would suit both your desire for choice and your desire for peaceful institutions.
Bob-
Re:Anarchy and Chaos - one and the same? (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to dig deeper before making such assumptions. Anarchy does not mean that security cannot exist -- it simply means that security would be provided through private enterprise (voluntary cooperation) rather than a forced collective. There is no objective reason why a service currently achieved through force couldn't be achieved through voluntary participation.
In t
Something you forgot to mention... (Score:2)
Re:Anarchy, Chaos and a middle ground (Score:2)
Re:Anarchy, Chaos and a middle ground (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a time when "Libertarian" meant being aware of the holes in those documents as well.
I see that time has passed. Big surprise.
I guess Bob Black is more right than ever: "Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke dope."
But then the big-L "Libs" were always just "limited statists" - and never as "limited" as they w
Cynics (Score:5, Informative)
It should be noted that the philosophical cynicism of the old Greeks has very little in common with the ironical and misanthropical sort of cynicism we think of these days. It's the same word, but a very different concept.
Philosophical cynicism was based on a doctrine of self control and asceticism. George Costanza's sort of cynisism is completely unrelated, and not philosophical at all -- it's just an attitude. Contrasting these seem pointless to me, but I haven't read the book. Diogenes was a funny guy, though.
My first thought was. . . (Score:2)
And then I realized I'd totally mis-read the word, "Anarchist".
-FL
Who among us hasn't.... (Score:2)
Back when they were actual cards, of course. ;-)
Now that's anarchy!
Re:Who among us hasn't.... (Score:2)
Re: "undercover police" joke (Score:3, Informative)
you mean, like this picture of the undercover agitator who was caught at Bush's inauguration? http://www.civil-rights.net/ [civil-rights.net]
Re:Crap title (Score:2)
Re:Crap title (Score:2)
Re:Crap title (Score:2)
I had a teacher that demanded your final report to be exactly fiteen pages, single sided, 12 point Times font with one inch margins, in an Acco binder. As long as you got those right, you were good for at least a C.
To be honest, I don't think he ever even read the damn things. He did point out every single person who got it wrong, though.
Re:With a name like that... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:With a name like that... (Score:2)
Not really worthy of an actual insult.
"There's tens of thousands of Indians in New York.."
I thought we gave them some beads for the place?
See, now thats funny.
Re:With a name like that... (Score:2)