Meh. The lawyer thing annoys me.
I do not feel that people must be obligated to give credit, however.
By extension, no one is entitled to profits.
I don't own any of his books. This incident does not increase my interest to do so.
No, you're just a fucking fink if you don't, and everyone gets to call you one.
Now watch the market collapse when there's no money in writing.
So your opinion doesn't matter to him, I would guess. Dude writes good books. If you want to read a good book, buy the thing and read it. If not, don't.
Again, bringing the state in ain't cool, but pretending that something has no value just because you want it for free is bullshit.
Why exactly is he a statist? It sounds to me like he's an anarchist who believes in intellectual property (but I'm unable to find anything at all that he actually communicated.)
Also remember that many anarchists would PREFER a stateless society, but still see no good solutions in a society under the confused grasp of the state. I had to legally defend a trademark once because my attorney told me if I didn't, the user of my trademark was likely to take me to court in his state. So we sent them a letter suggesting they change their product name. Sucks, but sometimes things get difficult in the real world.
BTW, when I criticized Penn Jillette for claiming a patent though considering himself libertarian, I got a lot of shot from some of you people.
BTW, when I criticized Penn Jillette for claiming a patent though considering himself libertarian, I got a lot of shot from some of you people.
FIRST, that we shall henceforward recognize each individual to be the exclusive Proprietor of his or her own Existence and of all products of that Existence, holding no Obligation binding among Individuals excepting those to which they voluntarily and explicitly consent
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED Witnesses to the Lesson of History -- that no Form of political Governance may be relied upon to secure the individual Rights of Life, Liberty, or Property -- now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental Precepts measuring our Conduct toward one another, and toward others:
Individual Sovereignty
FIRST, that we shall henceforward recognize each individual to be the exclusive Proprietor of his or her own Existence and of all products of that Existence, holding no Obligation binding among Individuals excepting those to which they voluntarily and explicitly consent;
Freedom from Coercion
SECOND, that under no Circumstances shall we acknowledge any Liberty to initiate Force against another Person, and shall instead defend the inalienable Right of Individuals to resist Coercion employing whatever Means prove necessary in their Judgement;
Association and Secession
THIRD, that we shall hold inviolable those Relationships among Individuals which are totally voluntary, but conversely, any Relationship not thus mutually agreeable shall be considered empty and invalid;
Individuality of Rights
FOURTH, that we shall regard Rights to be neither collective nor additive in Character -- two individuals shall have no more Rights than one, nor shall two million nor two thousand million -- nor shall any Group possess Rights in Excess of those belonging to its individual members;
Equality of Liberty
FIFTH, that we shall maintain these Principles without Respect to any person's Race, Nationality, Gender, sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs, and hold that any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them by initiation of Force -- or Threat of same -- shall have forfeited its Right to exist;
Supersedure
UPON UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Members or Inhabitants of any Association or Territory, we further stipulate that this Agreement shall supercede all existing governmental Documents or Usages then pertinent, that such Constitutions, Charters, Acts, Laws, Statutes, Regulations, or Ordinances contradictory or destructive to the Ends which it expresses shall be null and void, and that this Covenant, being the Property of its Author and Signatories, shall not be Subject to Interpretation excepting insofar as it shall please them.
Since I'm new to the forum I'll introduce myself here: I'm Scott Bieser, general director and artist-in-residence at Big Head Press, publisher of libertarian-themed graphic novels. Including several written by L. Neil Smith. Big Head Press is also pleased to be an advertiser on Free Talk Live.
I have to confess I was the one who brought the Shire Declaration to Neil's attention, a week ago. I thought he'd be flattered, and now I'm surprised and wish I hadn't said anything, although I'm sure eventually it would have come to his attention.
In Neil's defense, I would assert that the Declaration is more than "inspired" by Neil's "Covenant." The preamble and first four articles are very similar, just short of identical. The fifth articles of each is different, and does not have the Covenant's "Supersedure Clause." For purposes of direct comparison, here is Neil's Covenant:QuoteWE, THE UNDERSIGNED Witnesses to the Lesson of History -- that no Form of political Governance may be relied upon to secure the individual Rights of Life, Liberty, or Property -- now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental Precepts measuring our Conduct toward one another, and toward others:
Individual Sovereignty
FIRST, that we shall henceforward recognize each individual to be the exclusive Proprietor of his or her own Existence and of all products of that Existence, holding no Obligation binding among Individuals excepting those to which they voluntarily and explicitly consent;
Freedom from Coercion
SECOND, that under no Circumstances shall we acknowledge any Liberty to initiate Force against another Person, and shall instead defend the inalienable Right of Individuals to resist Coercion employing whatever Means prove necessary in their Judgement;
Association and Secession
THIRD, that we shall hold inviolable those Relationships among Individuals which are totally voluntary, but conversely, any Relationship not thus mutually agreeable shall be considered empty and invalid;
Individuality of Rights
FOURTH, that we shall regard Rights to be neither collective nor additive in Character -- two individuals shall have no more Rights than one, nor shall two million nor two thousand million -- nor shall any Group possess Rights in Excess of those belonging to its individual members;
Equality of Liberty
FIFTH, that we shall maintain these Principles without Respect to any person's Race, Nationality, Gender, sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs, and hold that any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them by initiation of Force -- or Threat of same -- shall have forfeited its Right to exist;
Supersedure
UPON UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Members or Inhabitants of any Association or Territory, we further stipulate that this Agreement shall supercede all existing governmental Documents or Usages then pertinent, that such Constitutions, Charters, Acts, Laws, Statutes, Regulations, or Ordinances contradictory or destructive to the Ends which it expresses shall be null and void, and that this Covenant, being the Property of its Author and Signatories, shall not be Subject to Interpretation excepting insofar as it shall please them.
I am not an attorney, but as a one-time journalist and current publisher I am fairly familiar with Intellectual Property laws, and I think Neil has a pretty good case for the charge of plagiarism, even though he was given credit at the beginning of the FreeKeene.Com forum discussion in which this thing was hammered out. There is no such attribution on the Fr33Agents site, which is where Google leads people with the "Shire Declaration" search string; Neil's original was not mentioned when Ian announced and read the document on Free Talk Live; I doubt that very many of the people who will see this Declaration will see that forum post -- I didn't see it when this Declaration was announced on Facebook and I still haven't actually seen it, only heard it referred to in this thread. An attribution at the beginning of what amounts to an internal discussion thread is simply not sufficient.
To say the least, it was very, very bad form to use Neil's Covenant so extensively in developing this Declaration without getting his consent. The man makes his living by writing, and through much of his career he has struggled with New York editors trying to change his words -- and I can tell you that in my experience creating graphic novels with him, the most difficult episodes of our working relationship happens when I tell him I think some of his prose needs to be changed, or added to, or removed. But the important thing is that we talk these things through, and I don't make changes or use his work without his consent.
That said, I wish Neil had not reacted so angrily when he learned about the Shire Declaration, even though in retrospect I think I understand why he did. He regards Intellectual Property as something valid and important, even though many libertarian anarchists do not (although I make my living generating art and letters, I'm sort of ambivalent about it myself -- I understand the arguments against the state privilege that IP in its current form represents, but still feel that something in customary law is needed to afford artists and writers a just reward for the value they create).
I don't blame Ian for feeling affronted by Neil's mentioning his attorney. I'm a voluntaryist and I fully understand the threat of state violence implied in that regard. But on the other hand, we don't have a functioning private legal system. When someone feels his rights are being violated, what is he to do? Consulting with an attorney to learn what his legal options may be, is not unreasonable.
That said, I don't think Ian or the Declaration drafters intended to injure Neil in any way. Those who were aware of the provenance probably thought they were doing him an homage. The rancor that has developed on both sides of this dispute is both unfortunate and unnecessary.
I am told that Ian has invited Neil to call in to Free Talk Live this evening to hash this out. I hold Ian in high regard, and consider Neil a good friend, and I implore both gentlemen to take a calm, measured approach to the conversation, and keep your weapons holstered. A public fight will do no good for either party and cause a great deal of harm to the movement.
Scott is a pimp, therefore all other arguments are invalid.
Scott is a pimp, therefore all other arguments are invalid.
WAT
Message From Ernest Hancock - ca. 2004
In the early days when we thought of banding together as libertarians without a center, the Western Libertarian Alliance concept of L. Neil [Smith] came to mind and we morphed it.
Several of us spent time defining what it was that we wanted to make clear... and the Philosophy page was born. It was placed on the web and people were given a chance to accept it or not without any thing required other than they said they did. No one could claim that they were or weren't WLA without the validation of others. The philosophy is its own standard and enforcer.
I don't think the WLA (in this form) is exactly what L. Neil would have created. The great thing about the WLA is, everyone gets to be their own leader... and sometimes people go with them. This is why we created just enough structure to make it clear that there wasn't any structure. No leaders, no committees, no board of directors, no mission statement, no platform, no targeted issues other than the desire for freedom, no "official" logo (there [are] at least 3 that we have used in past publications).
The original WLA as I remember was an idea of L. Neil that included Northern Mexico, Western Canada and the Rocky Mountain states in the US. It was part of a story or an idea that the more free parts of all three countries would band together in a union of ???. I don't remember exactly, you'll have to get Neil to explain it. I don't even think it was fully formed in his head anyway.
The WLA is really a product of the aphorisms of L. Neil that you see a bunch of in the quote boxes of the newspaper. The WLA is a product of the minds of at least a dozen people that I can think of off the top of my head with L. Neil as a very big inspiration for. But I think we took his idea and striped it of any remaining structure (except for the structure that makes it clear that there isn't any structure :)
Once Haggard put up the first page, other WLA pages began to follow. There were at least 3 states that had their own. Another was Texas. But the others lay dormant waiting for.....?
Looking at L. Neil's WLA model you can see way too much structure. We went another path and honored him every chance we got.
There is no central plan for freedom. So you'll start to see all sorts of variations on the WLA and there will be nothing anyone can or should do about it. That is why we created the "Philosophy page" no more, no less... at least for this group. Other variants are expected and even encouraged.
Ernest Hancock
Mr Smith,
I find it very strange that your chosen method of contact was to comment on my article about the Shire Society. I see I was able to connect you with the relevant parties, although now I feel somewhat in the middle.
I just want to say that this was a real let down for me. I sincerely felt that something good was coming from you. I was excited to see a possible collaboration between this community and you that could be profitable for all parties.
You wrote "My demeanor is far from threatening; it is the natural reaction of a professional writer to plagiarism." I strongly disagree. I am a professional writer and artist, and this would not be my reaction. My wife is an attorney, and I understand greater than most that "lawyering up" is the proverbial cocking of the gun the room. Though that may not have been your intention, that is how it is received.
I just had to get that off my chest.
That being said, I fully empathize with your position. Had I been more aware of all the details I would have made an effort to contact you from the outset, as I'm sure most of us would. But here we are.
You wrote "I suggest that you get together with your friends and try to figure out how you're going to make restitution to me." This is not my understanding of restorative justice. Maybe my understanding is wrong, but I think the damaged party is responsible for defining the amount of damage in a complaint. What would make you feel whole? Some measure of silver? A prominent credit?
Best Regards
Davi
PS.
As a writer myself, I view the greatest honor that can be bestowed upon an author is to have inspired actual human action. Imagine if Robert Heinlein had sought tribute from the Church of All Worlds.
Thanks. It all has to do with their collectivist notion that I don't own my own ideas. That makes them badguys, as far as I'm concerned, Ayn Rand style badguys. Things mifht havebeen different if they had informed me that they wanted to use the Covenant. I would not have let them butcher it, but I might have let them use it.
What do I want? Acknowledgement that they've acted like socialist scum. They can't afford to pay in money or any kind. Watch _The Libertarian Enterprise_ this weekend.
N.
The IP argument is so stupid. Like Balko thesis "libertarianism happens to people", IP points-of-view are not rationally argued but rather "happen to people".
Having said that, like J.Neil Schulman, L. Neil's argument boils down to:
a) I have debt/expenses/want to get paid, and
b) I feel very strongly about an inconsistent position.
Having said that, Smith andWessonShaw are on the wrong side of any recognized application of IP - and there's prior precedent involving L. Neil to refer to.
Even if you subscribe to the theory that L. Neil's words and ideas are his even if you buy them from him, he still would not own the application of such, which is what the Shire Society did.
That would be like John Shaw writing a book on making flat screens or film editing and then claiming to own all the flat screens or films that readers may create in the future.
As for prior precedent, there is an organization (hopefully being resurrected as an active organization) called the Western Libertarian Alliance.QuoteMessage From Ernest Hancock - ca. 2004
In the early days when we thought of banding together as libertarians without a center, the Western Libertarian Alliance concept of L. Neil [Smith] came to mind and we morphed it.
Several of us spent time defining what it was that we wanted to make clear... and the Philosophy page was born. It was placed on the web and people were given a chance to accept it or not without any thing required other than they said they did. No one could claim that they were or weren't WLA without the validation of others. The philosophy is its own standard and enforcer.
I don't think the WLA (in this form) is exactly what L. Neil would have created. The great thing about the WLA is, everyone gets to be their own leader... and sometimes people go with them. This is why we created just enough structure to make it clear that there wasn't any structure. No leaders, no committees, no board of directors, no mission statement, no platform, no targeted issues other than the desire for freedom, no "official" logo (there [are] at least 3 that we have used in past publications).
The original WLA as I remember was an idea of L. Neil that included Northern Mexico, Western Canada and the Rocky Mountain states in the US. It was part of a story or an idea that the more free parts of all three countries would band together in a union of ???. I don't remember exactly, you'll have to get Neil to explain it. I don't even think it was fully formed in his head anyway.
The WLA is really a product of the aphorisms of L. Neil that you see a bunch of in the quote boxes of the newspaper. The WLA is a product of the minds of at least a dozen people that I can think of off the top of my head with L. Neil as a very big inspiration for. But I think we took his idea and striped it of any remaining structure (except for the structure that makes it clear that there isn't any structure :)
Once Haggard put up the first page, other WLA pages began to follow. There were at least 3 states that had their own. Another was Texas. But the others lay dormant waiting for.....?
Looking at L. Neil's WLA model you can see way too much structure. We went another path and honored him every chance we got.
There is no central plan for freedom. So you'll start to see all sorts of variations on the WLA and there will be nothing anyone can or should do about it. That is why we created the "Philosophy page" no more, no less... at least for this group. Other variants are expected and even encouraged.
Ernest Hancock
Edit to add: Oh, and Scott Bieser was one of the original signers of the "Covenant of Alliance" with the WLA.
But how funny would it be to call on the government to protect intellectual property rights over the sentence, "WE, THE UNDERSIGNED Witnesses to the Lesson of History -- that no Form of political Governance may be relied upon to secure the individual Rights of Life, Liberty, or Property"
Read before you post please.
Read before you post please.
Please. Read, then post.
I have to confess I was the one who brought the Shire Declaration to Neil's attention, a week ago.
I thought he'd be flattered, and now I'm surprised and wish I hadn't said anything, although I'm sure eventually it would have come to his attention.
I am told that Ian has invited Neil to call in to Free Talk Live this evening to hash this out. I hold Ian in high regard, and consider Neil a good friend, and I implore both gentlemen to take a calm, measured approach to the conversation, and keep your weapons holstered. A public fight will do no good for either party and cause a great deal of harm to the movement.
I wrote to him from PorcFest with a pointer to the Shire Society forum and a copy of the text, and mailed him one of the blue flyers that was posted around the campground.
Golly, I hope Scott doesn't notice I'm using one of his drawings for my icon...
Also, Ian was sanctimonious as shit in those emails between he and Neil. I think he's probably in the right, but that doesn't make it smart or reasonable to act like there's no validity at all to the other person's point of view. "I forgive you for (x)"? Come on, even if the other person is being an asshole that's no way to treat somebody who could be a useful ally.
Now watch the market collapse when there's no money in writing.
If intellectual property is real property like my great great grandfather's hammer, then should there be no expiration on copyright? You can't use my great great grandfather's hammer so do Plato's ancestors own his writing? I can abandon my grandfather's hammer and then it would be anyone's who happened across it. What does it take to call words abandoned?
I don't believe in it. I don't know who first used the letter "W" but if his progeny come wanting money I'm going to tell them where to stick it.
Golly, I hope Scott doesn't notice I'm using one of his drawings for my icon...
Code: [Select] [To: lneil@netzero.com; lneil@lneilsmith.org] |
QuoteGolly, I hope Scott doesn't notice I'm using one of his drawings for my icon...
Really? I thought that was a self-portrait.
<rimshot>
Just kidding :lol:
Even though Neil is a close friend and frequent creative partner, I'm not Neil and have somewhat different views about re-use of my work.
Kneejerkreactionemail accomplished -
[To: lneil@netzero.com; lneil@lneilsmith.org]
[Subject: Very Disappointed With Your Irrational Behavior]
L. Neil Smith,
I am shocked and disappointed to learn that a great libertarian thinker
such as yourself would stoop so low as to threaten government force
against your intellectual inheritors, even though they have openly
acknowledged your influence on the wording of their document at every
step. Quite frankly, the obvious similarity of the Shire Society
Declaration to your prior writings was a tribute that I believe you no
longer deserve. You are becoming an embarrassing little footnote in the
intellectual history of our movement, while people like Ian Freeman are
the engine pulling it forward. Whatever intellectual credit you deserve
is a consequence of chronology rather than substance.
Best regards,
Alex Libman
Also, Ian was sanctimonious as shit in those emails between he and Neil. I think he's probably in the right, but that doesn't make it smart or reasonable to act like there's no validity at all to the other person's point of view. "I forgive you for (x)"? Come on, even if the other person is being an asshole that's no way to treat somebody who could be a useful ally.
Also, Ian was sanctimonious as shit in those emails between he and Neil. I think he's probably in the right, but that doesn't make it smart or reasonable to act like there's no validity at all to the other person's point of view. "I forgive you for (x)"? Come on, even if the other person is being an asshole that's no way to treat somebody who could be a useful ally.
Ian putting that shit on the show is pretty fucking despicable, too.
"He's a foil for the purposes of promoting this radio show." - Ian
we're gonna need to take Zeno to heart, and each of us is going to have to build a better man to fit in the society of better men, or we will fail. This means acting like the guys were smart enough to encourage Ian to act like (and again, I know I suck as bad as anyone.)
Ha, the Freestaters screwed the pooch again.
Jim Davidson (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=33800.0) is a regular contributor to L. Neil's website.
Ha, the Freestaters screwed the pooch again.
Correction: Keeniacs screwed the pooch.
Freak-staters go home
http://freestateblogs.net/and_now_plagiarism
Ha, the Freestaters screwed the pooch again.
Correction: Keeniacs screwed the pooch.
Freak-staters go home
http://freestateblogs.net/and_now_plagiarism
One of the least-constructive responses.
Ha, the Freestaters screwed the pooch again.
Correction: Keeniacs screwed the pooch.
Freak-staters go home
http://freestateblogs.net/and_now_plagiarism
One of the least-constructive responses.
It's like Sean Hannity blasting Ron Paul. No intellectual replies, just name calling and misinformation spreading.
Ha, the Freestaters screwed the pooch again.
Correction: Keeniacs screwed the pooch.
Freak-staters go home
http://freestateblogs.net/and_now_plagiarism
One of the least-constructive responses.
To an extent, it applies to Ian and Neil too, but at least they have the excuse of being emotionally distracted.
Ha, the Freestaters screwed the pooch again.
Correction: Keeniacs screwed the pooch.
Freak-staters go home
http://freestateblogs.net/and_now_plagiarism
One of the least-constructive responses.
Agreed. The fuck, Denis? How is that constructive at all? "I think I'll respond to the poor treatment of a potential ally by treating an ally poorly!" Just stupid.
Ha, the Freestaters screwed the pooch again.
Correction: Keeniacs screwed the pooch.
Freak-staters go home
http://freestateblogs.net/and_now_plagiarism
One of the least-constructive responses.
Agreed. The fuck, Denis? How is that constructive at all? "I think I'll respond to the poor treatment of a potential ally by treating an ally poorly!" Just stupid.
He's just frustrated because his approach isn't working as well as the Free Keene one in terms of practically gained "freedom now".
Any blog about this should have lots of quotes and comparisons of the language. I don't care what light it's cast in so long as people read the words.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED Witnesses to the Lesson of History -- that no Form of political Governance may be relied upon to secure the individual Rights of Life, Liberty, or Property -- now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental Precepts measuring our Conduct toward one another, and toward others:
Any blog about this should have lots of quotes and comparisons of the language. I don't care what light it's cast in so long as people read the words.
Here you are.
http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?board=30.0
Specifically,
http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=1997.0
fruits of his labor, so how should one proceed in a case where L. Neil put this document out for the world to see
I'm not siding with Ian here, but he did say numerous times that it was based on L. Neil's covenant. It has only been minutely altered, point one of the thing says that every man is entitled to the fruits of his labor, so how should one proceed in a case where L. Neil put this document out for the world to see (and incidentally copy. Read the Galatin Divergence, or any of the books in his North American Confederacy series and you'd get the idea that Freedom is more important an ideal than IP)
I guess the real issue here is tangibility. He has every right to those documents that he wrote by hand, or printed, or stored on his hard driver or servers. But if the idea itself gets out of the bottle, what rights can be naturally derived from its existence?
Ooh, how about this as an idea? He tacitly approves of the use of his document by posting it on the web? I mean, I have to send the packets and IP data to request a file from him and his servers then authorize the motherboard to send return packets and the file to my computer.
So, he's authorized the machine to disseminate the file, giving it logic and instructions on what cases may be given the file.
Those are not blogs, no one reads those but insiders. Not that Denis has a huge following of outsiders but he's likely read by a broader spectrum than freekeene.
Code: [Select] You are apparently an illiterate. Show me where I threatened anybody |
Code: [Select] L. Neil Smith, |
I'd also like to add that the suggestion of arbitration by a common trusted party (or by someone else, agreed to by trusted parties--either of which was Davi's idea, last night, IIRC) is a great idea. It's certainly possible that Ian and Neil won't manage to agree with each other, but perhaps someone they both respect, or someone those parties respect.
That's not just for remedying the conflict, but also for improving both of their reputations, which I'm going to suggest have both taken a significant hit in the last few days.
Had a really good convo with Gard last night about IP, as well as the movie. |
Had a really good convo with Gard last night about IP, as well as the movie. It's on today's Liberty Conspiracy. (7-14-2010)
Code: [Select] Well, this will all come out in the wash this weekend -- although |
Had a really good convo with Gard last night about IP, as well as the movie. It's on today's Liberty Conspiracy. (7-14-2010)
The MP3 is not easy to find on his site. The only reference to audio files was after I selected the RSS feed icon.
Just a thought.
(MP3 link) (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/libertyconspiracy/~5/9lAOdU0MS6I/2010-07-14T09_56_44-07_00.mp3)
Also, L. Neil Smith replied to my last e-mail rant with:
Well, this will all come out in the wash this weekend -- although
right now it's too amned hot to write and I'll have to do it at night.
Be well,
N.
Hopefully things will now be cooling down...
I fault them both as being assholes.
I was probably only eight years old when I realized that socialism is nothing more than a fancied-up excuse for stealing other people's property and killing them if they resist, that collectivism is just a shabby attempt to make theft and murder appear respectable. Later on, I came to understand that this is true of all "philosophies" of government.
I had to write Neil, after that. Following is the text of my email:
I had to write Neil, after that. Following is the text of my email:
Did you copy editor@ncc-1776.org?
In case anyone is interested, L. Neil has posted his defense of I.P.:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-02.html
Mr. Smith
My birth name is David. Davi is a nick name, pronounced like the desert Mojave, which I adopted as an homage to Salvador Dali. Perhaps you'll accuse me of stealing 3/4 of his last name.
I have read your post Little Criminals, and I find it personally offensive. I have responded here:
L. Neil Smith is an unapologetic collectivist and I want to take him to private arbitration.
Here is the most important portion of my message to you:
So, I challenge you Neil, step out of your fictional worlds and let's get real. Let's you and me find an impartial third party arbiter and see if you can prove to us all that you have suffered damages at my hand. By your collectivist rhetoric you have included me in the charge. You have called me a thief, a socialist, a rapist, a parasite and a "sticky-fingered little rodent." I have offered to try to make you whole, and you continue to insult ME as an individual. So let's come to an agreement. You and Me. That you can present your case in public. And I can present my case in public. And we will submit to the ruling of a private arbiter. And if he decides that I, as an individual, have injured you, as an individual, I will personally offer restitution to you in whole.
All future corespondenses between us will be public.
Best Personal Regards
Davi
In case anyone is interested, L. Neil has posted his defense of I.P.:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-02.html
My response
L. Neil Smith is an unapologetic collectivist and I want to take him to private arbitration. (http://fr33agents.ning.com/profiles/blogs/l-neil-smith-is-an)
In case anyone is interested, L. Neil has posted his defense of I.P.:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-02.html
My response
L. Neil Smith is an unapologetic collectivist and I want to take him to private arbitration. (http://fr33agents.ning.com/profiles/blogs/l-neil-smith-is-an)
thanks. fixt
Not that it's so terribly pressing or embarrassing, but you wrote "has no been published" and I believe you meant "has now been published."
I had to write Neil, after that. Following is the text of my email:
Did you copy editor@ncc-1776.org?
I sent it to lneil@netzero.com; I did not copy to that address. (?)
The typo was "victim disbarment" where he surely meant "victim disarmament"--undoubtedly a situation where the typo unfortunately came out to be a similar, actual word--I hate when it happens to me.
I have just received a nasty, insult- and error-laced diatribe, not worthy of repeating here...
I have just received a nasty, insult- and error-laced diatribe, not worthy of repeating here...
I expect that I'm not the only one who would enjoy reading it, the same way that people slow down in order to get a better look at a car wreck.
I cannot fully express my disappointment. It's much greater than this issue--it's the workability of a stateless society that troubles me more and more (and that doesn't mean I'm interested in reverting to acceptance of state aggression--it's a disappointment in humanity.)
This brings to mind that we, as in society in general, are going to have to deal with copyright.
In long, sometimes very hostile, discussions, it has become clear to me that the government "Letters Patent" monopoly grants have infected the thinking of many people, maybe most, as deeply if not more so than the ever popular issue of "roads".
I will not stop advocating the reading of Smith's novels and articles for the good that is in them, on every other subject than copyright.
Davi, I am not a Galambosian and you are free to call yourself whatever you like. I could make a suggestion or two.
I'm glad you found my article offensive. It was intended to be, to you and your ilk. I haven't even started. That you would accuse me of collectivism for defending my individual rights is an act of insanity -- or desperation.
It's also kind of funny.
N.
By the way, my wife, who worked as a typesetter for many years and has also practiced calligraphy informs me that your claim to have laboriously hand-lettered the document in question -- at least our copy of it -- is a lie.
Typical of what I've come to expect from you and yours.
I'll probably mention that in my next article on this subject.
N.
Mr. Smith
Excellent. So you acknowledge that your accusation is against me as an individual, and now that you allege that I am personally a liar, as apposed to your previous collectivist claims that "we" are liars.
How do you respond to my request that this matter be arbitrated by an impartial third party?
Best Regards
Davi
> How do you respond to my request that this matter be arbitrated by an impartial third party?
You really are a parasite, aren't you? I will not give you a taller soapbox to stand on. If necessary, I'll write about that, and I reach many times the people you do. But it doesn't matter. I'm discovering that hardly any real libertarians in New Hampshire can stand you and your merry band, which I find very interesting. You're a lot like little boys who like to write dirty words on walls.
And if two, or three, or four individuals are thieves, it is not collectivism to say so. You and your friends desperately need a better education.
N.
Mr Smith
I am not in New Hampshire. I am not asking for a taller soapbox. I am asking for an equal hearing before an impartial arbiter in a voluntary trial. I have pledged to offer you the restitution you prove I owe you in such a trial. If you will not engage in that process, I can only assume you cannot prove that I have damaged you, in which case I hope that you will withdraw the accusations and insults that you have waged against me. If you continue to wage these accusations and insults against me, and refuse to submit to private arbitration, I can only assume that you do not believe in the efficacy of the free society you yourself advocate.
I have asked you how I have injured you. I have asked you what amount will make you feel whole. I have asked you to engage in a process of dispute resolution. And you remain petulant.
My opinion is that you are ignoring a monumental opportunity in the progress of the liberty movement to prove in a landmark case that private arbitration is a viable model for stateless justice. If you ignore this opportunity you have only testified by your action that you do not believe in the efficacy of stateless justice.
Regards
Davi
Disclaimer!!!! Mr. 89 is in no way involved in the shire society. He is just a dusjbag poster on the Fretalklive BBS.
I kind of wonder what Mr. Smith wants.
Shire society can say: "O.K. We, at the very least, used your work as inspiration for ours, and you deserve just compensation. You want a share in profits, a blow job, what?"
I cannot fully express my disappointment. It's much greater than this issue--it's the workability of a stateless society that troubles me more and more (and that doesn't mean I'm interested in reverting to acceptance of state aggression--it's a disappointment in humanity.)
I realize I'm just repeating myself, so I will repeat myself:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle549-20091220-05.htmlQuoteThis brings to mind that we, as in society in general, are going to have to deal with copyright.
In long, sometimes very hostile, discussions, it has become clear to me that the government "Letters Patent" monopoly grants have infected the thinking of many people, maybe most, as deeply if not more so than the ever popular issue of "roads".
I will not stop advocating the reading of Smith's novels and articles for the good that is in them, on every other subject than copyright.
At least you are getting responses, I've gotten none to my reply to his 'essay', despite emailing him, Ken, and a few others.
I know Stephan Kinsella saw it, cause he blogged a link to it.
http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=3502.msg39086#msg39086
He claims he hasn't "gotten around to Kinsella yet," BTW, so maybe he respects you more.
He claims he hasn't "gotten around to Kinsella yet," BTW, so maybe he respects you more.
There is still the chance that the rigorous logic Kinsell shows will get through Smith's mind filter.
Ooops, an artifact of my EST experience surfaces!
I have just received a nasty, insult- and error-laced diatribe, not worthy of repeating here, to which I replied:
"Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response."
I have just received a nasty, insult- and error-laced diatribe, not worthy of repeating here, to which I replied:
"Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response."
Signs of a man losing a battle.
Whatever's making him act like a prick.
Whatever's making him act like a prick.
Seems the title of this thread stuck in his craw.
Whatever's making him act like a prick.
Seems the title of this thread stuck in his craw.
You think he'd "lower himself" to reading this thread?
In case anyone is interested, L. Neil has posted his defense of I.P.:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-02.html
Underwhelming.
millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others were stripped of their perceived humanity in the 1940s and massacred.
by leftists deeply involved in what was billed as the "Civil Rights Movement"
Everyone involved in this situation is a jerk off. They shouldn't have plagiarized his work. They should have asked permission. He shouldn't have flipped out like he did. He could have easily used this situation as a huge PR move instead.
Now everyone looks like assholes.
Everyone involved in this situation is a jerk off. They shouldn't have plagiarized his work. They should have asked permission. He shouldn't have flipped out like he did. He could have easily used this situation as a huge PR move instead.
Now everyone looks like assholes.
Another place to post your opinion on the matter,
http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2010/07/guest-editorial-by-l-neil-smith-little-criminals-the-context-of-consent/
Everyone involved in this situation is a jerk off. They shouldn't have plagiarized his work. They should have asked permission. He shouldn't have flipped out like he did. He could have easily used this situation as a huge PR move instead.
Not permission, it's a published work.
Attribution, yes. Much louder than it already was, specifically because it was so obviously derivative of the earlier work.
And no shit both sides could have used it for PR. Big, hand-shaking, sloppy kissing, massive orgy PR.
...but instead it turned to...QuoteNow everyone looks like assholes.
Yep.
As mentioned in another forum on this subject, I've been reading L.Neil's works for years. I never would have said he would go Randroid like this, considering the individual liberties expressed in his works.
They are quite good, I suggest folks look them up even with all this crap going on. They're well worth reading.
The only "good" that I can see coming from this is a better understanding of the issues surrounding I.P. for everyone.
Sadly, it seems only to have reinforced the position of those who HAD positions prior to the event.
Code: [Select] Dear L. Neil Smith, |
My sleepy (but hopefully still coherent) e-mail rant at his "Little Criminals: The Context of Consent (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-02.html)" article (though you may think twice before clicking that link, lest you lose ownership of the portions of your brain that are touched by his IP):
Dear L. Neil Smith,
It seems that the past five days did not clear up your confusion about
the distinction between the actual "negative" and the non-existent
"positive" Intellectual Property Rights, and with your "Little
Criminals" article you continue to dig yourself further down the pit of
irrationality, pettiness, and self-delusion.
The latter particularly applies to your estimate that Free Talk Live --
the most popular Anarcho-Capitalist syndicated radio show in the world,
and the #84 talk show nationwide according to Talkers Magazine -- only
has "sixteen listeners". I don't know whether to laugh at your research
incompetence or to question your sanity for saying something like
that... A person whose Web-sites rank #779,396 (ncc-1776.org) and
#8,380,291 (lneilsmith.org) according to Alexa.com probably shouldn't be
throwing any stones, and that might actually be reflecting a recent
boost in recognition your name has received due to the coverage on Free
Talk Live. You could have stopped at only losing this little conflict
intellectually, but now you're going to lose it in terms of libertarian
"noosphere pull" as well.
You are reminiscent of a little kid who was the first on his block to
open up a lemonade stand, but when several other kids got the same
idea you went crying to your mommy that it's "not fair" for other
people's actions to diminish your profits. Sorry, Mr. Smith, but you
do not own the minds of others, and those minds are capable of
reflecting off your ideas and thus diminishing your ability to make a
profit. The downstream inheritors of your ideas did not violate the
rules of any contest, as was the case with your flashback to the 9th
grade, nor did they commit any force or fraud. Their alleged "crime"
is just an amplification of the alleged "crime" committed against you
by every other economic actor in the world who might buy the same
resources that you want to buy, thus raising your costs, or who might
sell the same resources that you want to sell, thus diminishing your
income. Conversely, every person in the world is also a potential
customer or a business partner, and a civilized society encourages
people to simply accept their loss of potential profit and try again.
You could have tried to compete with the new lemonade stands on the
basis of merit, perhaps aided by your advantage of having been around a
lot longer. You even could have partnered with them in the areas where
your interests aren't in direct competition - a minute that a
libertarian spends listening to Free Talk Live is a minute he doesn't
spend reading L. Neil Smith books, but many libertarians can make time
for both, and thus advertising one from the other produces mutual
benefit. Etc. Instead you chose to get your mommy involved, which
doesn't speak very highly of the quality of your lemonade, or your own
personal character for that matter.
We are living in a world of many exciting new possibilities for
innovation and entrepreneurship in all fields of commerce, including
business models related to intellectual property. Much of my own income
as a freelance "open source" programmer comes from selling my time to
support and extend the software that I give away for free (and I even
strongly prefer Copyfree licenses or "as is" / "public domain" over
Copyleft and/or Copyright). I don't need to hold a gun to anyone's head
to ensure that companies hire me and not somebody else to provide those
services, even though a lot of people around the world would be able to
compete with me for a much lower price, because of the recognition I get
as the initiator of those projects. The Internet is one giant time-
stamp machine with countless redundancies - I don't need to threaten
arbitration against anyone, since it's obvious to everyone who wrote
what piece of software first. Google can make its billions without
prodding anyone's eyelids open to make sure they look at the ads - in
fact those ads are very easy to automatically block, even on the open
source Web browser that Google itself releases for free. A growing
number of fans are willing to pre-pay to finance the creative projects
they want to see, in exchange for "bragging rights", access to exclusive
real-life events, and exclusive tangible merchandise. The free market
is moving forward from a business environment of information scarcity to
one of information super-abundance, just as it once moved from hunting /
gathering to the domestication of animals and agriculture. One wonders
what would have happened if the hunters who used to bring home the bacon
believed in positive intellectual property rights - would every
domesticated boar and its offspring constitute an act of "theft" from
the hunters' position within the tribe?
The economy moves ever-forward through endless paradigm shifts and
cycles of innovation and creative destruction. It is a great shame that
the otherwise distinguished name of L. Neil Smith will now be associated
with that most unlibertarian of ideas that humanity is about to leave on
the dust heap of history - the "positive right" to intellectual
property. Once again, this pronouncement should not be confused with
the actual, negative right to Information Property, which will continue
to exist even in spheres of application that were are only beginning to
imagine - mind uploading, artificial intelligence, self-owning
"information based life-forms" who are just as sentient and worthy of
Rights as you or I, galaxy-sized super-computers used to emulate
realities that minds like ours cannot even begin to vaguely comprehend,
and so on. Trying to apply old ideas about intellectual monopolies to
such a world is a terribly dangerous endeavor, and I can only guess at
all of the possible new layers of tyranny that fallacy could bring. Far
from resisting the baseless power of the state, you may in fact be
strengthening a new "divine right of kings" through which civilization
will remain enslaved for eons to come!
Best regards,
Alex Libman
Maybe it was just a peaceful communication to his lawyer.
He spent a few sentences explaining how mentioning a bcc'd attorney wasn't a threat.
I think he doth protest too much. I took it as a threat. But why use bcc at all instead of cc if it isn't intended as a threat? Whatever.
The downstream inheritors of your ideas did not violate the
rules of any contest
The downstream inheritors of your ideas did not violate theContract?
rules of any contest
Keeners seem to have a very high standard as to what constitutes a threat...when it comes to their words/actions.Bingo, bingo, and ... Bingo.
Maybe it was just a peaceful communication to his lawyer.
He spent a few sentences explaining how mentioning a bcc'd attorney wasn't a threat.
I think he doth protest too much. I took it as a threat. But why use bcc at all instead of cc if it isn't intended as a threat? Whatever.
If that was a threat, then having a group of people holding fire outside of someone's house is a bigger threat. Do the Keeners open carry when they do that? No one has ever answered my question about that.
Anyway, the Keeners seem to have a very high standard as to what constitutes a threat...when it comes to their words/actions.
The downstream inheritors of your ideas did not violate the
rules of any contest
Contract?
I don't think anyone is sweating the typos at this point since Mr Smith is setting the standard. I'm just as guilty.
Nice piece.
Keeners seem to have a very high standard as to what constitutes a threat...when it comes to their words/actions.Bingo, bingo, and ... Bingo.
I see a lot of keeniacs backing away from personal responsibility the moment there could be any consequences to their actions. When there is a credible suggestion that such-and-such protest was a Bad Idea, what response do we get? "That wasn't 'Free Keene', that was a collection of certain individuals" (always, of course, ambiguous as to whether the speaker was in fact one of the "collection of individuals")
How about: "yeah, I was there, and boy was that a bad idea"
If that was a threat, then having a group of people holding fire outside of someone's house is a bigger threat. Do the Keeners open carry when they do that? No one has ever answered my question about that.
If anyone suggests a vigil that will appear otherwise, they won't have my support for it.The very fact of having a "vigil" in front of someone's home is threatening.
If anyone suggests a vigil that will appear otherwise, they won't have my support for it.The very fact of having a "vigil" in front of someone's home is threatening.
You, Dale, have individually and personally behaved in a manner that virtually any person would consider a threat to their physical safety.
The fact that you are a peaceful (and rather nice!) guy, does not change the fact.
The fact that the people whose homes you were, erm, vigilating, behaved in a threatening manner hours or days previously, does not change the fact.
Keeners seem to have a very high standard as to what constitutes a threat...when it comes to their words/actions.Bingo, bingo, and ... Bingo.
I see a lot of keeniacs backing away from personal responsibility the moment there could be any consequences to their actions. When there is a credible suggestion that such-and-such protest was a Bad Idea, what response do we get? "That wasn't 'Free Keene', that was a collection of certain individuals" (always, of course, ambiguous as to whether the speaker was in fact one of the "collection of individuals")
How about: "yeah, I was there, and boy was that a bad idea"
|
I've seem [sic] plagiarism before. In ninth grade, I won a short story contest because the guy who "beat" me had typed up something by Robert Scheckley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sheckley) [sic] or Richard Matheson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Matheson) and passed it off as his own. I'm not the one who turned him in, although I had immediately recognized the story. The idiot had to get on the PA system and confess to his crime. Whether it ruined his life forever or was the making of him, I have no way of knowing. I had no sympathy for him because what he did is a crime, in the legal sense but more importantly, in the moral sense, as well.
Unless I'm missing something, that's absurd!
Unless I'm missing something, that's absurd!
Sometimes I think Denis is a sockpuppet of Libman.
QuoteI've seem [sic] plagiarism before. ...typed up something by Robert Scheckley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sheckley) [sic]
The very fact of having a "vigil" in front of someone's home is threatening.
The very fact of having a "vigil" in front of someone's home is threatening.
Why are you putting "vigil" in quotes?
Cause it's sceeery!The very fact of having a "vigil" in front of someone's home is threatening.Why are you putting "vigil" in quotes?
Code: [Select] L. Neil Smith, |
Keeners seem to have a very high standard as to what constitutes a threat...when it comes to their words/actions.Bingo, bingo, and ... Bingo.
I see a lot of keeniacs backing away from personal responsibility the moment there could be any consequences to their actions. When there is a credible suggestion that such-and-such protest was a Bad Idea, what response do we get? "That wasn't 'Free Keene', that was a collection of certain individuals" (always, of course, ambiguous as to whether the speaker was in fact one of the "collection of individuals")
How about: "yeah, I was there, and boy was that a bad idea"
Chalk it up to youth. That is what I do. Even in this latest episode of screwing the pooch. There is no doubt in my mind who fucked up first and I will think less of them for it. It is good they put their bad behavior right out in the open. Lets everyone know who can not be trusted.
Who is this "them" of whom you speak, who had "bad behavior"?
Those that stole this man’s writings and did not offer just compensation.
They were extremely disrespectful about the whole affair.Those that stole this man’s writings and did not offer just compensation.
Demonstrating my conclusion that the arguments used by the involved people with different opinions on I.P. are not converting anyone.
Those that think it's theft continue to do so, those that don't, don't.
How utterly pointless it all ends up being.
Code: [Select] Don't teach grandpa how to suck eggs, kiddo. It wasn't even a nice try. |
Code: [Select] Alright, grandpa, why don't you teach me, substantively, point by point, |
I've decided to pile on another e-mail:
L. Neil Smith,
It has recently come to my attention that you have benefited from the
fruits of my mental labor without compensation or as much as an
acknowledgement of credit. I present you with clear evidence that I was
the first to publicly identify two spelling mistakes in a paragraph of
your text (I didn't bother going beyond that one paragraph),
highlighting those errors in red in a related but distinct forum
conversation on the following URL:
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=34318.msg606312#msg606312
Archiving Internet engines like those employed by Google, Yahoo, Bing,
and dozens of other neutral Web-crawling entities large and small can be
used to verify the timestamps of the events occurred, and there is every
reason to believe that your subsequent modification of your text was a
direct consequence of my effort. According to your own philosophy, the
"little bits of my life" that I've spent remembering German vs Yiddish
surname translation trends and mediocre Babylon-5 novelizations are my
"sweat equity", which means that force or social pressure can be
employed to create an environment of artificial scarcity so that I could
profit from my ideas. My "moral burden" of upholding "my"
"intellectual" "property" "rights" shall be fulfilled!
I am blind-copying this message to my possy of rowdy AnCap Internet
trolls, Free Staters, fan-fic writers, Somali pirates, Swedish pirates,
fat bearded UNIX administrators, and the A-Team!
Or ... (here's the point where this e-mail turns serious) ... we
could just agree to abandon this silly pettiness, and let our obvious
ideas transfer on the basis of utility, confident in the fact that, if
need be, ever-advancing information technology makes it ever-easier to
trace ideas back to their point of origin.
I am a capitalist, and I believe that a person's "capital" includes all
aspects of his self-ownership - body, mind, time, skills, health,
reputation, material assets, contractual assets, parents' rights, and
so on. We use money as a means of material exchange, but we must
realize that there are things money can't buy - genuine love, youth,
career competence, academic accomplishment, freedom from some
consequences of one's actions, and so on. Intellectual property is an
immaterial asset - you can prove that you wrote something and published
it at a particular time, and a rational society would recognize and
value that to some degree. The value of your IP can be measured in the
number of people quoting / applying it, the number of people visiting
your Web-site as the result, your prestige in certain intellectual
circles, and so on.
There's more to capitalism than just simply money! A lot more!
Best regards,
Alex Libman
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-signs094.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
LOL...but Alex...I'm pretty sure that "possy" is actually spelled "posse"....just for future reference. |
Code: [Select] You know you're a thief or an enabler of thieves. I don't need to |
Code: [Select] Alright, you don't have to make any live appearances and you can choose |
One could expect a mindless jab like that from some sheltered housewife who doesn't know Murray Rothbard from Ayatollah Khomeini
I asked her time and time again to show me how she can own an idea.
some dude was photocopying it to sell it for five bucks a pop to fellow students since it was a required text in the class he was taking.
I asked her time and time again to show me how she can own an idea.
My head just went in a loop... "owning an idea" is an idea that some people own. By telling me that they own an idea, and I can't have it without their permission... they are also saying that I must take the idea "owning an idea" from them whether I like it or not... I think I'll short circuit if I think about that too long.
I asked her time and time again to show me how she can own an idea.
My head just went in a loop... "owning an idea" is an idea that some people own. By telling me that they own an idea, and I can't have it without their permission... they are also saying that I must take the idea "owning an idea" from them whether I like it or not... I think I'll short circuit if I think about that too long.
I can tell you I have many ideas that I own. Of course after everyone's behavior here they will never leave my head. Or least I will never leave them out in the open here among the thieves.
Aint it nice being right?
Remember never beat a dead horse mid stream...
Here's what I'm thinking... Smith's document says, "this Covenant, being the Property of its Author and Signatories, shall not be Subject to Interpretation excepting insofar as it shall please them."
He wrote in the Covenant itself that it is the property of the SIGNATORIES. I would sign it myself and send him his two dollars, except for one problem.
I am not willing to sign section five of his document:
"FIFTH... any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them(these Principles) by initiation of Force -- or Threat of same -- shall have forfeited its Right to exist;"
"forfeiting its Right to exist" sounds like the death penalty to me. If I pee in your rose bushes I still have the right to exist, I've just created an obligation to resolve the damages. I have a problem signing something saying that one who initiates force has no right to exist.
However, if anyone here is a signatory, they can certainly give the Shire permission to plagiarize it, as an owner.
The core problem seems to be that, by changing what Smith wrote, Smith believes his work was harmed.
By changing it, the Shire folks believe it's no longer what he wrote.
These two positions are impossible to reconcile.
So, pain and stress and hostility all around. Burmashave.
I had been planning to read the novel The Probability Broach (Copyright 1980, 1996, L. Neil Smith) for about a year, since having it in my possession, and was finally getting around to it today. Imagine my shock when I began reading the forward by Andrea Millen Rich. The very first words I read were as follows:
"You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not of sight nor of sound but ideas and, yes, imagination."
I would be willing to bet a truckload of parchment that Mr. Smith did not "sentence" Ms. Rich to reading three of her novels, nor call her names or accuse her of "plagiarizing and vandalizing" the works of Rod Serling. No, instead, he published "her words" as the forward to the novel he copyrighted and profited from.
The words "irony" and "hypocrisy" come to mind.
I had been planning to read the novel The Probability Broach (Copyright 1980, 1996, L. Neil Smith) for about a year, since having it in my possession, and was finally getting around to it today. Imagine my shock when I began reading the forward by Andrea Millen Rich. The very first words I read were as follows:
"You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not of sight nor of sound but ideas and, yes, imagination."
I would be willing to bet a truckload of parchment that Mr. Smith did not "sentence" Ms. Rich to reading three of her novels, nor call her names or accuse her of "plagiarizing and vandalizing" the works of Rod Serling. No, instead, he published "her words" as the forward to the novel he copyrighted and profited from.
The words "irony" and "hypocrisy" come to mind.
I'd like to hear his response to that :)
It wouldn't be pleasant.
After carefully reviewing all of the above evidence, I hereby decree that, yes, as matter of fact, L. Neil Smith is a giant douchebag who's hypocrisy and embarrassingly high level of cognitive dissonance knows no limits. It would be an injustice to sentence you to anything less than sucking the juices out of my asshole............. may god have mercy on your soul Mr Smith.
[bangs gavel repeatedly]
Court adjourned !!!
PS - I still say the "Shire Society" is a gay name.......like hobbits and shit. Shoulda just called it "The Covenant" just to REALLY piss the bastard off.
No wonder he "warned" me that he's already tussled with the likes of Murray Rothbard.
No wonder he "warned" me that he's already tussled with the likes of Murray Rothbard.
To make sense of that remark, it is a fact that Rothbard didn't consider "space" to be homesteadable. The price of entry was so high that "only a government could do it", so Rothbard simply poo-poo'd any talk about it.
Remember that the early 1970's were space-crazy, people were talking about "What do we do when we get there?" so Rothbard's dismissal of the subject stuck in Smith's craw.
You crib offa me without asking, I get to call you an asshole publicly. That's it.
I'm wondering why he's still trying to argue his view.
Is he still getting advice from people that he's off his rocker?
Is his attitude costing him money and/or opportunity?
Is he still getting advice from people that he's off his rocker?
If the fact that I worked with him on The Libertarian Enterprise since the beginning (15 years), copyedited, proof-read three of his books (Neil, vampires don't like garlic, as you said in chapter 1, how many times is he going to revel in garlicky goodness?), etc, and he now considers me his enemy due to disagreeing with him aboutcopyright"Intellectual Property", I think what he is doing is isolating himself to only people who already agree with him.
QuoteIs his attitude costing him money and/or opportunity?
Wanna bet he doesn't put the typos and references to garlicky goodness that I found back in _Sweeter Than Wine_? So much for "enemy".
I haven't noticed that ads for his "Phebus Krum" have been canceled from Free Talk Live either, so it seems that actual business trumps personal peeves.
That's why I fervently support the notion of borders that are open to individuals who wish to escape tyranny and improve their lives and those of their families. It's also why I support the equal right of a free association of individuals called Arizona to resist invaders—spawned, in essence, by drug prohibition—with murderous habits and intentions.
More lately, I have been called a "statist" and a "socialist" myself, because I was, and remain, willing to defend my individual rights against collectivists who have assaulted them—and then attempted to make a "philosophy" out of their pattern of criminal behavior.
Yet they quote Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the founder of socialism, famous for declaring "Property is theft", and sneer like any common parlor-pink at anyone who expects to be paid for his efforts.
My view, and that of any working writer, is that what's mine is mine, without regard to how easy it may be to steal (which appears to be their principal "argument") or how difficult it may be to defend. If scavengers like these are free to expropriate the products of my intellect, then, employing different excuses, they can expropriate anything.
Those who don't feel secure enough to stand on their own two feet, physically or mentally or morally (or who have dedicated themselves professionally to exploiting the unfortunates with that problem), and, as a consequence, are inclined to identify more with the group than with the individual, naturally hate and fear individualism. They have done everything they could, over those ten thousand years, to destroy it.
Nice post Kenneth. "Intellectual Property" is a singularly statist invention. Imagine if the first caveman to light a fire or the first person who came up with the wheel had claimed IP rights? the idea is patently absurd.
Look at Drifter breaking a caveman's IP rights...
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=33925.0
"Competition is theft!"-L Neil Smith
Possibly useful related idea: Libertarian Intellectual Property Alliance (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=34864).
VAGINA works for me.