Copyfascism Watch

Don't blame Google for this. Google isn't the government, they are only deciding which works to allow on their property. When they have the real possibility of being sued by Huffington for hosting this work, they are merely being pragmatic in keeping it off their property. I know the trendy leftist thing is to always bash corporations, but that's the intellectually dishonest road. The true villians are the DMCA, which was imposed on us by congress, and Huffington who is using it as a cudgel.

"Don't blame Google for this."

If the government allowed Google to kill people, would you blame Google? Copyright is a violation of the non-aggression axiom, but not to that extent as murder. So the must blame both the government and corporations.

All Google is doing is deciding what content is allowed on their OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY. If we are to blame Google for this, then we must blame every other site owner in the world for not hosting every possible content.

If you don't like Google's policy with regards to their OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY, then go find someone else to host your content.

"All Google is doing is deciding what content is allowed on their OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY. If we are to blame Google for this, then we must blame every other site owner in the world for not hosting every possible content."

It appears that you support IP. IP is a violation of the non-aggression axiom because they prohibit the implementation of their ideas on your own private property. So IP is equivalent to theft. If the government allowed Google to legitimize theft, such as steal your house, would you blame Google? The non-aggression axiom applies to every level, not just the government. I, however, do not blame Google for their peaceful ways of making profit, nor corporations in general, per se. I only blame their actions that violate the non-aggression principle, as it applies to every level.

Also, there is not a distinction between government and corporations, as they are a giant collusion. Corporations can influence the government to steal and vice versa.

"I know the trendy leftist thing is to always bash corporations"

Opposing corporations for their violation to the non-aggression principle is a right-libertarian principle, because non-aggression is a "universal monopoly ethic", as it applies to all levels.

IMO, I think that supporting corporations is a leftist libertarian principle because some leftists sometimes justify non-aggression such as "state-socialist communes in a market anarchist society."

My beliefs are the reverse as the usual. Because it seems contradictory for rightists to wholeheartly support non-aggression universally and also support corporations that violate non-aggression, at the same time.

David, you have the right idea of only dismantling the government that initiates aggression. But blame is to all agents that violate non-aggression.

Suppose if someone tells you to murder someone? Would you deserve the blame if you murder? What if you told someone to murder someone. You also deserve the blame. If you told a robot to murder someone, you deserve the blame. If you told the government to murder someone, you also deserve the blame. If Google told the government to violate property by placing IP, they deserve the blame.

But I know that it is impossible for corruption to be zero. There will always be bad guys that corrupt the government, as there will always be bad guys that murder. The bad guys that corrupt the government will always out-compete their competitors. So it is impossible to educate the bad corrupt guys to avoid corruption, since new bad guys would outcompete the educated ones.

What is you definition of "blame"? People have different interpretations on what "blame" is. I interpret "blame" as "a non-aggression violation." Other people interpret the word as "using violence to defend the person deserves the blame." So you cannot argue if an agent deserves blame or not unless we have the same interpretation of the word.

Similarily, words such as "hate" is ambiguous. Some left-libertarians "hate" corporations. But that does not mean that they would abolish all corporations. This is similar to minarchists "hating" government but they do not want to abolish government. People have different definitions of "hate." I hate corporations, but that does not mean I want to abolish them (as it obviously would make our standard of living much worse). I just hate the corporate structure, and I want to abolish these specific aspects of government intervention.

Sigh. Deciding what content to host on your own private webserver is not equivalent to supporting IP! But regardless, I would much sooner support IP then support a police state that forces Google to host all possible content.

Google is not enforcing IP laws against anyone. All they are doing is choosing which content to host or not. If they were finking on people to the government that would be a different story. They might be doing that elsewhere, but in this area of hosted content they are not.

To make this as clear as possible: Google is not violating your copyright by not hosting your content!

I never liked that Huffington windbag anyway.