Angurse: The only such a company could survive is due to widespread support.
The only such a company could survive is due to widespread support.
Which would be trivial, practical support, not serious, theoretical support.
Angurse: That really read like you were pushing the cart before the horse.
That really read like you were pushing the cart before the horse.
I was changing how I was using those words in response to the way that you were using them.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
This thread was going well. But I think I"m going to puke now...
This thread was going well.
But I think I"m going to puke now...
Sorry?
'Did the court he was taken to exist outside the public's sphere of influence? Any upstart PDA could also be taken to court and shut down.'
He was taken to district court so yes.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
And I think its a mistake to make a large distinction between the two. I think peoples actions are heavily influenced by their ideas and the more people understand and adopt good ideas (theory) the more likely they are to practice and accept them.
'Unless, it was a district court of some Astral Plane, I don't see what difference it makes.'
You asked if it was a court of public influence...citizens don't vote for district court judges.
Angurse: You changed the words from April 27th in response to me?
You changed the words from April 27th in response to me?
I'm lost at this point.
Angurse: I still disagree, for a company that openly advocates withholding taxes to the U.S. government you would need serious, diehard, supporters.
I still disagree, for a company that openly advocates withholding taxes to the U.S. government you would need serious, diehard, supporters.
Well, I wasn't trying to say that it would start out like that.
Let me give you an example of something happening right now:
I. Ryan: We are already seeing this happening around us. It doesn't matter that most of the ordinary people can't even think of an alternative to the government copyright and patent systems. It doesn't matter that most of the ordinary people would argue that we need copyrights, because musicians, writers, and so on wouldn't ever do anything without them, because they wouldn't be able to get a return on their work. It doesn't matter that most of them would argue that we need patents, because inventers wouldn't ever do give the world anything without them, because other, less inventive people would just steal their ideas right out of the gates. It doesn't matter, simply because those same people eagerly pirate music, video games, and so on, right after an extended debate about the merits of copyrights. The people making pirating possible, and the people downloading the pirated stuff, are different people. We only need the former to be against copyrights in theory. It doesn't matter whether the latter are, because they will be for it in practice, whatever they argue at their job or with their friends. Government copyrights are falling apart, and I don't think that it has anything to do with the ordinary people changing their views about them.
We are already seeing this happening around us. It doesn't matter that most of the ordinary people can't even think of an alternative to the government copyright and patent systems. It doesn't matter that most of the ordinary people would argue that we need copyrights, because musicians, writers, and so on wouldn't ever do anything without them, because they wouldn't be able to get a return on their work. It doesn't matter that most of them would argue that we need patents, because inventers wouldn't ever do give the world anything without them, because other, less inventive people would just steal their ideas right out of the gates. It doesn't matter, simply because those same people eagerly pirate music, video games, and so on, right after an extended debate about the merits of copyrights. The people making pirating possible, and the people downloading the pirated stuff, are different people. We only need the former to be against copyrights in theory. It doesn't matter whether the latter are, because they will be for it in practice, whatever they argue at their job or with their friends. Government copyrights are falling apart, and I don't think that it has anything to do with the ordinary people changing their views about them.
I meet people every day who would tell me that getting rid of copyrights would be crazy, but who daily pirate music, video games, movies, and so on.
'Thats a very narrow view of public influence. Just because citizens don't directly vote for them doesn't mean that the judges don't still respond to them. The government gets away with as much as it can without upsetting the public (too much).'
Right because if the judge does something citizens don't like then the citizens do...wait...I have something...wait for it...
I don't call myself an anarchist because it's a silly title, you aren't on firm etymological ground when you call yourself an anarchist.
'You are simply ignoring what goes into the decision-making process and jumping to the decision itself.'
So you think that an institution which holds a monopoly on a sector of the market would not protect their monopolistic interests in said market?
Translation: The US government would rule against itself in a US court thus ending their monopoly on postal service.
Never said such a thing.
I. Ryan:I'm lost at this point.
Please do a thread split to get this discussion back on topic.