Craig Wrote: > freedoms. As Abraham Lincoln put it, "Whenever there is a conflict > between human rights and property rights, human rights must > prevail." Property rights are meant to advance human well-being, > not as an excuse to disregard it. <cut> > American capitalism and the idea of intellectual property in 2001 > are basically incompatible. Capitalism is primarily a property & > services based system. Tossed upon an electronic canvas where > property loses its meaning -- where the concept that I can "give" > someone something without me losing it, and they in turn can give it > to everyone else in the world so that we all have the same thing... > is anathema to any financial models that we've been accustomed to > since as long as we can remember.
In polite disagreement, you quote Lincoln from the 19th century to assert that later, in the 21st century, human rights must still prevail. Nearly any political structures or regimes in the world today celebrate true 'human rights', as it was understood by Lincoln. Just look at the brewing crisis between America (alleged home of the free) and China (alleged home of the unfree). Then remember that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator, and probably one of the kindest men to serve high political have ever lived (Cinncinatus excepted). But to extend his world view into the 21st century, a world full of rogue states, dormant superpowers and new kids on the block, is inconceivable. This arguement, so far on both sides, concedes that the present is different from the past. What the Internet challenges is, as you said, the economic system in which the recently globalized world participates in. And 'globalization' is most *certainly* the key to future economic systems. The world is fast becoming reliant on resources, many of which are found outside a country's own physical boundaries. Creativity, in the capitalist system is as Barlow said in the Wired article is both applied to the mental and physical world - nouns and verbs - manufactured goods and manufactured thoughts. The capitalist economy, arising out of the Industrial Revolution and using the IR's great power to vault itself into power, is no doubt one of the greatest portents of doom for this species. There is no indication that the 'global village' will wholesalely reject capitalism. It's kind of like the sweatshop arguments, but a whole different can of worms. In short, the moguls control information, even on the Internet. And they will seek to maintain their hegemony in any way possible - through policy or practice. If anyone is interested in issues relating to the globalization of society, I STRONGLY recommend reading Benjamin Barber's fantastic book "Jihad vs McWorld". Tosh Wrote: >The point is the world has suddenly evolved. Suddenly? This evolution has been about as quiet as the Industrial Revolution ;) >If your main predatory enemy has just evolved a new way to eat you, you >can either sit there and whine and say "hey that's not fair you can't do >that" or you can evolve a counter-response. That's what pushes >evolution in nature and innovation in capitalist systems. What I think you mean regarding nature - adaptation - is something humans are notoriously poor at facilitating. At least most humans. I beg to disagree, too, that a 'dog eat dog' model of the capitalist system appropriately addresses the system's real motivation - and don't forget it - PROFIT. Look at today's economy - at 1020est the Dow's back up 130. But selloffs and layoffs come from new on earnings. Since many (I'd wager more than not) stocks are falling short of earnings projections, (read: they're not as profitable as they claim to be), traders are dumping mid and large caps left and right. I think that Craig's eloquent description of a type of intellectual redundancy is the one thing that will chip away at the foundations of the entrenched global capitalist hegemony. That one can share information, creations and ideas yet not lose ownership of that information, creation or idea is tantamount to what capitalism was conceived to be by Adam Smith - a truly free market, with no interference and a level playing field. So much more to say, but I'd just be wasting bandwidth. Vince Woolums AOL IM: vincewoolums http://www.recordcollectorinc.com
