I would like to note that there are more paradigms of
relations between human beings and things than
(A) collective farms and (B) a man's home is his castle
(note that in neither case do the employees have
any claim to the means of production).
I like the paradigm of *trusteeship*/*stewardship*.
Did I read somwehere that some great violinists have in
their possession extremely valuable violins which they
do not own and could not afford to own, but which they
are entrusted with to use, and that the violin itself
benefits from thus being used instead of getting
arthritis (metaphor!) in a storage vault or
museum display? (Or did is this just wishful thinking?)
\brad mccormick
Christoph Reuss wrote:
>
> REH wrote:
> > 1. Capitalism is based in private property. Do you not advocate ownership
> > of physical private property? Could you explain that a little more?
>
> The question is a non-sequitur. There can be physical private property
> without capitalism.
>
> > No matter how I look at it, the idea of patents
> > or the ownership of processes, seems as valid as the ownership of anything.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Not so, because the ownership of a patent is _exclusive_ whereas the
> ownership of a material object (say, a spoon) is not. If you own a spoon,
> that does not prevent others from owning (or using) spoons too. But the
> ownership of software patents does prevent others (esp. open source PRGers)
> from using important algorithms -- or worse, from programming altogether,
> because they'd have to check for every algorithm they use whether it is
> already patented (way too much work). That's the big difference between
> ownership of sw patents and ownership of "anything". And that's why it's
> consistent to oppose ownership of sw patents but not ownership of spoons.
>
> > 2. No, same process two different applications but processes travel. A is
> > A no matter whether the word is Angel or Averice. The issue is what the
> > purpose for A happens to be in the writing. The process that I described
> > compared the "software" i.e. pedagogical processes in the case of teachers,
> > inhabited the same economic space as the software that "teaches" a computer
> > what to do and say. I don't understand why you didn't "get" that?
>
> Your analogy remains fatally flawed, because the law you oppose does not
> make it illegal to teach voice in a certain way (with a certain "algorithm").
> This law is not about patents, not even about IP, but about owning humans.
> That's wrong and not necessary in order to teach great voices.
>
> > 4. How are you on compound interest? How about we do away with all of
> > that "speculation" and see how well the standard of living of Switzerland
> > fares as a farm and shepherd community again.
>
> For the record, the compound interest in Switzerland is about the lowest
> worldwide. As for "farm and shepherd community", you must have missed
> industrialization. Swiss exports are more than 4 times higher than US
> exports (per capita) -- and that without a car industry and without
> raw materials to speak of. How much do banks produce ? So there must
> be a lot more to it than cheese and banks.
>
> > The teacher takes NO salary and invests all of the Time, Resources and
> > Access into a "form" of living tissue and creates art through the
> > cultivation of growth.
>
> If he views "living tissue" as a commodity (Menschenmaterial?), perhaps he
> should become a cattle rancher.
>
> Chris
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
