Planet Zarkon

Boise Politacal Discussion and Argumentation

2006-08-03T11:14:00.000-07:00

I've started a politacal discussion group for Boise, ID

If you're interested in finding such a disussions group, but but aren't in the Boise area, search for one in your town, or create one yourself.

An Opinion

2005-03-24T21:07:00.000-08:00

I was reading the Boise Weekly (BW) a couple weeks ago when I came across this article by Bingo Barns:

“We were politely informed this week the Idaho State House of Representatives did not wish to have complimentary copies of Boise Weekly delivered anymore. According to our informants, one representative objected to our series of articles by Nicholas Collias regarding the adult entertainment business in the Treasure Valley. Apparently, this complainer felt we were promoting pornography.

First of all, I despise self-righteous persons who feel the rest of the world should be prevented from having access to information because that information does not agree with their own morals. Unfortunately, when readers cannot find BW in its old place it is usually one of these type of people who have made that decision for you. Secondly, it is extremely hypocritical that in the one building in our state which is supposed to live by the rules of Democracy, one person’s objection can censor access to information that perhaps a majority of others may desire.”- Boise Weekly, Lingo Yarns, volume 13, issue 30

There are three things Bingo says that I think are worth examination:

1- The representative was censoring others’ access to information because it didn’t agree with his morals.

First of all, the idea that this one representative has censured anyone is absurd. BW isn’t available at my house. Am I censuring people too? No! Not offering something does not constitute censorship. If it did, then not only should our House of Representatives carry BW, but every other publication in existence (as recognized by my father). So, not only is this idea wrong, but it’s unrealistic.

2- The House of Representatives is supposed to live by the rules of democracy.

No, actually it isn’t. It’s amazing how many people get this wrong. The U. S. is not a democracy; it’s a republic (or a representative democracy). Our representatives, senators, President, etc. have much more power concerning what happens to our country than does your regular Joe. Is that democratic? Not in the slightest. The similarity between a democracy and a republic is that they are both “for the people by the people”; they just go in entirely different directions in order to achieve that idea.

3- One person making a decision for many others is undemocratic.

Well, since we’re not a democracy, this statement has no relevance. I would hope that our representatives would be undemocratic, they wouldn’t be representing if they were. However, let’s pretend that we are a democracy.

If the U. S. were a democracy, I would be alongside Bingo in his rant, but one question that must be answered is “who should vote on what?” Should the entire nation vote on whether BW should be stocked in the Idaho State House of Representatives (ISHR)? How about just all of Idaho? Here again we have a situation that would simply not be possible. If we start voting on whether or not the ISHR should stock BW or not, we would end up voting on millions of other things. This would result in us spending every waking moment of our lives punching ballots. I doubt Bingo expects this. I doubt he thinks we should vote on whether or not the BW should be in the House. No, Bingo seems to think that his superior reasoning should be enough. So in fact, the very thing that Bingo accuses the representative of (one person making a decision for others), he is also guilty of. The only difference of course is that the representative apparently has the power, whereas Bingo doesn’t. If Bingo were truly democratic, he would demand that we vote on the issue, but now we’re back on who should have a vote.

Democracy is a system suited more for smaller populations, but it would be possible (I don’t know about wise) to set up a system that at least made larger populations more doable. You would organize it so that things would be broken up, much like how, in our current government, some laws are different from state to state. This is indeed an example of how democracy is really an idea for smaller populations, this natural breaking up of things into smaller categories. So how far down should things be broken down? Well, just right. No seriously, issues should be broken down to whom they directly concern. So, although the representative was definitely not hired to keep watch over the magazines of the House, his opinion should be counted. If someone else who was directly affected by his opinion (say… our one other representative) were to disagree with his wishes, they would have to compromise unless of course there were some more “votes” that could resolve the issue. I don’t know if there was any disagreement between any of those that were directly linked to the House about BW, but Bingo’s assumption that the representative was being “undemocratic” is not warranted.

There’s so much pointing of fingers of “censorship” and “undemocratic”. I’ve become desensitized from all the accusations. I can’t of course demand that these people shut-up. There’s nothing I can do, but they’re digging themselves their own grave. The more we misuse strong accusations, the more they will be ignored.

1st photo by parachute_girl - http://flickr.com/photos/parachute_girl/

2nd photo by gragsie - http://flickr.com/photos/gragsie/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Ownership

2005-02-24T15:24:00.000-08:00

___Ownership is controlling. I own a car because I am the one who controls it. I may control my neighbors’ car when I borrow it, but my control of it is under his control, so long as I submit to it. If I steal his car, he loses control of it, and since I gain that control, I own the car. I may not have the moral right to own it, but that is an entirely different matter. Ownership is not the right to control; it is the control itself. Slavery is the complete ownership (so far as the slave-master attempts to exercise it) of another human being. Since no one has the right to control another in this way, “ownership” cannot be the right to control. So when a horse escapes from a corral, we say that it owns itself, because it is it’s own boss.

___A fellow student of mine once made the claim that there is no philosophical basis for the right own. I could not come up with such a basis at the time, but have since and I can’t believe how slow my brain must work for it to take so long. It is, quite simply, “quality of life”. If there were no such thing as the right to own (or the right to control) we would suffer a much lower quality of life. Anything we gathered or made for our benefit could be taken away by anyone who was able. So the right to own is crucial to our well-being.

___The right to own is something we give to each other because we desire the same. There is no actual law that says, “this belongs to this person and that belongs to that person”, apart from the one we’ve created. Now, when I say “law”, I’m not talking about something that a Government may uphold, I mean something that must be. I’m talking about a law that we did not necessarily intend to create, but that sprung up naturally. You of course recognize that, if we do not want to break the law of noncontradiction, when we demand the right to own for ourselves, we must grant it to others as well. This system of granting each other the right to own works like this: Those who are responsible for the existence of something automatically have the right to own that thing. If someone has control of something, they can of course discontinue having that control, or they may give that control over to someone else. If two people have control over something, and one of them dies, naturally, the other person would gain full control.

___We must expect everyone to grant each other the right to own. It cannot be a “follow at your own will” idea. As I said before, the right to own is crucial to our well-being, so we must not tolerate those that do not follow the system. Therefore, any and all people who are guilty of stealing should be turned in to the authorities.

Photo by Chuck Kahn - http://flickr.com/photos/chuckkahn/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Time Tech Relation

2005-02-16T14:55:00.000-08:00

___It is apparent that there exists a relationship between time and technology. The more technologically advanced we are, the shorter it is until the next big break-through. This increasing rate, like our expanding universe, is illustrated for us by the different time periods he have in history. Take for example the Middle Ages through the Classical. The Middle Ages lasted 600 years, the Renaissance followed with 200, then the Baroque with 150, and finally the Classical which lasted only 50 years.

photos4.flickr.com/4338767_2b9cda9652_t_d.jpg>

___I believe that the fact that technological advances tend to speed up technology as a whole, gives us good grounds to predict the future. Technology is developed by human's knowledge. Individual humans die off, and their knowledge with them, but not any technology that they had a hand in. The human mind, much like technology, learns at a faster and faster rate. The more that one learns, the more one is capable of learning (This was part of the conclusion to a very good essay called "Examined Life" which appeared in the New Yorker). This idea is as true for the entire human body as it is for individuals, otherwise the smartest person wouldn't get past the level of our prehistoric ancestors. Since the advancement of technology is dependent on what we know, and since our knowledge is at an increasing rate, it only makes sense that technology would follow in a likewise fashion. What does this mean for the future? Well, there’s the obvious, that technology will continue to advance at an increasing rate, but there is one more thing to consider. There is a limit to how much one can learn. Even if we had every fact about the universe put away in a file cabinet somewhere, no one could ever learn it all. The human brain is just not capable. Yes, the human race, as a whole, could learn more than one individual, but it too is limited because that which makes it up is limited. So at some point, Man will reach it’s peak concerning knowledge. (This leaves room for theories [in the unconventional sense] about AI taking the knowledge business over for us. A true science fiction story, but I’m not going to go there.)

Photo by hurleygurley - http://flickr.com/photos/hurleygurley

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

A Mass Injustice

2005-02-14T20:52:00.000-08:00

___All over the world people have decided to deny musicians of their rights. Stealing from them in broad daylight has become a common practice among otherwise law-abiding citizens.

___There are tons of arguments out there explaining why you shouldn’t have to pay for music, I will argue for why you should. By not paying for the music they acquire, many people are guilty of the act of stealing. Those who I oppose argue that you shouldn’t have to pay whenever you acquire music through ways such as burning and downloading, in which no physical product can be traced. There are a few main arguments supporting this idea that many people accept, but in fact are nothing more than a bunch of garbage. As for those who, like me, believe that you should have to pay for music, their argument is nothing more than, “It’s stealing because it’s stealing”. Obviously this can’t be taken seriously, and rightfully so, it isn’t. This is where I come in. I will explain why obtaining music without paying for it is stealing and how the arguments coming from the other side are worthless.

___Is it stealing not to pay for music? According to the law it is, but that’s not enough. After all, it used to be legal to own another human being, and that certainly didn’t make it right. So we must look deeper. We must examine the actual act and decide what it means.

___Everyone has the right to the opportunity of benefiting from their work. If someone creates something, that thing is theirs, and they should be able to do with it whatever they want. This includes giving it away, selling it, or even not releasing it at all. To take away one’s right to choose, giving them only the option to benefit you, but not themselves, can only be accepted if you accept slavery (Volkman). So, if someone makes something that you come to own and they want something in return for it, you owe them that.

___If we were to define “stealing” as when one causes another to suffer a personal loss, then you might agree, as many do, that duplicating music files is not stealing because the artist won’t feel any loss concerning his personal property. This is partly true. The artist won’t notice a loss, but that is only because you are not taking something that is already his, you are taking something that is due to him, and as I just established, if he wishes, something is indeed due to him. This would be comparable to someone stealing your paycheck before you receive it. Only, most likely, you know it’s coming, whereas a musician’s life is more like a sales person. Yes, you didn’t notice a drop in your bank account, but it is never the less stealing. So when you obtain unpaid-for music, you haven’t actually stolen the music, but the money you should have paid for it.

___Now that you see why obtaining music without paying for it is stealing, I will talk about the opposing arguments. These are the primary ones used by those that insist they are doing nothing wrong. Many accept them, for they seem to have value to them, unlike “It’s stealing because it’s stealing”, but when you take a close look, you’ll find that the arguments are based on flawed reasoning.

___One such argument is, “information should be free”. Although you might not think of music as being information, music can be art, and art can inform, therefore, music can be counted as information. Should information be free? Someone had to make that information, and since if someone makes something that thing belongs to them, then why should they not be able to benefit from it like they would anything else? There is no justification for taking from one person in order to benefit another.

___Another argument claims file sharing actually boosts the sales of the record companies. Let’s assume this to be true. OK so it’s in their best interest that file sharing be legal, but when did we become in charge of the record companies? If file sharing is in their best interest and they come to recognize this, they will undoubtedly shift their policies, encouraging it. They haven’t yet, but in the meantime, we’ve decided to take matters into our own hands. This argument doesn’t work because it’s us making a decision on the part of the record companies, which we have no right to do. I do not think it acceptable to take away a persons or an organization of person’s rights under the pretence that as a result they will benefit financially.

___There is one more argument that I wish to address, which says, “Music is art. Do we charge people every time they look at the Mona Lisa? If you do an image search on Google for ‘mona lisa’ and see a picture of it, are you stealing from the louvre?” The answer that anyone would give to this question would be “no”, and they would be right. However, the comparison being made is faulty. You are led to think that seeing a picture of the Mona Lisa is similar to downloading or burning music. This comparison isn’t real. Seeing the Mona Lisa is only comparable to hearing music, because they are both experiencing art, whereas obtaining music is an entirely different matter. Once you obtain music you own it, you control it. This is one way that an artist makes a living. They create something, show it off, and then give you the opportunity to buy their creation, so that you might experience it whenever you wish. Experiencing and owning art are two entirely different things. Don’t group the two together.

___As I have explained, by not paying for the music they acquire, many people are guilty of the act of stealing. I’ve shown you why it’s stealing, and how the opposing arguments are worthless.

___Through burning and downloading, countless numbers of people have stripped musicians of a right so fundamental as the opportunity to benefit from ones work.

Work Cited: Volkman, Richard. File-Sharing. http://www.southernct.edu/organizations/rccs/news/file_sharing.html
1st photo by adlaw - http://flickr.com/photos/adlaw/
2nd photo by cardhouse - http://flickr.com/photos/cardhouse/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

A Fake Effort

2005-02-14T20:48:00.000-08:00

___Being the non-drivers license holder that I am, I had to find a ride because my parents weren’t going to the lake until later. I managed to get one with a late twenties-something couple with two rambunctious boys. Most of the ride consisted of me trying to think of things to say, something I fear is obvious to most people I don’t normally talk to, while their boys played “spaceship”. This was interrupted by a stop at the grocery store where I was left with the husband and two boys while the wife went in. “The Bends” was playing quietly through the speakers of their dark blue minivan – kids taking quiet nap. Thankful that the “The Bends” was playing I struck up a conversation. We talked about Radiohead’s influence from the Beatles and Wings, as well as other music small talk. Radiohead had just come out with an album earlier that year; “Hail to the Thief” it’s called. I hadn’t heard it yet so my chauffeur acted as my authority. Apparently he wasn’t to fond of the new album. He explained that it was just Thom York trying to sound weird.

___I have since thought about that conversation and have realized that my chauffeur’s opinion, which is held by many, is one that I disagree with. I’m not talking about his opinion of “Hail to the Thief”; I’m talking about his implied opinion of striving for “weirdness” in music. All the time artists strive for a certain sound, be it beauty, complexity, or ambience, and we see nothing wrong with this. When it comes to “weirdness” it is different. We seem to think, and I’m not sure why, that “weird” music should just come naturally to an artist, that striving for “weirdness” is somehow fake. What is the basis for this? I have no idea and have accordingly decided that there is none. Not all musicians are naturally “weird” (or demented) like Tom Waits. Some of them must strive for “weirdness” and I defy anyone to come up with a sound reason for why this is wrong.

Photo by shadowplay - http://flickr.com/photos/shadowplay/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

No Need to Click Here - I'm just claiming my feed at Feedster

PARECON

2005-02-14T20:32:00.000-08:00

("PARECON" is an economic system that closely resembles Socialism)

___One of the ideas behind PARECON is that people will consume less, due to a lack of marketing, which means that they will have to work less. I do not see this as being particular to PARECON. That when you consume less, less work is required of you is true under our current economic system, as “curly haired” Chris pointed out a month ago. PARECON’S effect of making commercials obsolete will do nothing more than make TV more bearable. The kind of economic system that we need is one that encourages efficiency. It is not up to the individual whether or not their economy is efficient, as opposed to how much we consume.

___Efficiency is one of the most important factors in an economy. It is, one way or another, beneficial to the market. For example, if a publishing house becomes more efficient, say by lowering their costs, they will, of course, begin making more money than before. There are a few different things that could follow as a result. They could of course then afford to lower the cost of their publications, which would in turn save their customers money, and even make available their publications to those who before could not have afforded them. Another possible outcome would be that they would expand their business, which would of course make more jobs, and the more jobs we have the more the workload will be spread (surey there has to be a limit to how much goods we humans can want), which would, theoretically, mean that we have less work to do. The only thing they could do that wouldn’t benefit the economy would be to hoard the money, but no one would do that for it’s not even beneficial for one’s self. Basically the point is this; efficiency grows the market.

___Now maybe I missed an important element, but as far as I can remember, PARECON in no way encourages efficiency. If this is true, even if all the jazz about giving everyone equal opportunity is legit, PARECON still doesn’t encourage growth of any kind. So basically we would be poor but equal, just like those in Communist Countries.

Note: The whole idea of efficiency growing the economy is not mine. It's been around for some time and is believed by many people. I was just merely applying the idea to PARECON.

Photo by doublehappyjoy - http://flickr.com/photos/lorien/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.