ICEBreaker on 28/3/2002 at 10:34
Yes, whatever. Either you follow the law or you don't. I honestly don't care if people pirate or not, it is their business. However when people start to flaunt about it, and claim what they are doing is right, then that is another matter.
Dragonclaw on 28/3/2002 at 14:06
Well, here we go again...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Yup. I agree fully. However, when I contrast the worst that can happen to some, the fate of a bourgeois white collar worker such as that is not so bad, even if fired.
Agreed, there are worse fates. But I don't really think you can take that as an argument.
Getting killed is worse than getting beaten up. Still I condemn people who beat others up.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
True. I do not copy CDs from minor bands or companies that I feel deserve support - for such a reason I did not initially copy DX. In the end, I will admit I gave some friends copies; they weren't going to buy it anyway, and I reckoned if they realised how great it was they would give me me somone to play DXMP with and also be more likely to buy DX2. Ion Storm, like LG, like local music, needs and deserves support.
Yes, there are also in my opinion certain "grey zones" where many arguments do not fully count. Such as one is the "They hadn't bought else"-one. But on the other side, you never know if they had not bought that. I have bought games I never thought I would some years ago, and I guess you know that situation, too.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
It depends - are you an arsehole? If it made my life worse, I would. If you were a cool guy who wanted a place to stay - and gave me no reason for fear, I wouldn't mind.
So, basically you say: What you do is not important, but who you are is?
Sorry, but that is the complete opposite to my imagination and wish of justice.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Uh huh. That's different. If you distributed it FREELY under MY name I'd be sweet with it - as long as I wasn't starving.
Even if you put $10.000 (or 10,000;for what you prefer) into publishing it, sell one copy, and see everyone running around with it and quoting your book?
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
True; that arguement would hold great sway to a Capitalist; however not to a Socialist. Profit, to me, is immoral; if it is above the mean, if by using resources you deprive other of their needs.
I despise materialism. To me, being paid isn't the motivator. Doing right, doing well is.
Well, there our opinions naturally confront. I'm not sure what you understand as a capitalist, but I think, who had the idea for the money and put the approriate amount into it, should also have the fair share of it.
And if profit is immoral, follow the consequences:
If I'm not allowed to make profit, or despised because I do so, why should I make it?
If I can't make a profit, there's no need to invest and produce.
If there's no investion and production, there will be no paid workers, and no factories.
So it's back to the old times, where everyone produced his own stuff, and traded if he needed something. These times are not "old" times for the sake of some greedy people, they are basically, because it is easier to live the way we do today than the way we did earlier.
Even more, if profit is immoral, then obviously having money is, too. Either you made it by trade (profits, boo!), or you had more than others in the first (unequal-> unsocial, boo!).
And, one the first lessons in economics is:
In a trade, both can have profits, without one being treated bad.
Easy to explain: You make 10 shoes per hour, but only 1 shirt. (10 shoes/shirt)
I make 3 shirts per hour, but only 6 shoes. (2 shoes/shirt)
Now we trade: I give you one shirt, you give me 5 shoes.
You obviously end up with 5 shoes in the plus, and I end up with 3 shoes in the plus.
Now where is this immoral?
Anarkos on 28/3/2002 at 23:01
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Yes, whatever. Either you follow the law or you don't. I honestly don't care if people pirate or not, it is their business. However when people start to flaunt about it, and claim what they are doing is right, then that is another matter. How interesting - your opinion is the exact opposite of mine. To me, the law is immaterial. The law is immoral. When my morality is different to the states I will break the law.
To me, breaking, opposing, fighting, immoral laws is not only a right but a duty. As Jefferson said, rebellion is the moral man's duty.
I do care when people pirate, if they think it is wrong. This means they are willing to do immoral acts. Sure, what they are doing is something I condone, but it also provides a testiment to their character - it shows that they don't value right and wrong.
Anarkos on 28/3/2002 at 23:21
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Well, here we go again...That we do :) Before we start, do you mind if I ask if you've read the works of Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon or, dare I say it, Lenin?
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Agreed, there are worse fates. But I don't really think you can take that as an argument.
Getting killed is worse than getting beaten up. Still I condemn people who beat others up.
Exactly. The most important sentence related to that point was the one you declined to quote 0- "I would rather give my money to charity"
I would rather help those who are in true need.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Yes, there are also in my opinion certain "grey zones" where many arguments do not fully count. Such as one is the "They hadn't bought else"-one. But on the other side, you never know if they had not bought that. I have bought games I never thought I would some years ago, and I guess you know that situation, too.Yup. Something you might find ironical is that I have to copies of System's Toxicity CD. I d/led the mp3s and burned it to a CD, then bought it when I had the cash. It is a political band that furthers views I admire, if not directly support.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw So, basically you say: What you do is not important, but who you are is?
Sorry, but that is the complete opposite to my imagination and wish of justice.That is perhaps a misunderstanding. You see, my point there is that I oppose private property [I also oppose state property - don't scream Stalinist or I WILL leave :p]. If I have something I can share with another, I will. However, I'll not risk my life stupidly. And if someone routinely abuses me, I don't want them around me...
I don't see squatting as immoral; the action that to me would be would be abusing those you share the residence with.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Even if you put $10.000 (or 10,000;for what you prefer) into publishing it, sell one copy, and see everyone running around with it and quoting your book?Yes, as long as I was fed, clothed, and sheltered.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Well, there our opinions naturally confront. I'm not sure what you understand as a capitalist, but I think, who had the idea for the money and put the approriate amount into it, should also have the fair share of it.Hehe; define fair. To me, fair means everyone gets their material needs satisfied. Remember, not every reward must be material....
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw And if profit is immoral, follow the consequences:
If I'm not allowed to make profit, or despised because I do so, why should I make it?
If I can't make a profit, there's no need to invest and produce.
If there's no investion and production, there will be no paid workers, and no factories.
You are creating this hypothesis on the basis that profit is immoral, but a Capitalist market economy exists. The basis of Socialism is the removal of the profit based market.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw So it's back to the old times, where everyone produced his own stuff, and traded if he needed something. These times are not "old" times for the sake of some greedy people, they are basically, because it is easier to live the way we do today than the way we did earlier.Incorrect; you assume all trade must be monetary and profit orientated.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Even more, if profit is immoral, then obviously having money is, too. Either you made it by trade (profits, boo!), or you had more than others in the first (unequal-> unsocial, boo!).Yup.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw And, one the first lessons in economics is:
In a trade, both can have profits, without one being treated bad.
Easy to explain: You make 10 shoes per hour, but only 1 shirt. (10 shoes/shirt)
I make 3 shirts per hour, but only 6 shoes. (2 shoes/shirt)LOL
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Now we trade: I give you one shirt, you give me 5 shoes.
You obviously end up with 5 shoes in the plus, and I end up with 3 shoes in the plus.
Now where is this immoral? Well, no where. Where does that exist?
Now that's the trade I don't mind; non-monetary, non-profit, if you will. But lets put this in a more real world context.
I can make 30 shirts for $30.
You can make 30 shirts for $15
I give you $12, tell you cut your overheads and you have to accept it because I'm the only buyer.
I keep the rest.
Trade can exist without exploitation, but never universally. When Capitalism exists there will always be exploitation.
ICEBreaker on 29/3/2002 at 01:25
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos How interesting - your opinion is the exact opposite of mine. To me, the law is immaterial. The law is immoral. When my morality is different to the states I will break the law.
To me, breaking, opposing, fighting, immoral laws is not only a right but a duty. As Jefferson said, rebellion is the moral man's duty.Yeah that is because you are an anarchist, which really isn't different from terrorists in the way they justify what they are doing. Your thought process is merely summarised by "I do whatever I think is right." Historically the most evil men and criminals all think what they do is right. Even a drug dealer believes what he is doing is right. Personally, I prefer guys who know what they are doing is wrong. At least there is a possibility of remorse for their actions. By the way, I am NOT comparing you with those people. I assume you have not, and do not intend to commit a crime (except for those minor piracy stuff). I am just comparing your thinking with their thinking. Well now, we all know where we stand. You can have your own opinions, but I doubt anyone here would consider them even remotely plausible.
ICEBreaker on 29/3/2002 at 01:44
OK I just read your other post to DragonClaw. What I would like to ask of you a favour. Can you tell me the amount of all your assets and your financial condition. I will compare it with mine. If you have more than me, can you please share it with me, until we have the same amount? I will be your friend and nice to you, because you shared your "wealth" with me. Is that OK? If not, then why not?
Anarkos on 29/3/2002 at 02:14
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Yeah that is because you are an anarchist, which really isn't different from terrorists in the way they justify what they are doing.I take it you do not speak from experience here. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Your thought process is merely summarised by "I do whatever I think is right." Incorrect. There is one slight difference; I do what I think as right, but I do not actively force this upon others. I do not, will not, as a result of my morality, actively hurt another.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Historically the most evil men and criminals all think what they do is right.As do the best - Gandhi, Tolstoy, X, King, Luther (MLK's namesake; founder of protestantism), Che, even Washington and Jefferson.
My seperation of laws, my view of laws is a direct interpretation of King's writing.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Even a drug dealer believes what he is doing is right.Somehow, I would be surprised - that is if you talk about serious drugs. A pothead may think he's in the right - I agree - but I expect ze Columbians, ah, don't....
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Personally, I prefer guys who know what they are doing is wrong. At least there is a possibility of remorse for their actions. Interesting. I see where you are coming from, and agree when the criminal in question acts immorally out of necessity or indoctrination.
When a psychopath decides "sure, it's wrong, but who gives a shit" then there is no possibility of remorse...
To me, a continuum from good to bad would be:
Someone who does no wrong (very rare...Jesus might fit in)
Someone who only does wrong to prevent worse.
Someone who does wrong to survive.
Someone who does nothing, who is apathic.
Someone who does evil with no remorse.
Someone who consciously chooses evil.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker By the way, I am NOT comparing you with those people.Good - you very nearly made me
very angry.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I assume you have not, and do not intend to commit a crime (except for those minor piracy stuff). I would comit vandalism (graffiti....one media, albeit not the best), riot and related offences (well, why don't we stand still while you hit us, officer...;)), theft (if needed, if needed), murder/assault (self-defence only, but the law doesn't always agree as to what is self-defence...) and trespass.
Nothing terrorist or "evil" really....
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I am just comparing your thinking with their thinking. Well now, we all know where we stand. You can have your own opinions, but I doubt anyone here would consider them even remotely plausible. Hehe
In short, you think I'm an idiot. I think you're apathic and apolitical....in short an idiot :p
Nice to know where we all stand :cheeky:
Anarkos on 29/3/2002 at 02:25
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker OK I just read your other post to DragonClaw. What I would like to ask of you a favour. Can you tell me the amount of all your assets and your financial condition. I will compare it with mine. If you have more than me, can you please share it with me, until we have the same amount? I will be your friend and nice to you, because you shared your "wealth" with me. Is that OK? If not, then why not? By all means, estimated in NZ dollars (half/third it for US$):
Computer and related; $2000 (although as a lot of that is, ah, borrowed off friends...want an 8x CD-ROM drive? I have a lot of hardware, of various ages. Want an Amstrad? [It doesn't work :p])
Clothing; $300
CDs; 100x30 = $3000 (I like music)
Bike; $50
CD Player & Discman; $400
PC Games; Hmmm.....maybe $400
CD-Rs and CD-R derivatives; $300
Books; hmm...I'll call it $500, but its probably less
Old kid's toys still lying around in my parent's basement; $1000
Bank account; $1200
Around NZ$8000; US$3500
That's at new, except for the PC games, hardware and kid's toys. The true values will be far less; the sale value for a CD is closer to NZ$10, at best, for example.
The rest I do not own, rather rent or borrow.
Anarkos on 29/3/2002 at 02:30
BTW, I'm not an Anarchist. While theoretical Anarchy is wonderful I'm fairly sure it, well, won't work.
I can myself an Anarcho-Democratic-Socialist. The first two are self explanitory; I desire the weakest democratic state possible, with the maximum input from the populace. I advocate Socialism as a remedy to the problem of centralised power that curses Capitalism, in particular today's Gotterdammerung.
My name is the Greek root word for Anarchy; it means chaos or entropy. If you've ever seen me play a MP game you'll understand why I use it on game boards.
....I play like I have ADD ;)
Random on 29/3/2002 at 02:45
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos I would comit vandalism (graffiti....one media, albeit not the best), riot and related offences (well, why don't we stand still while you hit us, officer...), theft (if needed, if needed), murder/assault (self-defence only, but the law doesn't always agree as to what is self-defence...) and trespass.
But your 'morals' prevent you from actually 'hurting' someone...? Uh-huh. :rolleyes:
It's kind of hard to argue with a socialist, I guess.
It seems to me that you've either you've been brainwashed by fiction or you're living by ideas that are decades old and have no place in the modern world. There's a reason why the Soviet Union collapsed...
