|
This forum and others like it have inspired me to seek out the underlying roots of the issue. I do not accept at face value, as other seem to insist I must, the concept of IP as a natural form of property. If its definition as such cannot be adequately defended, then the governmental constructs which provide that very definition must also be questioned, and changed to reflect reality and the will of society which that gov't serves.
Guya is right, if but one mind is freed from the propagandistic misconceptions foisted upon us by our creative "masters", then that is one step closer to bringing about the balance of interests so necessary in this social contract.
The claim that there is no debate is simply denial, and the attempt to secure a non-existent moral high ground. There are things that are naturally wrong, that are understood by all humanity, that are "forever", as someone here so eloquently put it. But to place self serving interests and the demand for control over Individual actions in conjunction with outmoded business models and antiquated concepts of "scarcity" and "hoarding" onto this lofty pedestal is a stretch in logic that must be extensively explained.
Certainly, the violation of an oath, or contract is one of the natural rights or wrongs, but how will you bind someone to an oath they never made? An oath which someone else made in proxy for them, but which they as an Individual would never have agreed to in the first place. That deception, for that is truly what it is, is also inherently wrong.
Correct it, and see for yourselves where right and truth will take us.
|