Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What I meant was that why are we content with a system that gives us the capability to read whatever we wish while not having mechanisms in place to reward those who have written what we read?

Well at present we are not content with such a system since there is no such system at present. The closest we have come is a system that allows a few people such as yourself to read whatever they like without rewarding the author whilst the rest of us do reward the author, thus ensuring that more works are written which those who choose not to reward the author can then go and read.

If you are talking about some future system then all I can say is at present you are content with a system in which you read whatever you like and chose not to reward those who have written what you have read. I see nothing in your posts that suggests your preferred system would change any time in the future.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Eventually funds for printed books will run out, and then quasi funds for ebooks will run out as well.

And your basis for this claim is what exactly?

If you mean eventually we will create the Net 2.0 Utopia you bang on about and there will be no need for money then great. So long as the full Utopia is created. On the other hand if you mean funds are just going to mysteriously disappear without any mechanism for payment being set up to replace money then I would suggest the lack of books being written will be waaaaay down on the list of things that have gone wrong by that point so it wont really matter.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What is the library to do then? Tell you to pay more for more books... In other words, most likely raised taxes.

It seems you can't get past the idea of everyone paying more taxes so you don't have to pay for any of the books you want to read. I'm going to go out on a limb and postulate that you probably don't pay much if any taxes yourself right? So higher taxes wouldn't be much of a burden on you, just something everyone else should need to stump up for your reading pleasure.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Underutilizing a technology could be considered immoral.

Indeed it could. So could expecting authors to be your bitch and keep knocking out stuff for you to read without any payment in return.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

I don't believe in money.
I just use it. It's a tool; nothing more and nothing less.
no need for beliefs there.

Actually, money does require belief for it to work. Why is a dollar worth anything? Because we believe it is. Once an economy moves beyond barter, you move into a world where increasing levels of belief are needed for the system to work.

--
Bill

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Actually, money does require belief for it to work. Why is a dollar worth anything? Because we believe it is.
Bill

Well once the government declares certain coins and notes as legal tender you have to by law accept that money if offered by someone in debt to you whether you believe in it or not. It's also required to extinguish your tax obligations.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by cjr72

Well once the government declares certain coins and notes as legal tender you have to by law accept that money if offered by someone in debt to you whether you believe in it or not. It's also required to extinguish your tax obligations.

In both cases you are talking about obligations that were incurred in money in the first place.

When I am talking about belief is required for the dollar to be worth the dollar, I am not talking about the greenback, but rather that a dollar has any real worth at all. If tomorrow every store keeper in America decided the dollar was worthless, it would be. That is not likely to happen even in this economy, but if you look at what happened to the Confederate Dollar during the American Civil War, you might get a better idea of what I mean. Its reasons like this that in times of trouble, people often turn to Gold... Gold's worth is still really only based on belief (being that Gold has only limited industrial usefulness), but that belief goes back a lot further in our culture than the U.S. Dollar.

--
Bill

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

In both cases you are talking about obligations that were incurred in money in the first place.

Debts can incurred with no money transferred at all. At that point the debt can be extinguished by legal tender even if the creditor would prefer payment in gold and views dollars as worthless.

When I am talking about belief is required for the dollar to be worth the dollar, I am not talking about the greenback, but rather that a dollar has any real worth at all. If tomorrow every store keeper in America decided the dollar was worthless, it would be. That is not likely to happen even in this economy, but if you look at what happened to the Confederate Dollar during the American Civil War, you might get a better idea of what I mean. Its reasons like this that in times of trouble, people often turn to Gold... Gold's worth is still really only based on belief (being that Gold has only limited industrial usefulness), but that belief goes back a lot further in our culture than the U.S. Dollar.

--
Bill

I see your point and yes the value of the dollar goes up and down against other currencies and precious metals, etc. depending on people's collective faith in the dollar. Still at the end of the day if the IRS can put you in jail for not extinguishing your tax obligations with legal tender, you're going to value the dollar to the extent that you value your freedom.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by cjr72

Debts can incurred with no money transferred at all. At that point the debt can be extinguished by legal tender even if the creditor would prefer payment in gold and views dollars as worthless.

But if no monetary value is assigned to the specific debt, then it is ultimately the courts or some mutual agreement amongst the parties that settles the value of the debt, based on the relative valuation one places on the debt and on the dollar.

I see your point and yes the value of the dollar goes up and down against other currencies and precious metals, etc. depending on people's collective faith in the dollar. Still at the end of the day if the IRS can put you in jail for not extinguishing your tax obligations with legal tender, you're going to value the dollar to the extent that you value your freedom.

The IRS throwing you in jail for failure to pay taxes really says nothing one way or the other about whether belief is required for money to work.

Mind you, I am not for getting rid of money; to my mind it remains the single most important invention for the existence of civilization on anything other than the local level. I just believe in recognizing the truth when it stares me in the face .

--
Bill

[QuantumIguana]

Legal tender status means virtually nothing if people don't think their money will be worth anything. There may be people who think the dollar is worthless, but anyone can accept a dollar with a high degree of expectation that they will be able to spend it. If sellers didn't think the dollar was worth anything, people would be taking wheelbarrows of money to buy a loaf of bread.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

The IRS throwing you in jail for failure to pay taxes really says nothing one way or the other about whether belief is required for money to work.

In the end I don't disagree that belief plays a role, but there has to be something that generates the initial demand in the first place (the extinguishing of debts in the case of legal tender) which in turn engenders belief.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Mind you, I am not for getting rid of money; to my mind it remains the single most important invention for the existence of civilization on anything other than the local level. I just believe in recognizing the truth when it stares me in the face .

--
Bill

It does look like money is responsible for civilization but perhaps this is not so. Large scale civilizations existed before money, perhaps you are referring to slightly technological civilizations?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It does look like money is responsible for civilization but perhaps this is not so. Large scale civilizations existed before money, perhaps you are referring to slightly technological civilizations?

Before paper money, of course, but no large scale civilizations existed before commonly accepted means of exchange -- like shells or pearls, etc.

Now let us get serious will you, today's society based on barter trades? You go to the dentist and clean his house afterwards? This thread is getting more and more ridiculous.

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Before paper money, of course, but no large scale civilizations existed before commonly accepted means of exchange -- like shells or pearls, etc.

Now let us get serious will you, today's society based on barter trades? You go to the dentist and clean his house afterwards? This thread is getting more and more ridiculous.

Getting? It happened a loooong time ago.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Before paper money, of course, but no large scale civilizations existed before commonly accepted means of exchange -- like shells or pearls, etc.

Now let us get serious will you, today's society based on barter trades? You go to the dentist and clean his house afterwards? This thread is getting more and more ridiculous.

No not today's society, tomorrows society. Timebanks

[Pulpmeister]

Well, if anyone outside this universe is pirating this universe's books, we'll never know.

But inside this universe, theft is theft.

And "if everything that has been or will ever be written is already so" is a meaningless statement, even in abstract philisophy. In the real world, the arrow of time goes but one way, and anything that has yet to be written has no existence until somone takes the trouble and effort and expense to write it.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Well, if anyone outside this universe is pirating this universe's books, we'll never know.

But inside this universe, theft is theft.

And "if everything that has been or will ever be written is already so" is a meaningless statement, even in abstract philisophy. In the real world, the arrow of time goes but one way, and anything that has yet to be written has no existence until somone takes the trouble and effort and expense to write it.

I must admit that on the surface it seems a bit weird to bring the origin of the universe into a discussion about whether or not is is ethical to access an ebook that has already been uploaded to the network. However, I do not claim to know the origin of the universe, nor do I believe anyone else knows. We can however, lump the universe and everything outside it together ad infinitum until it is all just one big lump, or ebook if you prefer, just waiting to be accessed and read.

What is this real world you speak of?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I must admit that on the surface it seems a bit weird to bring the origin of the universe into a discussion about whether or not is is ethical to access an ebook that has already been uploaded to the network. However, I do not claim to know the origin of the universe, nor do I believe anyone else knows. We can however, lump the universe and everything outside it together ad infinitum until it is all just one big lump, or ebook if you prefer, just waiting to be accessed and read.

What is this real world you speak of?

Better stay off the weed while your are writing your posts...