delusional

Alan wrote, “I believe the core argument in this post is: "Copyright is one of the state's basic mechanisms for seducing weak minds into sanctioning governmental violence to enforce contrived rights who's only hope of possibly being realized lies in the menacing threat of arrogant aggression." Without commenting on the rest of the post (which I mostly agree with), I feel this main point needs rebuttal.”
    While the post in question concerned various (largely laudable) observations concerning the GNU General Public License, Alan did identify the single sentence that best captures my primary core argument. It could consequently be argued that this terribly belated response should follow Alan's comment under my original provocative post. I have, instead elected to create a new main (root level) post for the following reasons:
      1) Alan's comments far exceeds the scope of the main post.
      2) It's my unwary way of dignifying all my brutish ape-like chest pounding that has preceded this event.

Alan, graciously continues, “First, let me point out the extreme irony in this idea. It is no doubt that Mr. Z. Clark is strongly of the libertarian persuasion (as I am), sharing the two most important core beliefs of abhorrence from unnecessary force, and utmost respect for (physical) property rights. Yet, this is an argument over an abhorrence for intellectual property (IP) rights.”
    Thanks, a better lead-in would be hard to come by. A no doubt conclusion (accusation) of my strong libertarian persuasion merits a few shared reflections however. I wonder if said persuasion is evident from this blog's contents or has more to do with personal knowledge of say the fact I ran against D. Gephardt as a Libertarian. In any event, the average libertarian may well cringe at any Z.Clark associations. If I had the stomach to investigate such things, Libertarians would likely still prove to be the least offensive political party in the US. But like the GPL, the mere exercise of either lends credence to a system which is ill founded at base. It's quaint at best to hope Libertarians can improve/salvage what the ‘Founding Fathers’ could not (i.e. the morbid transition from confederacy, to republic, to democracy on to socialism is systemic in nature and is fated to unfold as such despite the bloody patriot's best intentions). A flattering distinction for the GPL is that it hopefully sets a precedence (wittingly or not) of binding the machine against itself.
    To more directly contest the issue however, Alan apparently considers my inability to equate the “physical” horse in my front yard to the “intellectual” unicorn in Danny's imagination as “extreme irony” ... hmmm. All are invited to rephrase the foregoing to more advantageously reflect their perspective. Nevertheless the real crux of the problem I see lies in first 1) inventing then 2) claiming and finally 3) protecting ‘rights’ in the first place.

Well, to the extent that any sorry soul is ill integrated into the status quo's local matrix of misfeasance, they will be perceived as delusional by their peers. While the foregoing could portend an ensuing defense (on my part as a nonconformist), let me wholly dispel that anticipation by emphatically declaring up front, “Of course I'm delusional - highly delusional, in fact.” That being said, allow me the liberty to precisely define “delusional” for the purpose of this post. In saying, “delusional”, I refer to our species' tendency or affinity to delusion and insanity, rather than the condition of harboring any particular set of delusions. For a succinct insight into delusion per se, it's hard to beat the Devil's Dictionary:

Now regarding said affinity to delusion, we might identify it more forcefully as powerful propensities or even hopelessly ingrained habits. Nevertheless, persons strongly susceptible to delusion could, in principle, suffer far fewer actual delusions than individuals with considerably less severe inclinations. Indeed, a highly delusion prone person who is sufficiently honest with herself may notice particularly strong emotional reactions to various issues which serve to distract from, or even prohibit logical analysis. This awareness in turn holds the potential for an avalanche of self-sincerity and the wholesale eradication of many ghosts and delusions. Two aspects of this process are most notable. First, the annihilation of dearly held precious beliefs can be accomplished not only with runaway dispatch, but also with negligible emotional discomfort. And second, the end result is remarkably stable; so regression back to delusion is not a threat. What this tells us is that many such beliefs, regardless of how vehemently proclaimed and emotionally celebrated, are not really believed in the first place (albeit defending said delusions can lead to a horrible and early death).

“Save the Children?” What exactly is that supposed to mean?? Well the current main stream thought-pool which is huge enough to easily immerse both the Moral Majority and Greenpeace would instantly translate this to “DONATE”. Which in turn means, “YOU give MONEY to THEM”. And by “THEM” we obviously don't mean the children themselves nor their parents and not even any local community centers; but instead officially trustworthy & awesomely affluent organizations endowed to the hilt with adequate overhead. This is an undeniably valid premise as the very same (anti)thought-pool invariably holds that money makes the world go round and 501(c)3 organizations know best.

To quickly clean the preceding up a bit, it first behooves one to refrain from using a term like “thought-pool” to refer to a condition which serves more to paralyze rather than stimulate the mind. A more apt reference would be “meme pool” (or possibly “stool”). Next, as I'm relentlessly prone to promote, the real miracle of human society lies in the exponential advantages found in cooperation and division of labor. Since money can powerfully enable such mutually profitable interactions incredibly well, the more cunning have managed to securely monopolize this otherwise naturally free medium.

So if one now wishes to consider saving the poor children then the last thing you'd want to instill in their minds is a crippling dependence on a proprietary currency issued by the very same system that left them outside the monetary loop in the first place. Real empowerment would reside in the creation of their own local currencies potentially based upon the YeNom concept. The first and foremost matter a free enterprise system should address is its own life blood; namely an open flexible monetary scheme that is customizable to specifically address any need.

While children make for endearing sentimental targets, other instances of victimization are worth considering as well. And in the case of traditional money, robbery is perhaps the most notorious. This can occur in three broad modes. In order of severity these are: 1) counterfeiting, 2) swindling and 3) direct person on person violation. Yea, I know counterfeiting as number one must sound pretty strange even though the state likes to make a big deal out of this whenever they wish to issue a downgraded currency to their benefit. But I'm talking about the mobsters within the self-sanctioned system (not from the outside). In other-words, it is the Federal Reserve System itself that should be construed as the master counterfeiter in violation of the Constitution. As is the case with lotteries, the state simply can't condone competition. Precious few, however, care to acknowledge things like this. The only news people crave to hear and worry about revolve around gruesome individuals like Seung-Hui Cho while the insanity of say Hiroshima and Nagasaki is accepted in stride.

We've previously cited the vital increases of production via the division of labor and cooperative effort.  For a more primordial perspective the word “production” might better be replaced with “subsistence” or even “survival”.  Yet before addressing the dominant bearing money has on these fundamental means of sustaining human existence;  we should first note that (like it or not) both are social (others oriented) phenomenon.  So from conception to the casket ‘others’ are a very real life & death determinant.  The significance of this is greatly amplified when one considers that our ‘survival instinct’ or ‘will to live’ is persuasively rumored to be the most ingrained cardinal commander of our strongest impulsions.  The preceding will hopefully help account for a human propensity found in a quote I encountered just yesterday - namely:
    When I was seven years old, I was once reprimanded by my mother for an act of collective brutality in which I had been involved at school.  A group of seven-year-olds had been teasing and tormenting a six-year-old.  “It is always so,” my mother said.  “You do things together which not one of you would think of doing alone.”  ...  Wherever one looks in the world of human organization, collective responsibility brings a lowering of moral standards.  The military establishment is an extreme case, an organization which seems to have been expressly designed to make it possible for people to do things together which nobody in his right mind would do alone.
                -- Freeman Dyson, Weapons and Hope

Note that Dyson is suggesting that the same basic principle operant in a spontaneous episode involving a few seven-year-olds also applies to thousands of men in their prime totally immersed into a tightly controlled, highly regimented, patently propagandic environment.  Well to that I'd just have to say -- pretty perceptive!  Then there is that phrase of his.....