Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "The Lunduke Journal"
channel.
-
136
-
41
-
39
-
37
-
30
-
28
-
23
-
23
-
17
-
12
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@nate32396 We've had transgenders, communists, monarchists, reactionaries, social liberals, conservatives, muslims, christians, athiests, all arguing in a segregated politics channel before we killed that, nobody cared either way, nobody was banned for any of that and actually those discussion bred a decent bit of respect for one another on occasion. We also openly proclaimed "we will not take any ideological positions as a project and will ban anyone who insists we do" and we have done just that. Its simply that the political leaning of the audience happens to be right-leaning most of the time, nobody enforced that, it naturally happened.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
IP Law is a scourge against liberty, (and if you're a Christian or a Jew it also violates God's Law) I say that as an small government advocate, (the term Intellectual Property was originally used to be a pejorative used by its opponents for fear that it would make ideas into "intellectual property", it was not considered a good thing to be that) it is intended to create monopolies and to destroy competition, I don't find how you can prove an idea has any ownership, it has no attribute of physical property necessary to demonstrate one has ownership, it requires government intervention and the government will always presume guilt without needing to prove your act was guilty nor having to demonstrate an inherent capacity to do so, mere similarity is enough to determine guilt which violates the presumption of innocence. Rights are not granted by government, anything that is a right must be evident to pre-exist government, all government does is ensure the upholding of these pre-existing rights, not the establishment of them (regardless of what the US Congress wants to say) which the Constitution itself affirms. If you need government involved for a right to exist then its not a right, and there is no right to be provided in capability or opportunity, merely the lack of interference, that's what a right is, a lack of interference, not an active protection. When a government upholds a right they are either preventing or correcting a violation of interference on the individual that is or had already taken place, that requires an existing act of violation on the person themselves.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ZipplyZane The only rules we really had in the politics channel was no troll bait and no false accusations, we ended up with at least 3 communists, a few socialists, and a bunch of different Christians, Muslims, and Athiests all discussing things and we only banned like 4 people over it, in a server of over 5,000, there were at least over 30 people who were ever active in the politics channel. The reason we had a politics channel was because it was associated with the purpose of the project, the project is remaking of Paradox Interactive's Victoria 2, politics is a big part of the the game, so before we killed it we agreed to have it and it worked out fairly well for the most part.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@AllLogarithmsEqual Left leaning people statistically live in a bubble, and he proved even that when he found that over 40% of them are willing to censor things that disagree with them. And this is a simple statistic commonly found in psychology, its also found that leftism has a excessively high association with mental illness and is greatly associated with low intelligent consumers, and there actually have been psychological studies on these phenomenon, another one came out only a few weeks ago, they simply don't have the capacity to debate because their ideas were never associated with intellectual thought, and I'm not saying every left wing person, but the chance is quite high that they simply are incapable of basic reason and you can't converse with them. Even more they are easily influenced by propaganda and mainstream narratives and it fits in with Yuri Bezmonov's explanation on demoralization. And it is true that such paradigms are pervasive and all encompassing and they become bigoted against dissent just like any communist perspective must because its about control and power, not about goodness, truth, justice, love, or even fairness. All these terms it uses to control and manipulate people.
1
-
1
-
To be fair, had there been a malicious actor in a closed-source version o XZ, the exploit would've never been discovered, some people like to claim private companies audit their code better but often times they're simply worse if not equal to open-source at it, the only valid concern with open-source that would be uncommon with closed-source is the potential for a high-value, sparsely-considered piece of software has a burned out maintainer who might accidentally let something bad pass or add a malicious actor as contributor. However it is because XZ was open that it was even possible for that exploit to be caught, so while the possibility of a malicious actor getting full reign over a project is higher, the amount of eyes over said project especially in dev branches would mitigate that risk, specifically had XZ been released, it would've only been viable on Ubuntu before it was caught, which was why the malicious actor was attempting to get it pushed into Debian quickly, cause had it followed normal Debian protocol Ubuntu (or even perhaps Fedora) would've been the canary in the coalmine even before the Microsoft employee stumbled upon it. That would've been bad, but so long as we have diverse release schedules, catching things is merely a matter of time when it comes to dev releases. It would be better then any Windows release where they all practically get bricked at the same time which has happened with pieces of Windows software, so on that level Windows is actually no more secure regarding the XZ exploit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodh1404 Expressions neither share the attributes of property (it also isn't even logically true because you're selectively protecting some expression of ideas but not others, like if someone has a specific idea of protest you can't protect that, its an unequal weight) and still require government intervention, violating the very principal of rights and the principal of innocent until proven guilty, that's only rationally kicking the can down the road, not refuting the argument. Any system for which you give government power over is inherently gonna be expanded by those who can then buy government power, and no amount of prohibiting bribery and corruption will fix that, only completely prohibiting the ability for government to enact such capacity in the first place can prevent that. If you wanted to prevent this from happening, you have to completely prohibit their involvement, the government can't decide anything in regards to the market, else it will manipulate and influence the market which builds incentives for big businesses to use the government and get it on their side in order that they can lobby advantages, even without bribery, and you can't just blanket prevent such people from running for office else you'll also prevent the government from have anyone who knows how business and markets work for the common man at all. The only way to ensure that power doesn't get abused is not to give it such power in the first place, its not a legitimate role of government.
All government expansion is based purely on incentives and capacity, and so long as it has capacity an incentive will be had to use that capacity against opposition, even if you have an anti-corruption system in place at one point, the incentives naturally will get rid of said system because there is no incentive to keep it, it is purely by convention that such would exist and thus it can be taken away by convention. People, and thus government and economics both work purely on incentives so the best way to prevent abuse is to build a natural incentive for both that naturally discourages such behavior without violating individual liberty or the capacity for the system to operate efficiently, that means you can't just make a law to ban something, especially when it will have loopholes, incentives can't have loopholes, that's part of the design of the incentive and it is much more natural to simulate the effects.
1
-
@rodh1404 I was talking about the protest itself, that's an expression, you can't protect expression either, expression acts can't be protected but that's a logical requirement of saying its the expression and not the idea. Neither of them can be protected, that's a fallacious position hence why I said its just kicking the can down the road, its not a rational argument.
Also being anti-IP law is not being anarchist or supporting anarchy. What I am saying is in keeping with the concept of justice, else I wouldn't even believe in a legitimate role of government, I was pretty clear in explaining this in my posts, there's no reason to to bring the concept of anarchy into the discussion, governments existed before IP law and you don't need IP law to have a government and that aside I demonstrated how IP law itself violates the very principals of justice alongside actually violating property rights, you can't own non-physical things, for say music, you own a distribution of music, you can't own the music itself, you can't prove ownership and it shares no attributes of property. And there is no distinction between expression and idea, its a claim without distinction.
Also you completely ignored my point of incentives, humans are purely driven through incentives, especially without a backing moral system that threatens excessive violence on violators.
1
-
@rodh1404 "How can you control the distribution of something you don't own?"
I never said you control the distribution, I said you own a distribution of the music, that means a manner for which the music was distributed, whether it be a cd, vinyl, or even digital file of the music. (which yes is a physical property) But you can't control the distribution of it, that being the music or its expression.
"But string a long enough sequence of musical notes together, possibly including vocals and other effects, and provided it meets the originality requirement you do have something you can own."
It can't be owned, you can't prove ownership without government interference, which means its not a right, if it requires interference to exist then it doesn't exist, a right is only that which you have on a stranded island. Violations of rights are interferences that must be corrected which is the purpose of government, not to ensure a fair society or a fair market, that is neither the government's job.
"That's your work, your creativity and it just makes sense that there should be a period of time where you have control over it."
No one has a right to their "work" for that can't be owned, it shares no principal of property, if the work is a property then its not a work any longer, its a product, if its a service, you'd have to voluntarily provide it, if it were otherwise under threatening violent coercion then that's a violation of rights, but other then that you are not insured by government of anything except that you did not rob someone.
"An idea is a concept. The expression is when that idea is put into action. The expression can have IP protection when it's original and put into some kind of fixed material form."
Again an argument lacking distinction, there is no material form, music does not have a material form, it only has a representation which in this case I was calling "a distribution". But neither expression has any attribute for which to be called a property, you can't prove ownership inherently, it does not even have a form, it has representations which do have a form and those can be owned, but that which lacks form is unowned.
"It's more of a carrot and stick kind of thing. There are incentives, and there are punishments. Frankly, I thought this section didn't merit a response. But since you want one:
Watch a series of videos called "Great Moments in Unintended Consequences" by ReasonTV. Incentives can have loopholes."
Unintended consequences are not loopholes, they're the natural consequence of the badly designed systems, a good incentive is not designed like a system and any incentive that is designed by authority is a bad (as in principally, not in function) incentive, an principally good incentive pushes a behavior without restriction, you don't tax nor subsidize an incentive, you devise manners to produce behavioral outcomes without authority interference at all, unintended consequences only exist as a product of forceful authority interferences which is a violation of individual rights most of the time, and in the few other cases they're anti-economic solutions that people disuse as claiming to be economic, for example the cobra effect is a product of enforced incentives by the state which in the first place used coercion to create the bounties, a better bad incentive would've been to at least ask for the snake hides, if the objective was to eliminate the cobras then targeting them with less direct subsidized means would've been even smarter, but that would've destroyed the environment and ecosystem which in the long term is an undesirable result. A better solution is to allow the people the ability to protect themselves and to push for manners that discourage snakes passively from harming people and if that should fail they will kill the snakes locally. Had the government changed the incentive to focus not on a negative outcome for some opposition but a positive outcome for themselves, the economy, or the people, it would require absolutely no regulation (in fact less then they had) and neither would anyone have to worry about the dangers of cobras. It would not have even required coercion of people to pay for the bounty system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1