Message 04979 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04596 Message: 42/93 L22 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: "At Cost"

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld> wrote:
Patrick Anderson wrote:

The reason I confine my argument to the somewhat brutish concepts of
property ownership and contract law is because those avenues are
realistic 'handles' or 'footholds' or maybe even think of them as a
way to form a 'petri dish' that we can then use in Juijitsu manner (as
RMS's GNU GPL does with Copyright) to work against those that
currently use ownership in immoral ways to subjugate others.

I don't think this is a useful approach. A license agreement (with a
copyright) is a device that exists within a given legislation. It depends on
it. However, human(e) relationships may be tainted by the dominant mode of
production, but the Free Software community is a wonderful example of them
not being confineable.


I really want to understand what you are saying here, but am having
trouble.  Could you please restate this?

Also, I quite havily disagree with your introduction of moral terms into
this. What makes usage of 'ownership to subjugate others' 'immoral' ? And, I
might add, according to whose moral system ?

I agree that I shouldn't have resorted to claiming morality.  I did so
out of ... I guess laziness.

I was trying to describe what I think most people would generally
'want' out of a new mode of production, especially as compared to

1. Would you say subjugating others is an end goal of Oekonux?

2. Would you say *stopping* the subjugation of others is an end goal of Oekonux?

3. Would you say the end goals of Oekonux have nothing to with the
subjugation of others?

Instead of simply condemning property rights and any Terms of
Operation that may be enforced through that ownership, I am trying to
use them to our advantage by:

Again, I don't think this is about 'condemning' property rights, but about
understanding how restricting they are to society.

When I wrote 'condemning' I was speaking of the not uncommon stance
that "property is theft".

I do not believe property is theft, but I think property owners
treating profit as their own reward is very close to theft - I claim
it is a form of usury meant to perpetuate poverty against those that
are not yet "set up" with the Capital ownership they need to protect
themselves from those owners that will suppress user freedom to keep
price perpetually above cost.

Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04596 Message: 42/93 L22 [In index]
Message 04979 [Homepage] [Navigation]