On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 08:08 +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:
I see this reasoning all the time, when in copyright
debates or
libertarian vs statism
debates: utilitarian arguments, basically saying this:
P1. Law X gives Y benefit Z.
P2. If we have no X, Y will have no Z.
P3. I want Y to have Z.
C. Therefore, we should keep X.
The problem is in premise 3.
Sure, you want Y to have Z. So what? I want to live forever. What
next?
But that is important!
Because we talked that much about money, an easy to understand example.
There are rich people and some poor people are unhappy because there are
some rich people.
To become happy the first way to go, is o find out what _you_ and not
_somebody_ else wants.
If you want to be rich yourself, you simply don't like rich people,
because you are envious, you won't become happy, when all the rich
people become poor too.
In this case you shouldn't fight against the rich, but find a way to
become rich yourself.
If you are unhappy regarding to empathy, because you think that the
universe isn't a strawberry field, but a hard, unfair place, you'll not
become happy if you become rich too, you need to work for a fair and
lovely world.
It's not important to become rich, if you want to become rich, it's not
important to get a perfect world, if you want to get a perfect world.
It's just important to go the way that's close to what you want, this
will make you happy.
So what kind of copyright or copyleft does provide the most freedom for
everybody, to go the way that makes happy?
The only important thing is exactly this freedom.