[pp.int.general] You have GOT to check this out

[Ray Jenson]

Jan Huwald wrote:
> Politics pollute information space? Yes.

I agree, but saying one side of things pollutes without pointing out the
truth of the matter that there are many sides to the issue means that
the overall picture is weakened once people realize it. This is the
effect of misdirection, and why I'm in opposition.


> A tax is not politics. Introducing one in a legislative procedure is politics. 
> The existance of another source of pollution (politics) is no reason to stop 
> caring for reduction of pollution by advertisements.

A tax is politics when enforced by a government body. However, you are
"splitting hairs" as we say, since the difference is infinitesimally small.


> As a tax is a redistribution from money (= money-power) it is by definition a 
> distribution of power. In the Green's proposal they argued to free creators 
> from "slave contracts" with publishers - also a redistribution of power. Is 
> one of both an evil distribution? No. Only the first is a method (of course 
> with side-effects) and the second an intention (lacking an implementation and 
> therefore without argueable side-effects).

The tax is not what I'm arguing about. It's what will happen as the
result of taxation in this particular case.


> May be you have to specify further your philosphy of what taxes areor "the 
> syste," is, because for my definition of both taxes can not take money out 
> of "the system".

I didn't say that taxes take money out of "the system", I said that a
tax was foolhardy because then the bigger companies have more freedom to
spread their propaganda. This is more fundamental than laws or politics
themselves, it goes to the distribution, protection, promotion, and
retention of power, which in corrupt hands serves to create an imbalance.


> I am not sure if I can follow you:
> Why should any company (independent of it's size) be glad to pay something 
> (the tax), without a profit (when compared to the no-tax-situation)?
> Is there a bias of a tax promoting ads of large companies?

Because the profit they seek is not monetary. So long as they retain
their power and control over the culture, any monetary price is
worthwhile to them. It would be more sensible not to levy a tax, and
simply to restrict propagandism that has no foundation in fact,
methodology, scientific findings, etc., such as the arguments of
file-sharing and second-hand cigarette smoke. If a claim is made, it
must be backed up with an empirical source of data, complete with
methodologies and the names of those involved in such a study, which
should then be available to the public for review and assessment (and
refutation).


> How do they earn more freedom to advertise by the tax?

Okay, in order to understand taxes, you must also understand what money
is. This is a very simplified explanation, so there are likely gaps that
will occur. However, this rudimentary explanation should give you a
basic idea about the complexity of taxation.

Money itself is not wealth, but merely the representation of control
over a commodity. The law of supply and demand requires that if there is
a demand, then prices will rise if the supply decreases; and conversely,
prices will fall as the supply increases. Thus, if your money is based
on an amount of gold, then as the supply of gold increases, the value of
that money decreases. Inflation is the result. Taxes serve to stabilize
inflation and act as a pressure release, as do interest rates and
commodity markets (like the stock market).

If you pay a tax to the government, you are essentially giving that
government the power to operate in a particular capacity. Governments
need money just as individuals do, in order to meet their own
obligations. Taxes serve to keep governments in power by giving them
control over more than individuals being governed have control over.
Taxes are entirely controlled by government, and are thus political in
nature. Governments are also not bound by their own laws, and can change
the way things work simply by writing it down and agreeing that this is
the way things should work. When an industrial cartel influences that
agreement, the result is a slow corruption that soaks into the system of
government, subverting it for the aims of the cartel instead of for the
aims of maintaining a social order.

By creating a blanket tax on advertising, something must be gained as a
result, or the tax will be lobbied out of existence. The simplest way to
ensure power in this case is to mandate that more taxation means less
regulation... let's say one regulation about naming your competitors.
They would then be free to propagandize against whomever they wanted to,
because they're paying the tax and are acting within the law. A tax
would further destabilize the system as we now have it, resulting in
even more influence because of the levels of taxation that are being
paid to line the government's coffers.

By being pleasant to the government and giving them what they want, the
industry cartels gain power. A tax would therefore serve to further that
power by creating a vehicle by which the industry can convey even more
money to the government. We want less influence, and so the only thing
that will work is transparency, exposure, and possibly shame. Freedom of
speech must be exercised in order to change this. It is therefore
imperative that free speech be maintained at all costs, or there will be
no rule of democracy-style law, merely a despotic regime that controls a
governing body which is democratic in name only.

This sounds quite extreme, but this is the repeated lesson of history,
and one that people still don't seem to understand because they don't
realize just how many times things like this have happened in the past.
If we are to take a stand, promoting a tax is not the way to do it.

Though I don't know for certain what would be.


> And regarding taxes it is invalid to assume infinite amounts of resources (not 
> even as approximation)

I agree. But the fact of practical infinity remains. There is a finite
number, but the number is so enormous that it overwhelms that of what is
right, good, and proper. We are talking about numbers significant enough
that a 5,000-Deutsch mark tax is puny by comparison, and it increases
the difficulty that the smaller and less-well-funded organizations (such
as the Pirate Party) would have in countering such propaganda.


> What I called rethoric in the Website was that they stated to lessen the 
> burden of slave contracts with publishers without loosing a word of how to 
> do.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood. I agree that it's rhetoric.


> Compare this issue with the greens core issue: (In Germany) every party states 
> that protecting the environment is a very important issues, but most of the 
> time only the green have concepts how to do.

That's the point I'm trying to make, as well: why are they trying to
promote our platform?

I think it's because they see powerfully true words and they have seized
it before they start losing their constituents. By defining it as
"pollution" they neatly sidestep any need to coordinate efforts and can
claim ownership of it in a way that is divisive. It's this divisiveness
that I oppose, since I have seen nor heard of any evidence that they're
collaborating with us, nor even offering assistance. Though I would
encourage their continuance, it would be nice to have them be a little
less extreme and a little more informed.

And if they're going to be taking our platform, I'm a little concerned
that they're going to try to absorb the Pirate Party into their own
cause, but I worry because the concept of network neutrality (here in
the US, as I don't know the European parties' stances) flies in the face
of their "pollution" ethic, since the argument against it is that lack
of control is chaotic and unmanageable (which has really nothing to do
with net neutrality... but that's another argument).

I find it interesting that this advertisement comes only a few days
after the MP's in Sweden announced their support of file sharing.


> Back to copyright: If am forced to sum up the pirate parties stance on 
> copyright I talk about "Strengthening rights of creators and participants of 
> culture", but I can easily extend that abstract intention to specific 
> measures.
> 
> When staying on this abstract (rethorically effictive) level, we do not even 
> differ from parlaments adovcating for IPRED (european DMCA++).

You are missing the point of what I am saying, and I don't know how I
could be more clear about it.


> Although the number of laws should be as small as possible this is no 
> rationale for any specific law not to exist. The German copyright itself is 
> _relatively_ compact (may be I read to many laws to state so :-)

A "reduction" in the law does not mean "fewer laws"; it means a reform
in order to simplify what is written to the originally stated intent.
The words that originate copyright in the US, as an example, are these:

"The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science
and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors
the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries [...]"

The stated aim is the promotion of progress, and the rights are secured
to authors and inventors. There is no part of that stated intent that
implies or infers that anyone other than the originator of the work
should have control over the work. Having read several of the private
letters between those who founded the USA, I can also say that there was
a heated debate over whether or not the government would seek to take
control of those inventions, and it was ultimately decided that the
wording above would serve to limit governmental influence. However, in
that time it was governments who controlled trade. In our time, it's
private enterprise.

Thus, the copyright laws in the USA (I won't speak for other countries
on this point, since I'm not well-educated on copyright laws outside the
USA) are intended specifically to ensure that individual freedoms are
not hindered because of a corrupt and controlling influence.

Many copyright systems during the 20th Century have leaned toward a
definition that was accepted in the 1940's in the United States. In my
opinion, this is largely because of the influence of industry
organizations like the IFPI (who is the RIAA's puppet in Europe), who
seek to establish, retain, and maintain power for themselves. The
struggle is for nothing less than the control of human minds.


<self-censor>

> Agree.

<self-censor>

> Agre even more.

Well, at least we can agree on those points. :-)


> The German Pirates have a comparable intention but in out terms we do not 
> focus on the creator/innovative but instead on their outcome (production of 
> innovation).

Could you possible explain this in a little more depth? I'm not sure I
understand.

You have several intriguing points of argument, and I'd like to hear
more about them, since my aim is the truth of the matter, if at all
possible. Please feel free to explain them!


-- 
"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to
give validity to his convictions in political affairs."

"Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every
man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance
in the entire population."

                           --both quotes by Albert Einstein