[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Thu Mar 28 23:14:12 UTC 2002


On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, J.A. Henshaw wrote:
> Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > Money _is_ a debt instrument.
> 
> Jeme,  which kind of money are you talking about?  Is 25.8 
> grains of gold, 900 fineness, a debt or a debt instrument?

25.8 grains of gold, 900 fineness is a pile of dust, to me.

Neither I nor anyone with which I have regular need to trade has any need
for gold, either.

As an arbitrary medium of exchange, gold was chosen for its durability
(your safe full of amassed wealth isn't going to rust away) and its
scarcity in the ancient world.

I don't see any of those things being particularly valuable to me.  And
choosing some random stone as the principle medium of exchange only
encourages the constant scoring and scouring of the earth for embedded
wealth that doesn't contribute to human progress.

And of course, gold has practical uses and so as it is crafted into items
of greater value than their base metal (objects of historical or artistic
significance, objects of utility) which decreases the global
supply.  Presumably that decrease in supply would eventually impact the
value and the crafted objects would be worth more melted down and chopped
into grains than as history, art or tools.  How much of Chinese or Mayan
culture was melted down into coins to please some ruler or lord's lust for
gold?


> >>Private property ownership is replaced with real estate ownership (
> >>real estate is everything from the ground up )
> > 
> > Clearly you don't know the difference between realty and personalty.  
> > Property law has been based on a distinction between the two for
> 
> Please explain the significance here, between the two, as 
> you see it.

Essentially, ersonalty is property which is movable, realty is property
which is not.

> I am pointing out that you do not own the land under the home today,
> when you "buy" a home.

Well, my personal argument would be that you have no fucking right to
claim absolute control over something that will exist long after you're
gone.  Our first obligation, as living things, is to posterity.

> What does your injection of "personalty" into the argument achieve, or
> prove, or illustrate, or contribute?
> Is it to say that I am incorrect? You make a one sentence retort
> claiming I don't know the difference between a word I used and a word
> I have not used.
> I have a hard time understanding your point, if any.

My point is that the distinction between different KINDS of property and
the relative rights a person can hold over that property is as old as the
concept of property itself.  The concept of "real estate" was not invented
to undermine private property, but has always been a separate concept from
personalty and the kinds of rights you hold over realty has always been
distinct from personalty.

I think you should read a first year law text on property.  Go up to Lewis
& Clark and get one at the bookstore there.  You'll find that it's mostly
a description of the history of property and property rights in the
western world since the middle ages and a description of the common law.  
The law as implemented within any particular State or the United States
collectively is not the focus.

There is nothing new about the way we treat realty today.  Your property
is not being taken away... the rights you would assert over realty have
never existed.

> The word often used today during election years is "platform".
> Platforms, are made of planks.

Yeah, I got that.

> > In fact, I can't find one reference to "the ten planks" from a source that
> > isn't far right-wing.  (And exactly one that isn't a specific reference to
> > how "America" has implemented each one.)
> > 
> > Weird, huh?
> 
> Your point?

My point is that there was not one historical reference to "planks of the
communist manifesto" and no online copy of the communist manifesto uses
the word "plank".

> > And as for what these planks are and what they DO, well, I assure you it
> > has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or even, more generally,
> > marxism.
> 
> Well,  the rest of the world disagrees with you.

I don't really think so.

Read Capital again and tell me where the description of communism refers
to a monolithic state.

Marx used the term "communist" interchangeably with "utopian".  He
described a society in which the means of production of human necessity is
not privately controlled and, hence, people could not be manipulated based
on their needs.  Desires beyond needs are not addressed.

Marx described this communist world as being the inevitable evolutionary
result of civilization.  He described an intermediary step between
"communism" (or, "the end of dictatorship") and what he perceived as his
day's "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".  He refered to that economic
order as "socialism" or "the dictatorship of the proletariat".  Marx
recognized that the rule of the most common workers was a kind of
dictatorship and not ideal, but saw it as a necessary step in the
evolution of society to the higher goal of utopia where production is not
controlled.

The question, of course, is how we are supposed to meet the needs of the
people without controlled production.  Well, if we had that answer, we
wouldn't need to worry about intermediary steps, would we?  Clearly we, as
a people, do not yet have the depth of understanding necessary to build
uncontrolled, publicly beneficial systems.  It's a dream, but not yet an
attainable one.

Anyway, centralization of power is not part of a communist society.  In
fact, the entire purpose of communism is the elimination of power.

> > But one thing can be stated with certainty:  The "ten planks" as laid out
> > on the sites listed from the above google search are not communist in
> > nature and an implementation of the systems suggested within those planks
> > is certainly not necessarily communist.  (I'd be hard pressed, as a matter
> > of fact, to contrive a communist society that sustained such institutions
> > as described in those planks with even the most idealized and carefully
> > chosen denizens.)
> 
> Oh really?  Again, I think the rest of the world agrees that Marx was
> a communist.

Well, "Marx was a communist" is a sort of tautology.  I mean, he invented
the damned thing and defined the word to reflect his own views.

However, I think you're working from your own skewed perception of what
communism is and applying that definition back to history.

You can't look to any establishment of power and find a definition of
communism.  No communist order has ever risen to power because power is
contrary to communism.

Again, read Capital.  And for a description of the mechanics of
progressive politics and why it does not prevail against regressive
structures of wealth and power, I recommend H. G. Wells' The New
Machiavelli.

> > You're talking about a basic destruction of civil rights and a loss of
> > popular control of the world's wealth.
> > 
> > I attribute the current state of affairs to greed and lust for power.  We
> > set up a system that covets wealth and allows that wealth to
> > self-propogate.  Small advantages existed for the wealthy to wield power.  
> > Lust for power and greed are incredible motivators.  The powerful
> > (wealthy) have the greatest ability to make change to society by
> > definition.  Those people, acting in their own selfish interests,
> > continued to modify the system to benefit themselves... first in small
> > ways (as their small advantage in wealth gave them a small advantage in
> > power) and then in larger ways (as their wealth grew, their ability to
> > turn that wealth into power and that power into wealth also grew).  This
> > degenerative cycle continues to this day and all that are not the wealthy
> > elite (e.g. you and me) suffer.
> 
> Again, every word from you is a sales pitch for communism with a new
> face.

There's no sales pitch there.  It's a description of the mechanics by
which rights are stripped and wealth and power are accumulated in the few.  
There are lots of remedies for such a situation and the total destruction
of wealth and power for the common good is just one unrealistic one.

Are you going to say that the powerful DO NOT manipulate the system for
their own benefit?  Are you going to say that it hasn't become easier for
the rich to get richer?

Someone recently wrote in this very thread about how the Constitution's
protections exist (in part, I suppose, but its irrelevant whether that
part is a large or small part) to prevent the powerful from running
rough-shod over the poor and powerless.  If that's true, then doesn't it
stand to reason that the destruction of those same Constitutional
protections would be devised and implemented by the wealthy and powerful
to remove the barriers that exist between them and more wealth and power?

It's a struggle as old as the Enlightenment.  I think it's useful to look
at the Constitution as separate documents.  The first is a somewhat
morally neutral (except for the forceless preamble) document that
describes a political system without inherent ideology mostly reflecting
the will of the Federalists (Madison, Washington, et al.).  Lack of
morality and ideology is always the sign of a destructive social force.  
The second is the Bill of Rights (which was a slightly modified version of
the Constitution of the State of Virginia, a Democratic Republican
document written by Thomas Jefferson) which defines a value system for the
nation that includes equity and liberty.  The other amendments fall into
one category or the other based on which points are amended... with the
possible exception of the 13th and 14th Amendments (ratified by an illegal
Congress, as I understand it) which carry a very different tone and
agenda.  The article of prohibition is another amendment outside the
intent of the first two documents, but thankfully it was repealed.

In essence, the Constitution was written by rich men, for rich men.  The
Bill of Rights was an attempt to prevent the public from getting TOTALLY
screwed by the rich and powerful.  Any destruction of the rights
gauranteed by those Amendments is a blow to equity and a benefit to the
rich and powerful.

J.
--
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list