NationStates Jolt Archive

We basically feel governments exist to protect the rights of the people. As such we have chosen a system of government that treads upon the rights of the people as little as possible. If no action can be taken without heavily violating a persons human rights, our government does nothing.

As such our government does very little :) (Basically it negotiates with over sovereign states, and we have several different, huge, competing, departments of educaiton. Our citizens often complain about the Educational-Industrial complex that influences their lives so. Then the moment they get a chance they take a part time job as teacher, spreading their own views and becoming part of the complex).

A lot of recent UN violations seem to be violatign our sovereign rights to have very limited government. We outlaw as little as possible, so our courts aren't wasting their time legislating morality, or art, or religion, or any of the many things government has no business doing. We are morally opposed to legislation that serves only to create a black market.

What is wrong with this Nat Sov argument:
"
What is the purpose of copyright?

To promote art.

Does any other country have a right to tell us how our country should promote it's art?

No.
"

Does any other country have a right to tell us how our country should promote it's art?

No."

Does any other country have a right to tell your "artists" to stop stealing its artists' work?

Yes.

Little did you know that he's actually only 3'2 and weighs 25 pounds ;)

That said, you really just can't resist jacking a thread over to UNCC arguments, can you?


I thought I got in trouble for bringing National Sovereignty into a copyright discussion. (It turns out I got dinged for replying to OOC responses to my IC posts). Now I'm getting in trouble for bringing up copyright in a National Sovereignty discussion?


One of the mods has already told you to stop, and here you are again.


I am well aware of what the mods are telling me :) Would you like links to the threads where I'm pulling teeth trying to figure out why I got single out for posting OOC?

I was participating in the single existing UN thread related to copyright, and got dinged. That thread is now no longer seeing any traffic, so I believe the goal of stifling the discussion suceeded.


Enough is enough, man. Nobody cares anymore. It's time to hang it up for a while, or, at the very least, create a repeal UNCC thread where you can argue about it all you want.

It seems too early to me to start the repeal thread. UNCC passed with flying colors, if I want to repeal it then I have little choice but to increase peoples awareness of the related issues. National Sovereignty, Plagiarism, DRM, Corporate Welfare, etc. Hell, we've had to explain basic supply and demand to people.

Anyway it isn't hard to figure out why I posted the qeustion I did, ON THIS THREAD. Is this not a good place to discuss what is, and is not, a valid Nat Sov argument? You know, the bloody question I asked?

Forget that I mentioned copyright. Pretend I brought up some similar issue, and then explain why I was not putting foward a valid Nat Sov argument?

The fact of the matter is, there is a valid Nat Sov argument for every repeal, and against every resolution. If the resolution has any teeth at all, it affects National Soveregnty. We all have different ideas about what is the role of government, THATS WHY WE ARE HERE. It flabbergasted me to see NSO members stifle Nat Sov arguments, because they agreed with a particular resolution. I don't know how anyone can think that is ok.

The fact of the matter is, there is a valid Nat Sov argument for every repeal, and against every resolution. If the resolution has any teeth at all, it affects National Soveregnty.
Really, then let's play a little game here shall we. I'll name a resolution and you can come up with a vaild NatSov argument for it's repeal.

1. Abortion Legality Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737905&postcount=148)

2. The Microcredit Bazaar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439182&postcount=118)

3. United Nations Security Act
(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111)

4. Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110)

5. UN Taxation Ban (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029575&postcount=5)

Really, then let's play a little game here shall we. I'll name a resolution and you can come up with a vaild NatSov argument for it's repeal.

1. Abortion Legality Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737905&postcount=148)

2. The Microcredit Bazaar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439182&postcount=118)

3. United Nations Security Act
(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111)

4. Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110)

5. UN Taxation Ban (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029575&postcount=5)

OK so, first off, we do not espouse the following positions, they are just easy Nat Sov positions to make.

1.
Yay! Abortion is purely a local moral issue, it is not within the purview of responsibilities of the UN. Morality can not be legislated on an international level, there is no appropriate UN category of legislation for abortion laws.

2.
The UN has a proven track record of siding with agressors during military conflicts. As such it does not have the moral authority to interfere in any action taking by a sovereign state in defending itself. Too often terms like Terrorism are used to describe the only remaining method availabe to a sovereign government losign a war to a superior military and political power.

3. The final defender of national soveriegnty in this day and age is the nuclear weapon. The only way to prevent the UN from establishign a single world state is if the UN stays out of nuclear arms discussions.

Those 3 popped off the top my head, I'll reread the actually legislation you are asking me to respond too :)

While I do that I'll ask you, what is the purpose of the NSO?

OK so, first off, we do not espouse the following positions, they are just easy Nat Sov positions to make.

1.
Yay! Abortion is purely a local moral issue, it is not within the purview of responsibilities of the UN. Morality can not be legislated on an international level, there is no appropriate UN category of legislation for abortion laws.So, you think that's a valid NatSov reason for repealing the Abortion Legality convention huh. You might want to read it a little closer as it states quite clearly1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;
Looks to me like the Abortion Legality Convention is keeping the UN out of abortion thereby invalidating your reason.

2.
The UN has a proven track record of siding with agressors during military conflicts. As such it does not have the moral authority to interfere in any action taking by a sovereign state in defending itself. Too often terms like Terrorism are used to describe the only remaining method availabe to a sovereign government losign a war to a superior military and political power.I'm not even sure what resolution this one could possibly be directed towards. The only possibility I can see is the UN Counterterrorism Initiative, which I didn't ask about.

3. The final defender of national soveriegnty in this day and age is the nuclear weapon. The only way to prevent the UN from establishign a single world state is if the UN stays out of nuclear arms discussions.And if you had read Nuclear Armaments you would know that it's entire purpose is to prevent the UN from banning it's members from possessing nuclear weapons.

Those 3 popped off the top my head, I'll reread the actually legislation you are asking me to respond too :)You know, I would've read the resolutions I asked about before replying

While I do that I'll ask you, what is the purpose of the NSO?
Here, read the NSO's mission statement.
Mission Statement of the National Sovereignty Organization


The National Sovereignty Organization (the "NSO") aims to actively work to promote a respect of national sovereignty by the NationStates United Nations in the belief that this will lead to greater unity, tolerance, and understanding among the membership of said body.

To address one or two of your other points.

The reason you were getting "picked on" is that you brought up Nat/Sov in a thread about UNCC which had nothing to do with Nat/Sov. You were being told repeatedly that it wasn't a viable argument, but not listening. In this case, a thread about Nat/Sov, you bring up UNCC for no particular reason at all. Yes, we get it, you've got some vendetta against that resolution for some reason. There's nothing wrong with feeling strongly about it, but you've got to choose more approproate times and places for such debates.

That would be great, if that was how it happened. I didn't bring up Nat Sov!

I responded IC to an IC post which said, Don't bring up Nat Sov, I'm in the NSO. I have seen many similar posts recently.

I hadn't even begun making a Nat/Sov argument against copyright, how in the world would anyone else know I couldn't create one? I didn't seen anyone at the NSO even trying, (and that's the job of the NSO, to come up with a Nat/Sov perspective).

Besides, I thought the argument was that I was OOC? That is the rule I kept being accused of violating. Which new rule are you saying I broke? The don't argue Nat/Sov with the NSO rule?

So, you think that's a valid NatSov reason for repealing the Abortion Legality convention huh. You might want to read it a little closer as it states quite clearly
Looks to me like the Abortion Legality Convention is keeping the UN out of abortion thereby invalidating your reason.

I'm not even sure what resolution this one could possibly be directed towards. The only possibility I can see is the UN Counterterrorism Initiative, which I didn't ask about.

And if you had read Nuclear Armaments you would know that it's entire purpose is to prevent the UN from banning it's members from possessing nuclear weapons.

You know, I would've read the resolutions I asked about before replying


I will endeavor to live to your high standard :) Here is a link I'd like you to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly#Intellectual_property_protection
(It's kind of OT, it's about copyright)




Here, read the NSO's mission statement.

Mission Statement of the National Sovereignty Organization

"
The National Sovereignty Organization (the "NSO") aims to actively work to promote a respect of national sovereignty by the NationStates United Nations in the belief that this will lead to greater unity, tolerance, and understanding among the membership of said body.
"


How is that Mission Statement possible served by someone saying, "Don't try making a Nat Sov argument to me, I'm in the NSO!"

I thought I got in trouble for bringing National Sovereignty into a copyright discussion. (It turns out I got dinged for replying to OOC responses to my IC posts). Now I'm getting in trouble for bringing up copyright in a National Sovereignty discussion?

Here's a unique idea: CREATE YOUR OWN THREAD.

You don't have to hijack people's threads to make your argument. You don't have to gravedig to hijack a thread, and you don't have to act like you're the victim every time people get upset at you breaking some community standards. Use some bloody common sense.

We are sick of hearing your arguments. We are sick of your breaking of community standards and then trying to defend yourself. We are sick of you saying you didn't know any better. Between the plagiarism incident, two hijacks and this issue cropping up on way too many threads to remember, it is about bloody time you woke up and realized that we've moved on already. We've heard your arguments and WE DON'T CARE ANYMORE. You aren't drafting a repeal, you're just plain whining.

But hey, if you want to get back on the soap box, go right ahead and create your own thread. We will more than happily look past it and move on. Stop shoving this topic in our face.

Here's a unique idea: CREATE YOUR OWN THREAD.

You don't have to hijack people's threads to make your argument. You don't have to gravedig to hijack a thread, and you don't have to act like you're the victim every time people get upset at you breaking some community standards. Use some bloody common sense.


Look if someone else links to an article, it's not grave digging to resurect it. Blame the person promoting the bloody thread. If you really feel someone has hijacked a thread... stop attacking their argument. Hijacks cannot be done by 1 person. Do you not consider this conversation appropriate to this thread? Tell me where to put it :)

If how this forum works to you is common sense.... start browsing around the rest of the internet. Each community develops it own ideosynchratic rules. Apparently, some people here are opposed to grave digging, or going off topic. To me that's a ridiculous thing to get upset by, but if the consensus of this forum is that it's bad, I can adapt. There is a reason I keep asking what the bloody unwritten rules are. OT is a very difficult thing to determine. I err on the side of not stifling my opponents.



We are sick of hearing your arguments. We are sick of your breaking of community standards and then trying to defend yourself.


I'm arguing an unpopular position. Get over it. The purpose of the NSUN is to provide a voice for these positions. I don't expect you to understand why I'm opposed to copyright law in a day. I've been studying it for years. I was the sort of Metallica fan who went to their concerts and had all of their MP3s. I was pissed when they turned on me. Anyone else remember the ballad of "Napster and Gnutella?"


We are sick of you saying you didn't know any better. Between the plagiarism incident, two hijacks and this issue cropping up on way too many threads to remember, it is about bloody time you woke up and realized that we've moved on already. We've heard your arguments and WE DON'T CARE ANYMORE. You aren't drafting a repeal, you're just plain whining.


Perhaps I imagined everyone else participating in the conversation. If you are over it... don't post on threads labeled "whatever in tarnation you are over" turn off your subscription. You don't need to read ever bloody thread do you?

If the author of a thread suggests I've hijacked it, I take that seriously, as I have read every bloody rules post someone linked me to on this forum (and there a great many :)) Some I have reread repeatedly. As I understand the original creator on a thread is supposed to have significant say in what is On Topic and what is not.

If someone that I know is already prejudiced against my position tells me I've hijacked a thread, I take with a grain of salt. The Hijacking accusation is a time honored parliamentary tactic.


But hey, if you want to get back on the soap box, go right ahead and create your own thread. We will more than happily look past it and move on. Stop shoving this topic in our face.

I posted here, because the copyright thread got murdered. I've already segued any posts of mine on these subjects too:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11442725

Other then that, on the subject of Copyright in the NSUN forum... I'm only responding to someone else's post, IC if possible.

But again... this is not what I came her to talk about! I came her to hold the NSO accountable for it's actions.

Who said that that that statement had to, besides NatSov arguements on legitimently international issues don't hold water.


I am saying that if the NSO doesn't put forward the Nat Sov position on an issue and instead said position, then they should change their bloody organizations name.

Whether any issue is "egitimently international" is not a simple question. It takes long debate to make the determiniation. Stifling Nat Sov arguments is not an appropriate action for members of an organization with the title NSO.

OK so, first off, we do not espouse the following positions, they are just easy Nat Sov positions to make.

1.
Yay! Abortion is purely a local moral issue, it is not within the purview of responsibilities of the UN. Morality can not be legislated on an international level, there is no appropriate UN category of legislation for abortion laws.

Just for fun, I'm going to come up with some Int Fed responses to the NatSov arguments.

Ensuring the right of people to control their own bodies and health is a human rights issue and should be within the perogatives of the U.N.

2.
The UN has a proven track record of siding with agressors during military conflicts. As such it does not have the moral authority to interfere in any action taking by a sovereign state in defending itself. Too often terms like Terrorism are used to describe the only remaining method availabe to a sovereign government losign a war to a superior military and political power.

The U.N. sides with no one, we haven't got an armed services branch.

3. The final defender of national soveriegnty in this day and age is the nuclear weapon. The only way to prevent the UN from establishign a single world state is if the UN stays out of nuclear arms discussions.

Those 3 popped off the top my head, I'll reread the actually legislation you are asking me to respond too :)

While I do that I'll ask you, what is the purpose of the NSO?

Oh well, Flibbleites already pointed out the flaw.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

It seems too early to me to start the repeal thread.
Well maybe if you wait untill another better replacement is made then you could repeal it. But I don't think that would serve your purposes.:)

UNCC passed with flying colors,
Of course because it is a GOOD resolution.
[/quote]
if I want to repeal it then I have little choice but to increase peoples awareness of the related issues. National Sovereignty, Plagiarism, DRM, Corporate Welfare, etc.[/quote]
Actualy you are wrong here. Almost everyone who goes to the UN forum has heard what you have to say. The lack of support is not because of that. The lack of support comes from you being wrong.

On national sovereginty. This is SUPPROTED by the NatSovs(well most of them anyway. NatSovs do belive some legislation should go through. Otherwise they would not be in the UN. Also you don't need to raise awareness about national soverignty because everyone knows about it.


Hell, we've had to explain basic supply and demand to people.

This is the funniest thing I have heard in a while. I remember from reading the debates YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

Sigh. I really should just give up, but I'll try one more time.

1. Regarding your hijacking of threads, Disco. You turning an IC debate/roleplay into an OOC discussion of national sovereignty and the NSO is one example of hijacking a thread. You hijacking damn near everything to discuss copyright is another example of thread hijacking. Those are not definitive examples of thread hijacking, nor are they exhaustive examples. The definition of thread hijacking I already showed you in a post in the Moderation forum. When you make a post in a thread, make sure it's very relevant to the topic of discussion and not more appropriate to another thread, or you run the risk of hijacking a thread.

2. Regarding copyright law...I voted AGAINST the UNCC, despite it being a well-written resolution that had a lot of things I liked in it. I will help you repeal the UNCC if you want because I opposed it, though the amount of help I can offer is limited by my RL and in-game time constraints.

3. Regarding the behavior of NSO members. If you have a problem with certain members of the NSO using their membership in a particular way, take it up with those members individually. If they don't want to address your concerns, that's their perogative, and there's not much to be done about it. In that case, I recommend getting over it and focusing on your legislative plans.

Look if someone else links to an article, it's not grave digging to resurect it.
Yes it is.
If you really feel someone has hijacked a thread... stop attacking their argument. Hijacks cannot be done by 1 person.
Yes they can. You've been quite successful at it.
Apparently, some people here are opposed to grave digging, or going off topic. To me that's a ridiculous thing to get upset by, but if the consensus of this forum is that it's bad, I can adapt. There is a reason I keep asking what the bloody unwritten rules are.
They're written rules. I wrote them. We've pointed you to them. Try READING them. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023

They're written rules. I wrote them. We've pointed you to them. Try READING them. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023
What's that old saying about horses and water?:D

What's that old saying about horses and water?:D

*Opens mouth and starts to talk, but then shuts his mouth without saying a word*

Look if someone else links to an article, it's not grave digging to resurect it.

Grave digging and resurrects are similar, only grave diggings happen to fight a dead argument over again whereas resurrects further the discussion. What's the difference? Mostly, the spirit of the resurrect. You resurrected to say why you believe in NatSov and even alluded to your dead horse. On the other hand, had you come here to look at TH's arguments and say "it's insufficient here. How would you address cases X, Y and Z and their applicability...." add 15 paragraphs of your analysis of them and hand the ball back to TH. That's a bit closer to a resurrect and unless it was your dead horse, the community would probably be a bit more willing to accept it.

Your position was irrelevant to the thread, and even moreso to a thread that is a year old and only a fraction of the population that was around back then responded to with their own positions. You basically tried to make the thread about you.

Blame the person promoting the bloody thread.

TH didn't leave it in his sig because he's promoting it. He's promoting the concept that's behind the thread and explaining his beliefs. The thread was basically the mission statement.

If you really feel someone has hijacked a thread... stop attacking their argument. Hijacks cannot be done by 1 person.

I swear I've read this before.

The One Stop Rules Shop defines hijacks as including singular posts. It's really hard to say that more than one person participated in a single post. Add on that I attacked your attitude and methods rather than your arguments, I'd say I was working on teaching you the rules rather than resolving a hijack.

Do you not consider this conversation appropriate to this thread?

It's a year too late

Tell me where to put it :)

Well, that would be why I started off my post with that very answer for you:

Here's a unique idea: CREATE YOUR OWN THREAD.

Start reading, start thinking, stop uttering randomly.

If how this forum works to you is common sense.... start browsing around the rest of the internet. Each community develops it own ideosynchratic rules.

*sighs*

Apparently, some people here are opposed to grave digging, or going off topic.

Actually, you know what people are opposed to here, flogging a dead horse to the point that it ruins the fun for everyone. One hijack is fine. The UN community has been bitched out as a whole by the mod community for hijacking nearly every thread. We gravedig old threads regularly to post new things (such as digging up very old drafts and continuing to work on them). Hell, I got the Euthanasia repeal resolution going on ALC for about 5 pages before they finally got it back to the focus of the repeal without hearing anything from the mods. However, you have, time and again, hijacked threads for the SAME TOPIC. How many communities would let you hijack a thread a week so you can discuss the same old joke or the same UN decision or the same issue? Not many, and we aren't one of them.

To me that's a ridiculous thing to get upset by, but if the consensus of this forum is that it's bad, I can adapt.

Start by reading the rules.

There is a reason I keep asking what the bloody unwritten rules are.

We keep pointing you to the written rules. An unwritten rule here is that if you can't be bothered to read the WRITTEN rules, you have absolutely no right to complain when you get burned by them. There ya go - an unwritten rule for you.

OT is a very difficult thing to determine. I err on the side of not stifling my opponents.

OT? Stifling your opponents? WTF?

I'm arguing an unpopular position. Get over it.

I argue unpopular positions all the time. Hell, Norderia and I were arguing against a child pornagraphy ban just last week (I understand Norderia is still at it). Do we get our asses kicked for that? No. There's a lot of people that argue unpopular or abnormal positions here. They're welcome people. What's the difference? You're so called "I'm a one-issue delegate". It's old. You are more than welcome to argue an unpopular position. You are not welcome to hijack continual threads or to bring it up every week when the community has moved on. Allude to, fine. Make a one line snark about, fine. Debate at length AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, no. The NSUN welcomes different opinions. We don't welcome people who waste our time. Your opinion has been heard and all you are doing now is annoying us.

The purpose of the NSUN is to provide a voice for these positions.

We've heard it. The other 30,000 members haven't and they won't no matter how many threads you hijack. Try making a repeal instead.

I don't expect you to understand why I'm opposed to copyright law in a day. I've been studying it for years. I was the sort of Metallica fan who went to their concerts and had all of their MP3s. I was pissed when they turned on me. Anyone else remember the ballad of "Napster and Gnutella?"

Actually, this might amaze you, I really don't care what your reasonings are. I don't care what your arguments are. I actually couldn't give a fuck about UNCC, a resolution that I refused to debate and refused to vote on. I do care when a guy undermines the community and does nothing but harass us on the same topic.

Hey, wait a second. If I recall correctly, that's the entire concept behind the UNOG's operations these days. Improve the standards of the UN and maintain them, whether we agree with the position or not. There are members (including myself) who will help you draft your resolution whether we agree with it or not. By the same token, a guy who ruins the game for everyone becomes a target for our group because they are damaging the quality of this community and driving off members. You've become not just one of those people, you have become THE example of what those people are. There are members that annoy us that deal with a variety of issues and do contribute to the community. There are those that find themselves at odds with what we believe - I can think of 3 examples in the last year alone off the top of my head. There are two who are shining examples of people who are undermining the community just because they think their beliefs are so important that the community can be sacrificed for it. You're one of them. Cut it out! It's not a welcome attitude.

Perhaps I imagined everyone else participating in the conversation.

Perhaps I'm listening to what's happening behind the scenes that you aren't aware of. Perhaps there are others that know even more than I do about it. Perhaps I'm just thinking that two mod appeals in a week indicates something, especially since we have nearly no mod appeals about community behavior from here. (Humorously, we've had 3 in the past week)

If you are over it... don't post on threads labeled "whatever in tarnation you are over" turn off your subscription. You don't need to read ever bloody thread do you?

Actually, NatSov vs IntFed debate is my primary area of concern. You posted on one of the most important NatSov threads and it turned into a hijack. That is important to me.

If the author of a thread suggests I've hijacked it, I take that seriously, as I have read every bloody rules post someone linked me to on this forum (and there a great many :)) Some I have reread repeatedly.

Again, common sense fails to meet the rulesset.

As I understand the original creator on a thread is supposed to have significant say in what is On Topic and what is not.

Yes. However, a year after the thread was created, it's a bit harder to claim ownership. In this case, the author is rather busy and was able to post (in the incarnation of HotRodia) well after the issue had gotten out of hand.

If someone that I know is already prejudiced against my position tells me I've hijacked a thread, I take with a grain of salt.

I'm against your position? I've never argued about your position. I've argued about your attitude

The Hijacking accusation is a time honored parliamentary tactic.

This isn't the parliament. Not many parliaments have CPESL servicewomen visiting you at your seat while you're on the floor. Sit down and shut up about how it should be. You've been here a few months, many of our members have been here for a few years. You are quite the junior.

I posted here, because the copyright thread got murdered. I've already segued any posts of mine on these subjects too:

I've already indicated that you should post a seperate thread. Mods agreed, apparently.

Other then that, on the subject of Copyright in the NSUN forum... I'm only responding to someone else's post, IC if possible.

Great

But again... this is not what I came her to talk about! I came her to hold the NSO accountable for it's actions.

The NSO is a body of individuals who are likeminded and can use it as a focus point to stage campaigns. It is not required to follow your mission statement, it is not required to agree on everything, and it sure as heck isn't required to repeal every single resolution because it might infringe upon national soverignty if you change that f into a t. They are a think tank. If you account for the entire membership list, they have members in every other major think tank that exists within today's UN. They are not required to answer to you nor are they accountable to any actions. Piss off.

EDIT: This is coming from a member who set up a think tank to counter the NSO.

What's that old saying about horses and water?:D

They drown if you lead them out into water to deep for them to handle? ;)

They drown if you lead them out into water to deep for them to handle? ;)
Wait, wait, wait....

I thought it was "You can lead a horse to water, but it'll probably piss in it"?

I wasn't subscribed to this new thread, so I'm a bit behind. I've got a lot to read here, I will get to a more detailed response later.

I think the lesson for me to learn here is, if someone tries to drag me into an OOC discussion on an IC thread.... I am expected to ignore them. If I am trying to discuss what is and what is not a Nat Sov argument, and someone tries to drag me into a discussion about a different thread, or a different topic, I will be held responsible if I do not ignore them.

I did not go to a Sovereigntist thread to dicuss my pet issue, but to discuss........ National Sovereignty!

I am very honest in my motivations. Everyone knows what issues concern me most. However there are related issues I have been trying to segue too. I'd probably do better to start a puppet to discuss those issues :)

Sooooooooooo on this new thread, what's on topic, and what will bring down wrath?

(I'm going back to rereading rules stickies now, as requested)

OK, I'm going to start replying to individual posts now. I'll treat the first post on this split thread as defining the topic.

Does any other country have a right to tell your "artists" to stop stealing its artists' work?


Good question! This conversation typically follows by defining stealing. We don't consider duplication stealing, unless you fail to cite your source. We do consider plagiarism stealing.

Those in favor of broad Intellectual Property laws have been framing the copyright debate. They're tricky, they successfully inserted the word "property" into the discussion. They tried to get everyone to start thinking of ideas as property.

Then you have to start defining what property is such that it includes the clothes on your back, and also the song you just composed while walking down the road. It's verrrrrrrrrrry difficult to do so.

The idea of physical objects as property has been around a lonnnnnnnng time. The idea of a series of 1s and 0s being treated as property is a much newer concept, fraught with peril.