[free-sklyarov] What is really wrong about the skylarov arrest?

[Michael Kupershtein]

secretcodes at mypad.com wrote:

> We all are on this list because we're stunned by the arrest
> of a businessman and programmer -- the charging of a foreign
> programmer with US laws -- only because of writing a program.
>
> But, what is behind this arrest? It stands as a symbol for
> the many things that are wrong today in America.
>
> It stands a symbol for an era of politicians issuing arbitrary
> laws that enlarge government control and create victimless
> crimes, and often in the name of a "public good".
>
> The point of valid law is the protection from initiatory force
> or fraud. Restrictions which are not intended to protect the
> individual are arbitrary, exploitable, dishonest.
>
> The DMCA criminalizes the creation and distribution of a program,
> a piece of free speech, a piece of information. Free information itself
> never involves fraud or force. Creation of information is always a victimless
> crime, unwelcomed by the corporations like Adobe, and organizations like
> MPAA/RIAA that try to pressure the market through political power and
> information control, perhaps. However, such actions never involve fraud
> or force against a party or victim.
>

So far, so good. Very nice, libertarian, and all.

>
>                        A Constitution for Freedom
>
>                                   Preamble
>
>    The purpose of human life is to live happily.
>    The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that allow
>    individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be
>    guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory
>    force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
>
>                                    * * *
>
>                                  Article 1
>
>    No person, group of persons or government may initiate force, threat
>    of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
>
>                                  Article 2
>
>    Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against
>    those who violate Article 1.
>
>                                  Article 3
>
>    No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.
>
>                                    * * *
>

Yup. That's what a (libertarian) constitution should look like.

>
>    The Constitution rests on six axioms:
>     1. Values exist only relative to life.
>     2. Whatever benefits a living organism is a value to that organism.
>        Whatever harms a living organism is a disvalue to that organism.
>     3. The basic value against which all values are measured is the
>        conscious individual.
>     4. Morals relate only to conscious individuals.
>     5. Immoral actions arise from individuals choosing to harm others
>        through force, fraud, deception, coercion -- or from individuals
>        choosing to usurp, attack, or destroy values earned by others.

And here arises a problem. Because the way you define property rights
is very very unnerving. `Usurping or attacking...values earned by others`,
can only be taken as defining theft or property harm. But, how did you
define property (= value)? You defined it as `Whatever benefits a living organism
is
a value to that organism.`. However, isn't it true that Adobe's intellectual
property
a value to Adobe's shareholders? BTW, I'm playing devil's advocate here.
I oppose many existing forms of intellectual property. But, back to the point -
that
means anything which harms Adobe's `Intellectual property` constitutes either
fraud
or initiation of force, and can be responsded to by force. So, the constitution
you
produced fails just as poorly as the current system. The actual articles of the
constitution
aren't the problem of couse, your definition of values is. It needs to be as
strict
and exclusive, not inclusive, like the rest of the constitution.

>
>     6. Moral actions arise from individuals choosing to benefit others by
>        competitively producing values for them.

And this, dear sir, is creeping socialism. Get rid of it, fix the property
problem,
and you'll have an acceptable document.

Sincerely, Michael.