to pyschoblast,
thanks for taking the time to explain all that you did about copyrights/trademarks, etc. It was well written and very explanatory. Your efforts are appreciated.
In reading your post, I was reminded of something you might find interesting that I read in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago. A hedge fund named "Cambell Copperthewait" was a subdivision of an investment company, U.S. Trust. This fund was started by a Mr. Cambell and a Mr. Copperthewait and eventually bought by U.S. Trust. Can't remember the first names. I believe Cambell had passed on or sold his interest in the fund. Apparently on a Friday after close of business, Mr. Copperthewait staged a small coup and took a majority of the staff to start his own fund with the intention of calling it Copperthewait or something. He began trying to convince the customers of U.S. Trust's Cambell Copperthewait to sell their shares and reinvest in his new fund. U.S. Trust sued and in the judgement, among other things, Mr. Copperthewait was prevented from using "Copperthewait", his own name, in the name of the fund because it infringed on the trademark of Cambell Copperthewait.
to phishlover,
Yeah the Patriot/Freedom acts are troubling in their possible implications. I believe that these acts are somewhat necessary due to certain inadequacies/deficiencies of the government caused by other parties (meaning "groups" or "factions", not the political ones) that brought about the reduction of government effeciencies in certain areas. I do not think these reductions were done for the better of the citizens, but more so in attempts to have control and exert power in a different sort of way. Let me stop there as I don't want to steer this towards a political discussion.
So, these acts are scary in how they could be abused, though through there use, we can likely deter future assualts. It is scary to see the smugness of Bush, though it is probably a good thing to not have Saddam in control anymore. It is tough to argue that they are not necessary as we cannot go back in time and take them out and see what could have played out over the past few years and we cannot go back in time before 9/11 and see that, had we had those laws in place, would it have made a difference at all. Who knows... Keep in mind that those fighting to have those acts repealed are, in their own way, fighting for power and not necessarily because it's the best thing for the U.S. citizen.
I have personal beliefs about the role of government that conflict with each other. In an ideal world, a government by community, i.e. communism, probably would be the best way, i.e. a true democracy. However, since most people have at least some sort of desire to be in control and have power, a government set up in a community sense will inevitably be warped into a dictorship style ala China, Soviet Union, etc. Plus, in order for a communal government to work, all people must have some level of knowledge and intelligence or we could steer ourselves down roads based on very stupid ideas. So that idea doesn't work. We can't trust others enough to have no government, i.e. anarchy, because we would likely have chaos and mayhem and it is unlikely that groups of people will just take it upon themselves to build roads, distribute food, etc. So a republic, what we have, seems to be the best answer so far. The problem is that we place a lot of trust in those we vote into office. It's kind of a double edge sword. If we want these people to work for us, then we have to give them the power to work for us, and we have to hope that they don't use it against us. So.... I can take both sides of the arguement about giving the government power over things. I feel that everytime we give the government the right to regulate something, whether it be warning labels on cigarettes, or seat belts, or movie ratings, or laws concerning personal well being, etc, etc., every little law gives a bit more control to the government over our lives and, ergo, takes a sliver of our free will away. Furthermore, the more control we give, the easier it is for the government to take even more control; it turns exponenial. However I also reallize that, by and large, most people out there, sad to say, are dumb or blind, and without these laws people would take advantage of each other, harm themselves, sue others because of their proclaimed "ignorance", etc. Most people, unfortunately, need to be treated like children. "I don't wanna to wear my seatbelt, mommy!! Why do I have to???" " Because if you don't you could die in a car crash." "Soooo.... I don't care. No I won't." "Well wear it because mommy says so.".
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Oh yeah, I think I mispoke earlier. The ancients didn't recognize that we were under control of some conspiracy type system. It was the recognition that there was something greater out there, some type of truth. This truth would escape most people, so it was given to the masses in symbolical form. The mythlogies of the world explained how the world worked to the ordinary man, but to those with the higher knowledge, the myths held hidden meanings, i.e. the stories were not to be take literally but more so in a metaphorical form. We can even approach Christianity in this way. God takes on human form in Jesus. Jesus dies on the cross, taking our sins. Jesus rises from the dead, rejoins God and brings eternal life. This is what is showed to everyday man. Perhaps (i'm not claiming that christianity is a myth nor that i have somehow acquired the secrets of the universe. just using this as an example.) the hidden meaning is that we come from some sort of higher consciousness onto earth and assume a human form. only through an absoltion of the phsysical world can we rise from our primitive minds, rise above the sins of our senses and again achieve a reunion with the higher conscious, which is the only true way for eternal life. Didn't mean to get off topic. Point is, a system of control is not a greater truth, it is a man-made construct.
