[Politics_Observer]

Here is an excellent website where you can take a look at the newest releases of all the VAST different types of Linux operating systems out there: https://distrowatch.com/ .

Distrowatch lists about almost 300 different various kinds of Linux OSes that are currently active in their own database: https://bit.ly/2BJvuaN

[James Redford]

Here is an excellent website where you can take a look at the newest releases of all the VAST different types of Linux operating systems out there: https://distrowatch.com/ .

Distrowatch lists about almost 300 different various kinds of Linux OSes that are currently active in their own database: https://bit.ly/2BJvuaN

Thank you, Politics_Observer, for providing some leads on where people can obtain a more liberty-orientated operating system than proprietary operating systems.

For those who do choose to use a Linux/BSD operating system, the following is a very rational theme for such systems:

* Computing Machine, https://github.com/Jamie-Michelle/Computing-Machine , https://www.pling.com/p/1315191/ .

For more information on this theme, see:

* Jamie Michelle, "Introducing the Computing Machine Desktop Theme", XFCE Forums, Aug. 27, 2019, https://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?id=13299 , https://web.archive.org/web/20200710010 ... p?id=13299 , https://archive.is/fr8sN , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0710-1002-49/ ... p?id=13299 , http://www.freezepage.com/1594342926ASFGZPSKII .



* * * * *

Continuing with the thema that your post invokes, the concept of "intellectual property" is fallacious and unjust. The entire point of valid property rights is to resolve disputes in scarce resources. Thus, if John takes someone's lawnmower then that person no longer has that lawnmower. Yet if Mary copies some output of someone's intellect, it subtracts no physical holding from that person.

So-called "intellectual property" cannot rise to the level of valid property for the reason that it is not a scarce resource: and hence everyone, in principle, can have their own copy of an intellectual creation without subtracting any physical holding from its creator. Enforcing fallacious "rights" in "intellectual property" actually violates genuine property rights, for then actual physical force is used against the physical property of people (including the property in their own bodies) who had not physically harmed, altered, or appropriated another person's physical holdings.

For more on the fallaciousness and unjustness of so-called "intellectual property", see the below paper:

* N. Stephan Kinsella, "Against Intellectual Property", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 1-53, https://cdn.mises.org/15_2_1.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6E9neqZI3 . N. Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008), https://cdn.mises.org/Against%20Intelle ... erty_2.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5nvOa8JMd .

(For the above article Stephan Kinsella was awarded the Ludwig von Mises Institute's O. P. Alford III Prize for the scholarly article published during 2001-2002 that best advances libertarian scholarship, at the eighth Austrian Scholars Conference, March 16, 2002.)

[James Redford]

By the way, were you genteel folks aware that the Computing Machine computer-desktop theme has its own official '80s retrospective theme song? Yes, it's true. After all, what computer user-environment theme could possibly be complete without having official theme music selected for it? Since we're being thematic here. If Tony the Tiger can have an official theme song, then surely a computer-desktop theme can. So with no further ado, I present the theme song selected for Computing Machine:

* "Liquid Stranger & Space Jesus - Dragonhawks", WAKAAN ( youtube.com/user/TheLiquidStranger ), Sept. 5, 2018

Mirror: "Liquid Stranger & Space Jesus - Dragonhawks", Second Phase ( youtube.com/user/1080pDubstep ), Apr. 20, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nREN5CPReUU . Mirror: "Liquid Stranger x Space Jesus - Dragonhawks", Echo Music ( youtube.com/channel/UCXcq_IoUl1kNyV-Oa1nOb9w ), Apr. 24, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQSByNJOilg .

Everyone, enjoy this completely normal-sounding music which harkens back to an '80s classic!

[ckaihatsu]

Enforcing fallacious "rights" in "intellectual property" actually violates genuine property rights, for then actual physical force is used against the physical property of people (including the property in their own bodies) who had not physically harmed, altered, or appropriated another person's physical holdings.

Since I'm a Marxist and am *against* the bourgeois institution of private property, I *appreciate* this repudiation of private-property intellectual property rights.

However, given the *three* frameworks at-play here, that of *status-quo politics*, *reformist politics*, and *post-capitalist politics*, I have to address empirical denotations for all *three* paradigms.

I don't think that the status-quo enforcement of private property rights in intellectual property *violates* property rights, because it's effectively *upholding* the private property rights of that intellectual property -- not that I politically *support* such, of course.

It *wouldn't matter*, technically, if the state used violent physical force in its *enforcement* of whatever private property rights, including intellectual property, or not, because it would be the official *legality* that would count.

If *enforcement* of status quo definitions of private property rights included *physical violence* against those who *violated* the status quo state definitions, then that would be the status quo *paradigm* of state legality and enforcement.

Your use of the qualifier 'fallacious', to spurn this status quo paradigm of legality seems to indicate an *alternative* proposal of (reformist) legality regarding private property rights -- that of saying that any and all intellectual developments are *not* intellectual / private property *whatsoever*, and so do not impinge on definitions of -- presumably *tangible* -- private property rights, like that of land and productive machinery.

You're pointing out that the state could use physical violence against alleged perpetrators of the theft of 'intellectual property', which, in the *reformist* perspective, is an injustice since 'intellectual property' is not acknowledged as being legitimate private property. So the greater transgression would be the state's use of physical force to uphold an unjust legal definition.

As a *Marxist*, I do acknowledge people's *personal property*, meaning whatever they themselves use as *persons*, for *use* values, separate from any private-entity holdings, like rental units managed via absentee landlordship, for example. In a *post-capitalist* context 'intellectual property' would be invalid and meaningless, along with *all* private-property-type accumulations of whatever tangible or intangible assets, like land, means of mass industrial production (factories), precious metals, unique artwork, finance, money / currency / exchange values, etc.

[James Redford]

Since I'm a Marxist and am *against* the bourgeois institution of private property, I *appreciate* this repudiation of private-property intellectual property rights.

However, given the *three* frameworks at-play here, that of *status-quo politics*, *reformist politics*, and *post-capitalist politics*, I have to address empirical denotations for all *three* paradigms.

I don't think that the status-quo enforcement of private property rights in intellectual property *violates* property rights, because it's effectively *upholding* the private property rights of that intellectual property -- not that I politically *support* such, of course.

It *wouldn't matter*, technically, if the state used violent physical force in its *enforcement* of whatever private property rights, including intellectual property, or not, because it would be the official *legality* that would count.

If *enforcement* of status quo definitions of private property rights included *physical violence* against those who *violated* the status quo state definitions, then that would be the status quo *paradigm* of state legality and enforcement.

Your use of the qualifier 'fallacious', to spurn this status quo paradigm of legality seems to indicate an *alternative* proposal of (reformist) legality regarding private property rights -- that of saying that any and all intellectual developments are *not* intellectual / private property *whatsoever*, and so do not impinge on definitions of -- presumably *tangible* -- private property rights, like that of land and productive machinery.

You're pointing out that the state could use physical violence against alleged perpetrators of the theft of 'intellectual property', which, in the *reformist* perspective, is an injustice since 'intellectual property' is not acknowledged as being legitimate private property. So the greater transgression would be the state's use of physical force to uphold an unjust legal definition.

As a *Marxist*, I do acknowledge people's *personal property*, meaning whatever they themselves use as *persons*, for *use* values, separate from any private-entity holdings, like rental units managed via absentee landlordship, for example. In a *post-capitalist* context 'intellectual property' would be invalid and meaningless, along with *all* private-property-type accumulations of whatever tangible or intangible assets, like land, means of mass industrial production (factories), precious metals, unique artwork, finance, money / currency / exchange values, etc.

"Since [you are] a Marxist" then you are a truly deranged and reprobate individual. Which is to say, you are a rather typical schizophrenic and sadomasochistic ape--i.e., among the apes called humans.

The entire point of all forms of socialism is to create Hell on Earth. Socialism is the most mass-murderous and impoverishing creed ever created. That's not a failing of socialism: that's its only feature. On their subconscious level (and perhaps for some, on their conscious level), the collectivists' entire goal is to send themselves to Hell eternally and to take as many people as they can along with them. For the details on that, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .

Further, you state:

"You're pointing out that the state could ...".

I'm an anarchist. I have long been pointing out that every government (i.e., state) can go straight to the pit of Hell from whence it sprang.

For the details on that, see my following articles:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Pastebin.com, Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnA ... rchist.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442613QRSDHGPCAM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0116-58/ ... rchist.pdf .

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/Libertaria ... ianism.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442546UTKUJCKYNM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0115-06/ ... ianism.pdf .

* James Redford, "How to Last During Lovemaking Like a True Sex-God Stud", Internet Archive, May 12, 2019, 6 pp., ark:/13960/t0tr3j398, https://archive.org/download/InfiniLast ... hnique.pdf , https://webcitation.org/78KGCK1s4 , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0513-0846-26/ ... hnique.pdf .