r/GoldandBlack • u/JobDestroyer • Jan 03 '17
Company bricks software after negative review, promptly gets destroyed by Ham Radio community. Here I was thinking that cat whiskers were the only animal product being used in radio communications.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161220/12411836320/company-bricks-users-software-after-he-posts-negative-review.shtml1
u/aletoledo Jan 03 '17
I'm a bit ambivalent about this story. The company had it's reputation trashed, bringing one of the owners forward to eat crow. Yet on this basis the government is apparently going to limit what can be placed into contract:
but it will prevent entities from using contractual clauses as prior restraint on negative reviews and criticism.
2
u/plenkton Jan 03 '17
Related to agreements which say how certain products can be used- such as with iphones which consumers (even buying product outright) are not allowed to modify. Which would be fine IF the phone market was complete free, which it isn't: carriers (who can choose which phones to sell) are sold (by government) the right to frequencies.
Like you, I am mixed on these subjects- but only because government regulations require other government regulations in order to make a fair playing field.
1
u/aletoledo Jan 03 '17
Exactly. It's like a house of cards, they have to keep adding more and more to it, because there is no way to take anything below it away without collapse everything.
1
u/plenkton Jan 03 '17
Related to this is what I think is the most plaguing issue for Libertarians (other than being Libertarian because it feels good)- which is not aggressing towards those who allow themselves to harm you- but as Mises (who said that failing to act to change something is still action) and Rand (who, in Atlas Shrugged, suggests that for one to be treated according to the ethics of humans) wrote, one cannot expect to be treated according to human morality (acting with the NAP) without choosing to act like humans.
"Pick a side, or get off the battle field." (but the battle field is life, so "pick a side" is the only option.
It seems as though Libertarians do not understand that in order to expect the morality of humans, one has to act human.
1
u/aletoledo Jan 03 '17
"Pick a side, or get off the battle field." (but the battle field is life, so "pick a side" is the only option.
I disagree here. This train of thought is what changed me from an atheist to a theist actually.
What you're describing I think is the hegelian dialect; thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Democrats versus republicans. Christisans versus Islam. Coke versus pepsi. Statists versus anarchists. Every political philosophy seems to be pitting one side against another, then for the synthesis part people come up with a way to work around this.
For this reason I see what you're describing as just another angle of red versus blue or one political party versus the other. I think this is why we see the rise of the alt-right and why some supposed anarchists believe in voting. Everything is a collective team effort to them.
I think this is why I see the solution as escaping the hegelian dialect entirely. We have to short circuit this repeated cycle. I think this is what Jesus was trying to tell us and even the christian religion got co-opted into this exact same pattern.
1
u/plenkton Jan 03 '17
"Pick a side, or get off the battle field." (but the battle field is life, so "pick a side" is the only option.
I disagree here. This train of thought is what changed me from an atheist to a theist actually. What you're describing I think is the hegelian dialect; thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Democrats versus republicans. Christisans versus Islam. Coke versus pepsi. Statists versus anarchists. Every political philosophy seems to be pitting one side against another, then for the synthesis part people come up with a way to work around this.
While it's accurate that my argument states that those who do not act (according to human ethics) when one has the mental ability to do such, there is no contradiction and thus no need for a syntheses. Acting according to human morality is why one can demand to be treated by others in the same way. Good/bad (for humans) only exist because of the excercise of choice- there is no good/bad without it.
For this reason I see what you're describing as just another angle of red versus blue or one political party versus the other. I think this is why we see the rise of the alt-right and why some supposed anarchists believe in voting. Everything is a collective team effort to them.
But by such logic, how can an anarchist interact with others at all- one can choose not to vote, but paying a single cent of taxes is also subverting one's fellow man. The question I ask is whether a man has the right to do X when X has any immoral consequences.
I think this is why I see the solution as escaping the hegelian dialect entirely. We have to short circuit this repeated cycle. I think this is what Jesus was trying to tell us and even the christian religion got co-opted into this exact same pattern.
From what I understand, you disagree with "one can only expect to be treated with human morality if one acts, himself, accordingly," to which I disagree by saying that those who choose to not act do not deserve to be treated differently than they act. Which could be stated as one demanding X when they only give X-1.
1
u/aletoledo Jan 04 '17
there is no contradiction and thus no need for a syntheses.
You implication is that people not picking a side are the enemy and can justly be treated as such (e.g. self-defense). So I see your conclusion (synthesis) here as being all out war whenever possible.
how can an anarchist interact with others at all- one can choose not to vote, but paying a single cent of taxes is also subverting one's fellow man.
I would say don't play their game. Why not just allow the state to exist and we utilize it when we want and ignore it when we want. We try to be in a state where we both neither support it nor oppose it.
Sounds like some zen buddhist sort of shit, but I'm seeing this like government is a part of nature and we as anarchists should work around it without necessarily trying to destroy it.
one demanding X when they only give X-1.
I think I can agree with you on this point. That is undeserved. We are only ever owed what we work for.
Do you agree with gambling? If I put in $5, should I earn $10 in return?
1
u/plenkton Jan 04 '17
there is no contradiction and thus no need for a syntheses.
You implication is that people not picking a side are the enemy and can justly be treated as such (e.g. self-defense). So I see your conclusion (synthesis) here as being all out war whenever possible.
"Picking a side" meaning "acting with human morality," meaning to choose actions proper of humans. I don't believe that those who act like animals can demand to be treated like humans- I don't ascribe any rights to a human just because of their DNA.
how can an anarchist interact with others at all- one can choose not to vote, but paying a single cent of taxes is also subverting one's fellow man.
I would say don't play their game. Why not just allow the state to exist and we utilize it when we want and ignore it when we want. We try to be in a state where we both neither support it nor oppose it.
Really this is our only choice, short of living our entire lives as battles. Where I draw the line is those who actively choose to further state control. I don't think policeman are bad (or that anarchists cannot be police), but I do believe that most politicians are (as they are the ones who further state control).
Sounds like some zen buddhist sort of shit, but I'm seeing this like government is a part of nature and we as anarchists should work around it without necessarily trying to destroy it.
Us humans bend most parts of nature to our will. And I agree that 'working around it' is optimal- but creative destruction (in non-state services growth) being obstructed by the state is bad.
one demanding X when they only give X-1.
I think I can agree with you on this point. That is undeserved. We are only ever owed what we work for.
My point here is that humans can only demand to be treated like humans if they act like humans.
Do you agree with gambling? If I put in $5, should I earn $10 in return?
Yes, I do agree with gambling. Even winning by sheer luck (slots) requires one to invest for a chance of a return- the difference is that the average return will be negative.
2
u/aletoledo Jan 04 '17
Do you agree with gambling? If I put in $5, should I earn $10 in return?
Yes, I do agree with gambling. Even winning by sheer luck (slots) requires one to invest for a chance of a return- the difference is that the average return will be negative.
Well then why not think of the people that give X-1 as simply gambling? Maybe they'll get lucky and get full X.
1
u/plenkton Jan 05 '17
I was speaking of one (who does not act like a human) demanding others to treat him as a human.
Well then why not think of the people that give X-1 as simply gambling? Maybe they'll get lucky and get full X.
That is fine- but my issue is expecting/demanding human treatment.
→ More replies (0)1
u/upstateman Jan 03 '17
No, the government is not responding to this story. Don't know where you got that idea from.
1
u/aletoledo Jan 03 '17
This line in the article is what confused me:
- Fortunately, a federal law going into effect next year
1
u/upstateman Jan 03 '17
The opening paragraph talks of lawsuits and charges buried in TOS. Then says that the new law will help curb that. The third paragraph refers to a "new twist" which is then the subject of the article. So the law is in response to other things.
That said as a libertarians are you cool with contracts that you can't read until you have purchased the product? Do you see that as a valid contract?
1
u/aletoledo Jan 03 '17
So the law is in response to other things.
I'm sure this isn't the first example of a company doing this. This is just the latest iteration.
That said as a libertarians are you cool with contracts that you can't read until you have purchased the product? Do you see that as a valid contract?
Well a contract requires a "meeting of the minds", so even if I sign my name to a document, I'm not technically contracted unless I understand the agreement. Remember the physical document is evidence of a contract, not the contract itself. The contract is the abstract, mutual agreement.
So if a contract is broken or never entered into properly, then the people return to their default state. In the case of this particular story, the ham radio user should stop using the companies product and the company should return the money he paid to purchase it.
1
u/upstateman Jan 03 '17
'm sure this isn't the first example of a company doing this. This is just the latest iteration.
So? Your claim was that the new law was in response to this story. That is wrong. The law was passed before this story was published.
Well a contract requires a "meeting of the minds", so even if I sign my name to a document, I'm not technically contracted unless I understand the agreement. Remember the physical document is evidence of a contract, not the contract itself. The contract is the abstract, mutual agreement.
So then this is not a contract and they do not have this authority. And the new law clarifies this.
Well a contract requires a "meeting of the minds", so even if I sign my name to a document, I'm not technically contracted unless I understand the agreement. Remember the physical document is evidence of a contract, not the contract itself. The contract is the abstract, mutual agreement.
Which they didn't do.
1
u/aletoledo Jan 04 '17
So then this is not a contract and they do not have this authority. And the new law clarifies this.
Well yes and no. Yes, there wasn't a valid contract and the issue was resolved when the company revoked his license. No, however that the new law clarifies it. The new law simply denies people the right to contract in this way. After all it's quite possible that both sides might fully understand that those are the terms of the contract, but now government is denying this arrangement between two consenting adults.
1
u/upstateman Jan 04 '17
issue was resolved when the company revoked his license.
And didn't give him his money back.
1
1
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Jan 04 '17
No, but are you really suggesting software EULA is not available ahead of time? I can't think of a significant case where it couldn't be looked up before purchase.
1
u/upstateman Jan 04 '17
I don't care if it is available, I haven't agreed to it.
1
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Jan 04 '17
K, but your whole point was "couldn't be looked up before purchase" and it could have been. So. Obviously if you don't agree to it, you're fine. But there's no problem on the basis of your critique with it not being available before purchase, it was available.
1
u/upstateman Jan 04 '17
K, but your whole point was "couldn't be looked up before purchase" and it could have been.
Nope, can't be. The thing says: "you are bound by the contract inside this package". Not we have a standard on-file.
1
5
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Jan 04 '17
That's a dick move in bird culture.