Re: Not "Satanism;" realism.

[stan johnson <sjohnson@gwi.net>]

** Reply to note from Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Fri, 01 Jan 1999   
23:59:42 -0700 
 Your logic is also flawed in another way. Would you advocate 
 making it illegal to keep a piece of art that one created to oneself if 
 one so chose? By your logic, doing otherwise would be wrong, 
 because society would not be "well served."  
  
Illegal is your term, not mine. I am speaking of what makes the larger   
contribution. Nothing in what I said can be honestly characterized as   
advocating imposing anything. I am not thinking in terms of   
compulsion; that's your bag. 
 
 >And regardless of the wishes of would-be entrepreneurs, society is 
  
>under no obligation to grant them a means by which they may profit   
at    
>the cost of loss to the society as a whole.  
 
I see. By this logic, no one should own property, either, because  
this deprives "society as a whole" of the use of it. 
 
This must be the quintessence of tortured logic. The subject is   
whether society should force unwilling creators to allow would-be   
entrepreneurs to appropriate their creations, against the wishes of the   
'owner', the creator. How that relates to your point escapes me. You   
are the one advocating what could be characterized as denial of   
ownership, by denying the creator the right to decide the use of his or   
her creation, instead forcing the transferral of 'ownership' to the   
would-be entrepreneur. Weird. 
 
 


-- 
Stan Johnson    TeamOS/2
sjohnson@gwi.net