Heh. I had to break this up because, apparently, I exceeded LJ's maximum comment length by about double. Funny that.
Desh, I loved this post. You know what I like, baby. Strangely enough, I found myself agreeing with you on most of it, with the possible exception of your arguments for a bigger House of Representatives - but I'm of two minds on that matter, so I'll let it go.
Now, I'm not as extreme as the EFF in announcing the death of capitalism and the free market whenever a pro-corporate IP law is passed, but I do believe that such laws don't help consumers, either. That's part of the reason why I want that Patent Office job as a Patent Examiner - because I believe myself to know the difference between a novel, patentable idea and one that is frivolous, obvious, or downright IP theft (falling under "prior art"). Strangely (and somewhat hypocritically) enough, I believe that the patent system can still work, even in the area of software. Open Source and the GPL are examples that use IP law for the benefit of consumers, by encouraging the free evolution of software/ideas and allowing enhancements and changes, which is more than proprietary software designers are willing to do by far. And I believe there are certain patents that deserve to be granted in the software IP world - for example, the patent on the RSA algorithm that expired four years ago. Patents are still a good and viable way to motivate R&D - however, it is really up to the patent holders whether or not they are greedy with their inventions. And sharing is a wonderful thing, too.
An amusing anecdote for you: I was having a discussion with my mother one day while making dinner about the issue of Gay Marriage. I brought up the customs of Jewish marriage in the U.S. - how the "official" marriage is the Ketuba ("official" as in recognized by Judaism) yet the state/municipality had a separate legal form to sign. This brought around the idea that the state has no real business signing off on marriages, since marriage is a religious concept (partnership, on the other hand, is a secular concept, possibly rooted in our species's history). This point of view presents what I believe to be a nice compromise (acceptable by at least 60% of the American public) on Gay Marriage - all legal unions are Civil Unions, while Marriage is left up to individual religious authorities. Like the recent debate over a gay bishop in one of those zany Protestant sects, each religion would be able to define marriage their own way - but the state would take no part in these definitions. The government would only recognize Civil Unions, which can be made applicable to homosexual as well as heterosexual couples through nothing fancier than ambiguous language and Anti-Discrimination legislation (which is a way to ease those pesky state-by-state marriage recognition issues as well). Thus, the state's definition of a union must be broad and encompassing, while each religion is allowed to be as discriminatory as it wants to be (which, if anyone has noticed, is the way it is now). That should satisfy most everyone, except for the rabid religious right.
A Rather Long Comment, Part 1
Desh, I loved this post. You know what I like, baby. Strangely enough, I found myself agreeing with you on most of it, with the possible exception of your arguments for a bigger House of Representatives - but I'm of two minds on that matter, so I'll let it go.
Now, I'm not as extreme as the EFF in announcing the death of capitalism and the free market whenever a pro-corporate IP law is passed, but I do believe that such laws don't help consumers, either. That's part of the reason why I want that Patent Office job as a Patent Examiner - because I believe myself to know the difference between a novel, patentable idea and one that is frivolous, obvious, or downright IP theft (falling under "prior art"). Strangely (and somewhat hypocritically) enough, I believe that the patent system can still work, even in the area of software. Open Source and the GPL are examples that use IP law for the benefit of consumers, by encouraging the free evolution of software/ideas and allowing enhancements and changes, which is more than proprietary software designers are willing to do by far. And I believe there are certain patents that deserve to be granted in the software IP world - for example, the patent on the RSA algorithm that expired four years ago. Patents are still a good and viable way to motivate R&D - however, it is really up to the patent holders whether or not they are greedy with their inventions. And sharing is a wonderful thing, too.
An amusing anecdote for you: I was having a discussion with my mother one day while making dinner about the issue of Gay Marriage. I brought up the customs of Jewish marriage in the U.S. - how the "official" marriage is the Ketuba ("official" as in recognized by Judaism) yet the state/municipality had a separate legal form to sign. This brought around the idea that the state has no real business signing off on marriages, since marriage is a religious concept (partnership, on the other hand, is a secular concept, possibly rooted in our species's history). This point of view presents what I believe to be a nice compromise (acceptable by at least 60% of the American public) on Gay Marriage - all legal unions are Civil Unions, while Marriage is left up to individual religious authorities. Like the recent debate over a gay bishop in one of those zany Protestant sects, each religion would be able to define marriage their own way - but the state would take no part in these definitions. The government would only recognize Civil Unions, which can be made applicable to homosexual as well as heterosexual couples through nothing fancier than ambiguous language and Anti-Discrimination legislation (which is a way to ease those pesky state-by-state marriage recognition issues as well). Thus, the state's definition of a union must be broad and encompassing, while each religion is allowed to be as discriminatory as it wants to be (which, if anyone has noticed, is the way it is now). That should satisfy most everyone, except for the rabid religious right.